Boy given 26 years in jail for killing playmate

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
What is it with the lefts compassion for the criminals of this country?
The kid is 12, by age 12 you know right from wrong. The kid killed another kid brutally but we are supposed to feel bad for him because he was tried as an adult at age 12?

I dont have much sympathy for this kid. If we tried him as a child, he is out sooner, and will do it again.

Because it shouldn't be up to the prosecutor to decide whether a 12 year old is an adult or a child. That gives them way too much power. A 12 year old is either an adult or a child, not whatever the prosecutor thinks will get him better publicity. If legislators want to pass a law saying a 12 year old is an adult, that is their prerogative.

Why? They are the one bringing charges against him. If the legislators want to bar his ability to do so, they can. But that doesnt change what the he did one bit, which is an adult action and should carry an adult consequence.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Unfortunatly I must say this backfires when considering the weight of the situation. Police and the murderees(?) have an agenda just like anyone else. There needs to be eye-for-eye punishment (administered by those in authority, not your father, else the whole world be blind) for your actions, but it must not become a form of revenge for the family (IE they just want to be able to pin it on somebody so they can name the fault of their anger, hatred, and suffering).

I have faith in "the system", in murder/electric chair situations at least, simply because I believe those involved understand the weight of the matter. OTOH, when they're considering prison time for taking someone's life, they clearly do not understand the weight of the matter (don't value life enough to take it away when from someone who values their personal satisfaction more than person's [who was murdered] life).

Is the answer really to get rid of the death penalty? That only makes the situation worse. I don't want to pay tax monies to keep Boe fed in a jail cell all his life. Kill him.
Some people might get the chair when they really are innocent, but if it is so set in stone (A always leads to B) for murder [leading to death penalty] then there should be fewer cases of murder, and therefore fewer cases of Innocent Igor being wrongfully chair'd.

Except the death penalty has never been shown to reduce the murder rate. The first time an innocent person is executed by the state, then we are all murderers. Guess what, I don't know about you, but I don't want the fact that I helped kill someone sit on my conscience for the rest of my life.

Ha right. As if losing your life weren't a big deal. You should check the statics on murder rates in other countries that aren't pansies and administer the death penalty when it is due. All this talk of "but when we don't put murderes to death, other countries will see that and think 'they must have a higher set of morals'" is a load of bull. No, they'll think we're a bunch of wooses that are too afraid to kill someone.

Countries like Saudi Arabia and China? Yes, those are great countries to look up to.
Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image😀eath_Penalty_World_Map2.png
Look who we compare to, aren't you just proud?

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are basically two ways that people are socialized:

Many children grow up with a respect for others out of a sense of empathy. This is a gift and a property of man and even the great apes that he (they) can see himself (themselves) in the shoes of another. Many parents also encourage their children to put themselves in the place of the other when making moral decisions. This practice, when developed leads to the highest attainment in moral standards limited only by ones capacity to feel for the other, a capacity, for example in Christ, that was probably infinite. It is the foundation and meaning of the Golden Rule. This is a morality based on love and intelligence that springs from our deepest genetic nature or as some might say, the fact we were created in the image of God.

The other way that socialization is achieved is via threat. You will conform to the rules or we will kill you, put you down, humiliate you and make you feel so worthless you will never again step out of line.

The first attitude leads to the liberal who understands that only love can save humanity from his lust to do evil. The latter leads to a conformist hate filled bunch of sheep who satisfy their craven lusts for revenge in the name of justice. We were brutalized to make us toe the line and what's good enough for us is good enough for others. We conform out of fear and disgust and you will too. These are the prosecutorial conformists who lust to break the rules but fear to and take their hate out on those who do. They are of course also the ones full of pompous self respect they imagine will hide their inner feelings of inferiority. They'll experience rage when they read this.

Wait wait tell me if I'm reading too much into this. You have 2 points:
1) To become a Republican you obviously stabbed someone 34 times when you were under the age of 18
2) This is a Democratic victory in disguise because they just put a Repiblican in jail


Right? Amazing how you can bring politics into this. "Murders are Republicans because they don't understand compassion".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are basically two ways that people are socialized:

Many children grow up with a respect for others out of a sense of empathy. This is a gift and a property of man and even the great apes that he (they) can see himself (themselves) in the shoes of another. Many parents also encourage their children to put themselves in the place of the other when making moral decisions. This practice, when developed leads to the highest attainment in moral standards limited only by ones capacity to feel for the other, a capacity, for example in Christ, that was probably infinite. It is the foundation and meaning of the Golden Rule. This is a morality based on love and intelligence that springs from our deepest genetic nature or as some might say, the fact we were created in the image of God.

The other way that socialization is achieved is via threat. You will conform to the rules or we will kill you, put you down, humiliate you and make you feel so worthless you will never again step out of line.

The first attitude leads to the liberal who understands that only love can save humanity from his lust to do evil. The latter leads to a conformist hate filled bunch of sheep who satisfy their craven lusts for revenge in the name of justice. We were brutalized to make us toe the line and what's good enough for us is good enough for others. We conform out of fear and disgust and you will too. These are the prosecutorial conformists who lust to break the rules but fear to and take their hate out on those who do. They are of course also the ones full of pompous self respect they imagine will hide their inner feelings of inferiority. They'll experience rage when they read this.

That is the finest piece of bullshit I've ever read. Bravo ! You certianly can shovel with the best of them.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You grew in darkness and misery and had no chance to learn the truth. It takes hard work and time to outgrow all that damage. It takes overcoming the horror of the mirror. I wish you much good luck.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Wow. That's crazy. I think he should be tried as a kid but then re-evaluated as an adult...he'll likely spend a lot of time in jail.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are basically two ways that people are socialized:

Many children grow up with a respect for others out of a sense of empathy. This is a gift and a property of man and even the great apes that he (they) can see himself (themselves) in the shoes of another. Many parents also encourage their children to put themselves in the place of the other when making moral decisions. This practice, when developed leads to the highest attainment in moral standards limited only by ones capacity to feel for the other, a capacity, for example in Christ, that was probably infinite. It is the foundation and meaning of the Golden Rule. This is a morality based on love and intelligence that springs from our deepest genetic nature or as some might say, the fact we were created in the image of God.

The other way that socialization is achieved is via threat. You will conform to the rules or we will kill you, put you down, humiliate you and make you feel so worthless you will never again step out of line.

The first attitude leads to the liberal who understands that only love can save humanity from his lust to do evil. The latter leads to a conformist hate filled bunch of sheep who satisfy their craven lusts for revenge in the name of justice. We were brutalized to make us toe the line and what's good enough for us is good enough for others. We conform out of fear and disgust and you will too. These are the prosecutorial conformists who lust to break the rules but fear to and take their hate out on those who do. They are of course also the ones full of pompous self respect they imagine will hide their inner feelings of inferiority. They'll experience rage when they read this.

Wait wait tell me if I'm reading too much into this. You have 2 points:
1) To become a Republican you obviously stabbed someone 34 times when you were under the age of 18
2) This is a Democratic victory in disguise because they just put a Repiblican in jail


Right? Amazing how you can bring politics into this. "Murders are Republicans because they don't understand compassion".

I don't think you are reading too much there. I think you're not reading at all. I think you have feelings of inferiority that are really not factual but you believe them emotionally. I think what happened is that I hit one of those inferiority nerves and it read all that stuff into what I said for you. It's called projection, the seeing in others of motives you hide from yourself. I used the word 'liberals' not as Democrats but in the classical sense and I did not use conservatives in opposition because this punitive disease is found in both parties. You may note, however, that liberals are often tarred as being touchie feelie by the emotionally dead, especially of the right, out of envy they retain partial life. You should know then that emotional deadness is the result of self hate and that empathy is a retention of some life. I sympathies with your realization that your need for punishment is sick. But the truth is the truth and it doesn't change because it's unpleasant or inconvenient.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are basically two ways that people are socialized:

Many children grow up with a respect for others out of a sense of empathy. This is a gift and a property of man and even the great apes that he (they) can see himself (themselves) in the shoes of another. Many parents also encourage their children to put themselves in the place of the other when making moral decisions. This practice, when developed leads to the highest attainment in moral standards limited only by ones capacity to feel for the other, a capacity, for example in Christ, that was probably infinite. It is the foundation and meaning of the Golden Rule. This is a morality based on love and intelligence that springs from our deepest genetic nature or as some might say, the fact we were created in the image of God.

The other way that socialization is achieved is via threat. You will conform to the rules or we will kill you, put you down, humiliate you and make you feel so worthless you will never again step out of line.

The first attitude leads to the liberal who understands that only love can save humanity from his lust to do evil. The latter leads to a conformist hate filled bunch of sheep who satisfy their craven lusts for revenge in the name of justice. We were brutalized to make us toe the line and what's good enough for us is good enough for others. We conform out of fear and disgust and you will too. These are the prosecutorial conformists who lust to break the rules but fear to and take their hate out on those who do. They are of course also the ones full of pompous self respect they imagine will hide their inner feelings of inferiority. They'll experience rage when they read this.

Wait wait tell me if I'm reading too much into this. You have 2 points:
1) To become a Republican you obviously stabbed someone 34 times when you were under the age of 18
2) This is a Democratic victory in disguise because they just put a Repiblican in jail


Right? Amazing how you can bring politics into this. "Murders are Republicans because they don't understand compassion".

I don't think you are reading too much there. I think you're not reading at all. I think you have feelings of inferiority that are really not factual but you believe them emotionally. I think what happened is that I hit one of those inferiority nerves and it read all that stuff into what I said for you. It's called projection, the seeing in others of motives you hide from yourself. I used the word 'liberals' not as Democrats but in the classical sense and I did not use conservatives in opposition because this punitive disease is found in both parties. You may note, however, that liberals are often tarred as being touchie feelie by the emotionally dead, especially of the right, out of envy they retain partial life. You should know then that emotional deadness is the result of self hate and that empathy is a retention of some life. I sympathies with your realization that your need for punishment is sick. But the truth is the truth and it doesn't change because it's unpleasant or inconvenient.

Hmm perhaps my problem is I read too many of your posts. You remind me alot of Neil Boortz "I'm not a Repiblican I just bash the Liberals all day and fully support Bush." If I hadn't read at all then I probably wouldn't have posted on topic. Also I find it humerous that you think so highly of yourself to think that anyone would read your original post and "experience rage" like your opinion carries enough weight to offend anyone, likely anyone that posts here often read for comic value or skipped it. Furthermore, how would a feeling of inferiority make me respond like I did? How would your post even make someone feel inferior? "OMG Moonbeam is so much smarter than I am, the only way I can defend my ego is to post that he's bashing Republicans!" Does that make sense? Especially coming from someone that's not a Republican?

Some people may think Liberals are touchy feely, I on the other hand think they are generally correct but sadly enough in America they often times go to far. I think this is one instance. If you kill someone brutally you've given up the right to be called "naive". If it was accidental I can see, but stabbed repeatedly? I hardly call giving a teenager 26 years in prison for a brutal stabbing of a retarted friend my "lust to do evil". I think perhaps the reason you've garnered responses such as mine is because you made a very blanket statement that anyone that is not liberal enough to understand that this punishment is wrong is "a conformist hate filled bunch of sheep who satisfy their craven lusts for revenge in the name of justice".

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Citrix
this will go to the supreme court. a 12 year old is not even close to being an adult and should not be tried or punished as one.

I don't think it will go that far, but I agree--12 years old is quite a stretch. But you do understand that when they do this it is purely for the ability to give a harsher sentence don't you? I mean, if they could, they would try adults as gods.

 

[Todd33]

He's 12, not 7. He stabbed a kid to death, he didn't bump him down some stairs. See ya kid, you are damage goods and don't deserve to be free.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Todd33
He's 12, not 7. He stabbed a kid to death, he didn't bump him down some stairs. See ya kid, you are damage goods and don't deserve to be free.

So if he was 7 then he would be tried as a child? That's just an arbitrary line you're drawing.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: aidanjm
He's not allowed to:
-vote
-drive
-drink
-have sex
-sign a contract on his own

But he can be tried as an adult?

this is truly barbaric.

Totally. And don't forget, gamble, smoke, join the military.

You also left out that at his age he can't move out on his own to get away from abusive parents. The law assumes the innocence of the parents and it's nearly impossible to convict most abuse. When children are more responsible than the parents, they don't get to move out and be treated as adults, so it's hypocritical to treat them as adults when they act irresponsibly.

IMHO genetic parents are given far too much power over the young for no legitimate reason. It's not like they had to pass some sort of certification test before becoming parents. There's no certification exam for turning eighteen either.

Adulthood needs to have a consistent definition across purposes. If you want to define it as 12, fine, but then they can move out on their own at twelve if they want to and have all the other legal rights adults take for granted. Discrimination against the young is the most prevalent discrimination in the United States, it's a far worse problem than class discrimination because at least the lower classes can still vote in local elections if they move to a county that isn't diebold owned.

I think twelve is a good place to set the bar for adulthood, since the average person over eighteen has less intelligence and maturity than I had when I was thirteen. The caveat is that young adults should retain the right to a public education until they are at least eighteen or graduate, since otherwise this could be used as an avenue of attack against education.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Todd33
He's 12, not 7. He stabbed a kid to death, he didn't bump him down some stairs. See ya kid, you are damage goods and don't deserve to be free.

So if he was 7 then he would be tried as a child? That's just an arbitrary line you're drawing.

And me nailing a chick that is 16 is also an arbitrary line. Drinking at 21, voting at 18, the list goes on. WTF does trying someone as adult or child mean anyhow? The crime is murder, try him as a human not an age. Let the judge have some discretion based on the maturity and personality of the defendant, don't make rules for two groups based on an arbitrary age.

 

[1prophet]

Added link per request from private message

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Todd33
He's 12, not 7. He stabbed a kid to death, he didn't bump him down some stairs. See ya kid, you are damage goods and don't deserve to be free.

So if he was 7 then he would be tried as a child? That's just an arbitrary line you're drawing.

And me nailing a chick that is 16 is also an arbitrary line. Drinking at 21, voting at 18, the list goes on. WTF does trying someone as adult or child mean anyhow? The crime is murder, try him as a human not an age. Let the judge have some discretion based on the maturity and personality of the defendant, don't make rules for two groups based on an arbitrary age.

That's one way to do it, but then there are two problems:

1. What the hell would drive a child to commit such acts of violence?
2. Anyone, no matter how young could be executed or put in prison for life.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Todd33
He's 12, not 7. He stabbed a kid to death, he didn't bump him down some stairs. See ya kid, you are damage goods and don't deserve to be free.

So if he was 7 then he would be tried as a child? That's just an arbitrary line you're drawing.

And me nailing a chick that is 16 is also an arbitrary line. Drinking at 21, voting at 18, the list goes on. WTF does trying someone as adult or child mean anyhow? The crime is murder, try him as a human not an age. Let the judge have some discretion based on the maturity and personality of the defendant, don't make rules for two groups based on an arbitrary age.

According to the link provided by 1prophet the judge indeed was the person who decided to allow the kid to be tried like an adult.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/22/60II/main710981.shtml

Despite their age, the judge decided they should be tried as adults, saying that, if guilty, the crime was so gruesome he doubted rehabilitation in the juvenile system was possible ? and the community needed to be protected.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are basically two ways that people are socialized:

Many children grow up with a respect for others out of a sense of empathy. This is a gift and a property of man and even the great apes that he (they) can see himself (themselves) in the shoes of another. Many parents also encourage their children to put themselves in the place of the other when making moral decisions. This practice, when developed leads to the highest attainment in moral standards limited only by ones capacity to feel for the other, a capacity, for example in Christ, that was probably infinite. It is the foundation and meaning of the Golden Rule. This is a morality based on love and intelligence that springs from our deepest genetic nature or as some might say, the fact we were created in the image of God.

The other way that socialization is achieved is via threat. You will conform to the rules or we will kill you, put you down, humiliate you and make you feel so worthless you will never again step out of line.

The first attitude leads to the liberal who understands that only love can save humanity from his lust to do evil. The latter leads to a conformist hate filled bunch of sheep who satisfy their craven lusts for revenge in the name of justice. We were brutalized to make us toe the line and what's good enough for us is good enough for others. We conform out of fear and disgust and you will too. These are the prosecutorial conformists who lust to break the rules but fear to and take their hate out on those who do. They are of course also the ones full of pompous self respect they imagine will hide their inner feelings of inferiority. They'll experience rage when they read this.

That is the finest piece of bullshit I've ever read. Bravo ! You certianly can shovel with the best of them.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You grew in darkness and misery and had no chance to learn the truth. It takes hard work and time to outgrow all that damage. It takes overcoming the horror of the mirror. I wish you much good luck.

LoL - I seriously hope you don't believe what you just wrote. You are giving your right wing extremist counter parts a run for their money.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
America is a land of barbaric haters full of fear and dread from watching the TV. They demand everybody who threatens them be killed. The prosecutor is merely thinking of getting elected on the back of a 12 year old boy. You can' blame him for thinking of his future in our competitive world. Most of the good jobs have gone to China so you have to grab what you can. This is America where people get ahead.

As usual, Moonbeam's post is concise, clear, and absolutely right.

I wonder if the prosecutor gets, say, a parking ticket, can we try him as an enemy combatant? If we can try a child as an adult, why can't we send the prosecutor and the judge who allowed this travesty (together with the retarded jury) to Gitmo? That would be a good use for that hellhole.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
America is a land of barbaric haters full of fear and dread from watching the TV. They demand everybody who threatens them be killed. The prosecutor is merely thinking of getting elected on the back of a 12 year old boy. You can' blame him for thinking of his future in our competitive world. Most of the good jobs have gone to China so you have to grab what you can. This is America where people get ahead.

As usual, Moonbeam's post is concise, clear, and absolutely right.

I wonder if the prosecutor gets, say, a parking ticket, can we try him as an enemy combatant? If we can try a child as an adult, why can't we send the prosecutor and the judge who allowed this travesty (together with the retarded jury) to Gitmo? That would be a good use for that hellhole.

Try convincing a jury to do any of this.

 

[BoberFett]

In a world where a child (and I use the term loosely, is 12 a child? 15? 17?) was guaranteed to be handled with "kid gloves" and it simply assumed that they didn't know better, an enterprising child could make a vast fortune and live comfortably for the rest of their lives. In fact, why do you think drug dealers use kids to do their dirty work? As long as you made a considerable fortune in crime before you legally became an adult, you could live most of your adult life in relative comfort, after only having served at most a couple years in juvenile hall. I wish I'd been more forward thinking as a teen, I could be living on easy street right now.

 

[Moonbeam]

Lazy8s: Hmm perhaps my problem is I read too many of your posts. You remind me alot of Neil Boortz "I'm not a Repiblican I just bash the Liberals all day and fully support Bush." If I hadn't read at all then I probably wouldn't have posted on topic.

M: OK so?

L: Also I find it humerous that you think so highly of yourself to think that anyone would read your original post and "experience rage" like your opinion carries enough weight to offend anyone, likely anyone that posts here often read for comic value or skipped it.

M: On the contrary, I think enough of myself to assume that my posts are skipped more than probably anyone else's. And my knowledge as to how people will react are based on the laws of psychological science and experience is such things. People hate the truth and were that not so everybody would know it.If I know things you do not your irritation at that won't change it.

L: Furthermore, how would a feeling of inferiority make me respond like I did? How would your post even make someone feel inferior? "OMG Moonbeam is so much smarter than I am, the only way I can defend my ego is to post that he's bashing Republicans!" Does that make sense? Especially coming from someone that's not a Republican?

M: I explained all that in my first response to you. You didn't get it then and no additional facts will help, I fear. Read it over and try to take it in. The first obstacle is that you do not know you feel inferior. That is a truth we hide most deeply so nothing makes any sense if real knowledge is based on that fact. Such knowledge will simply be invisible.

L: Some people may think Liberals are touchy feely, I on the other hand think they are generally correct but sadly enough in America they often times go to far. I think this is one instance. If you kill someone brutally you've given up the right to be called "naive".

M: But what do you mean by "naive" Surely it doesn't change his age from 12. Surely it doesn't mean you get to practice some barbaric revenge. Careful your intention isn't to demonize him so you can feel suddenly OK about being an animal yourself, no?

L: If it was accidental I can see, but stabbed repeatedly? I hardly call giving a teenager 26 years in prison for a brutal stabbing of a retarted friend my "lust to do evil".

M: Did you think my pointing it out would automatically mean you would see it?

L: I think perhaps the reason you've garnered responses such as mine is because you made a very blanket statement that anyone that is not liberal enough to understand that this punishment is wrong is "a conformist hate filled bunch of sheep who satisfy their craven lusts for revenge in the name of justice".

M: But it did get you thinking and the focus was on empathic enough, remember?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
In a world where a child (and I use the term loosely, is 12 a child? 15? 17?) was guaranteed to be handled with "kid gloves" and it simply assumed that they didn't know better, an enterprising child could make a vast fortune and live comfortably for the rest of their lives. In fact, why do you think drug dealers use kids to do their dirty work? As long as you made a considerable fortune in crime before you legally became an adult, you could live most of your adult life in relative comfort, after only having served at most a couple years in juvenile hall. I wish I'd been more forward thinking as a teen, I could be living on easy street right now.

Poor, Bober, as a child you just sucked at premeditation. You don't suppose you weren't so cunning and crafty because you were a child, do you? And I can't imagine letting a child who stabs people run around.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
To the "he's a kid" proponents. A true kid does not stab someone to death sorry that is not the act of a child but of a murderer. If it were your child you'd be very upset if the killer was not tried as a adult. In the end the boy brought this unto himself for commiting such a henious act.

You are very wrong. A child murderer is still a child. There are hundreds, even thousands of cases every year when children stab, burn, gouge eyes, push over the railings, etc. etc. other kids or even adults. Regardless of how many of these cases are accidents, the whole point is that a 12-year old CHILD (yes, he's a true kid), even if he planned the whole thing, cannot be tried as an adult. The US is in the company of very few barbaric, failed, hellholes of countries which would try and sentence a 12-year kid as an adult.

Sadly, the US of today, instead of becoming more enlightend, is sinking to the level of Dickensian England, when the road from London to Liverpool was lined with gallows with 10-12 year odl children hanged because they stole a loaf of bread. Little wonder that all over the world we are considered barbarians.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are basically two ways that people are socialized:

Many children grow up with a respect for others out of a sense of empathy. This is a gift and a property of man and even the great apes that he (they) can see himself (themselves) in the shoes of another. Many parents also encourage their children to put themselves in the place of the other when making moral decisions. This practice, when developed leads to the highest attainment in moral standards limited only by ones capacity to feel for the other, a capacity, for example in Christ, that was probably infinite. It is the foundation and meaning of the Golden Rule. This is a morality based on love and intelligence that springs from our deepest genetic nature or as some might say, the fact we were created in the image of God.

The other way that socialization is achieved is via threat. You will conform to the rules or we will kill you, put you down, humiliate you and make you feel so worthless you will never again step out of line.

The first attitude leads to the liberal who understands that only love can save humanity from his lust to do evil. The latter leads to a conformist hate filled bunch of sheep who satisfy their craven lusts for revenge in the name of justice. We were brutalized to make us toe the line and what's good enough for us is good enough for others. We conform out of fear and disgust and you will too. These are the prosecutorial conformists who lust to break the rules but fear to and take their hate out on those who do. They are of course also the ones full of pompous self respect they imagine will hide their inner feelings of inferiority. They'll experience rage when they read this.

That is the finest piece of bullshit I've ever read. Bravo ! You certianly can shovel with the best of them.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You grew in darkness and misery and had no chance to learn the truth. It takes hard work and time to outgrow all that damage. It takes overcoming the horror of the mirror. I wish you much good luck.

LoL - I seriously hope you don't believe what you just wrote. You are giving your right wing extremist counter parts a run for their money.

Try to understand that your posts are empty of content. Try to have the wit to challenge some point I make if you can, please.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
At the age of twelve, jail will just make him worse when he is let go. Just torture and execute the little brat.

Originally posted by: Zorba
So if a seven year old kills a friend because they were fighting over what the best PBS show was, they should be tried as an adult? Yeah right...

How many seven year olds have actually committed murder, especially over something like a PBS cartoon? Aside from a few mental defects, no seven year old would even contemplate it. A twelve year old on the other hand is plenty old to know that murder is wrong.

I think anyone who can in all seriousness advocate torture before execution has severe issues themselves, and may be just as much, if not more, of a danger than a 12 year old who Killed a "developmentally disabled" boy in the heat of passion, since you have sought for and found "moral" legitimacy for utter barbarism.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Unfortunatly I must say this backfires when considering the weight of the situation. Police and the murderees(?) have an agenda just like anyone else. There needs to be eye-for-eye punishment (administered by those in authority, not your father, else the whole world be blind) for your actions, but it must not become a form of revenge for the family (IE they just want to be able to pin it on somebody so they can name the fault of their anger, hatred, and suffering).

I have faith in "the system", in murder/electric chair situations at least, simply because I believe those involved understand the weight of the matter. OTOH, when they're considering prison time for taking someone's life, they clearly do not understand the weight of the matter (don't value life enough to take it away when from someone who values their personal satisfaction more than person's [who was murdered] life).

Is the answer really to get rid of the death penalty? That only makes the situation worse. I don't want to pay tax monies to keep Boe fed in a jail cell all his life. Kill him.
Some people might get the chair when they really are innocent, but if it is so set in stone (A always leads to B) for murder [leading to death penalty] then there should be fewer cases of murder, and therefore fewer cases of Innocent Igor being wrongfully chair'd.

Except the death penalty has never been shown to reduce the murder rate. The first time an innocent person is executed by the state, then we are all murderers. Guess what, I don't know about you, but I don't want the fact that I helped kill someone sit on my conscience for the rest of my life.

Ha right. As if losing your life weren't a big deal. You should check the statics on murder rates in other countries that aren't pansies and administer the death penalty when it is due. All this talk of "but when we don't put murderes to death, other countries will see that and think 'they must have a higher set of morals'" is a load of bull. No, they'll think we're a bunch of wooses that are too afraid to kill someone.

We also arm our population to the teeth, especially the unstable ones. If you want to cut the murder rate, thats a good place to start.