• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Conn. man's trial to open in fatal home invasion

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ichy said:
I wasn't advocating torturing them to death, since that's clearly unconstitutional. I do think that the death penalty is a measured and proportional response to this kind of a crime.
Click to expand...

Then you didn't read my post correctly.

I have no problem with the death penalty.
 
JSt0rm said:
ah, more American Taliban.
Click to expand...

Nice try for name calling, do you even know the meaning of Taliban or what they are about?

While the Taliban present themselves as a reform movement, they have been criticized by Islamic scholars as being poorly educated in Islamic law and history—even in Islamic radicalism, which has a long history of scholarly writing and debate. Their implementation of Islamic law seems to be a combination of Wahhabi orthodoxy (i.e., banning of musical instruments) and tribal custom (i.e., the all-covering birka made mandatory for all Afghan women).


Read more: The Taliban — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html#ixzz0zWU8F5Of
Click to expand...
See my sig, that is who I am and what I believe in.
 
highland145 said:
🙁

Some would argue the execution was societal revenge. I say he gave up his right to be in any society.

I won't dare to question this guys character/ethics but, from what you wrote, if there was forgiveness why would there be "a thousand pounds removed from him"? Not trying to be inflammatory, just curious. Hypothetically, if there is true forgiveness then why would there be relief?
Click to expand...

Because of the anger he felt. He wanted to be vengeful, he wanted to kill those men with his own hands and it was eating him alive. To forgive is not to forget, to forgive is to release oneself from the anger over such a senseless act. Both of these events are senseless acts.
 
JSt0rm said:
Because of the anger he felt. He wanted to be vengeful, he wanted to kill those men with his own hands and it was eating him alive. To forgive is not to forget, to forgive is to release oneself from the anger over such a senseless act. Both of these events are senseless acts.
Click to expand...
Don't know if the execution would release my anger. I hope we never have to find out. I have never loved another human being like my child, myself included. And would never have except for him.
 
zsdersw said:
However well justified and deserved our desire for revenge in ways as brutal and inhumane as the original crime, that doesn't mean the state can or should be able to carry out such acts in the name of either retribution or revenge.
Click to expand...

Well don't worry, the state isn't going to tie them up and set them on fire in front of their families, after beating, and then ass raping them.
 
xj0hnx said:
Well don't worry, the state isn't going to tie them up and set them on fire in front of their families, after beating, and then ass raping them.
Click to expand...

That's right.. the state isn't going to do those things. Reading some of the posts in this thread, though, it would seem that many think it should.
 
zsdersw said:
That's right.. the state isn't going to do those things. Reading some of the posts in this thread, though, it would seem that many think it should.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you the same question I asked JStOrm. Again, not being inflammatory. Just curious.

Its kinda ironic that I as an atheist can understand the power of forgiveness
Click to expand...
But would you/could you if, very sadly, found in the same position?
 
highland145 said:
Let me ask you the same question I asked JStOrm. Again, not being inflammatory. Just curious.

But would you/could you if, very sadly, found in the same position?
Click to expand...

highland none of us (including you) are in this situation. It would be VERY different to walk in those shoes. People make choices and people also change. Thats one of the great things about being a human. The ability to alter your course. Even these men who did this have that ability. The will and must suffer the consequences of their actions but even now they have the ability to change. That is the power. The question shouldn't be left to the hypothetical it can only be answered in the moment.
 
highland145 said:
Let me ask you the same question I asked JStOrm. Again, not being inflammatory. Just curious.

But would you/could you if, very sadly, found in the same position?
Click to expand...

I could potentially forgive, but I would never forget. I wouldn't want or expect the state to administer cruel and unusual punishments or permit me the freedom to do so myself, though.
 
zsdersw said:
That's right.. the state isn't going to do those things. Reading some of the posts in this thread, though, it would seem that many think it should.
Click to expand...

I don't think the state should, the victims family should. I'd do ten times worse than anything mentioned here if that happened to my family. The level of violence I would visit on those men is inhuman.
 
xj0hnx said:
I don't think the state should, the victims family should. I'd do ten times worse than anything mentioned here if that happened to my family. The level of violence I would visit on those men is inhuman.
Click to expand...

as are you. Duality of mind. Them vs me. black vs white. You know what that man I mentioned earlier said to the man he forgave? "I wish you had a family that loved you"
 
The situation is that we have two dirt bags who don't deserve to live at others expense, but can't be allowed to go free. Forget torture. Just take them out in public and broadcast on nationwide live TV "This is what happens when you do *insert crimes here*". Then shoot them once in the head and fade out with a close-up of the body. Insert a warning before the program comes on if you like, but I think this is severe enough. Do this only for exceptionally vicious crimes.

Done in less than a minute, relatively clean and gets the message across. Sadly a lot of people would probably throw up to such a spectacle nowadays.
 
Lemon law said:
A horribly heinous crime and also an almost senseless crime. Job one is to get these sick, sad, and sorry pieces of human crud off the street and forever keep them off the street. So the rest of us are safer.

That job is now accomplished, and we really need the penalty of life imprisonment without any hope of parole.

But in terms of punishments, what is worse, instant death or a long lingering life in prison? I might argue that life imprisonment, at least for me, would be the worst alternative in terms of a punishment.

But then again, we could also argue in terms of which punishment is cheaper for the State to administer? Sure it may cost maybe a million dollars or more to feed, house, and keep a prisoner alive for say three decades, but with our current justice system
that million dollar mark will be hit with the trial itself. Add in the appeals, add in the fact that it often takes a decade or more to exhaust those appeals, and the practical reality is that the taxpayers will pay more not less if the prosecutor seeks and obtains the death sentence.

But in the case of such a heinous crime, there is a certain wishful thinking for having that instant garbage removal. And as soon as the jury comes in with a guilty verdict with a death penalty, the miscreant(s) can be taken to the nearest State sanctioned location to carry out the sentence.

But we need the enabling legislation first.

The other point to mention is that many crimes are equally or even more heinous, but somehow we imprison or execute the wrong person while the real perps get away. And even though, in this particular case, it very much looks like we have the actual perps, the standard to convict is still beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe its time to have two standards, retain the beyond a reasonable doubt one but add in a with a total certainty standard. So we can prohibit the death penalty for the lesser beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Click to expand...

if the defendants are able to even feel the smallest bit of joy in the rest of their lives in jail that is too much. fry them.

edit: I do believe in the death penalty but I don't think the Govt. should be in the business of torture no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Seeing as how Connecticut can't even execute people despite the fact that it theoretically has the death penalty all this talk of state sponsored torture is a little silly. Yes the two scumbags in this case deserve to suffer horribly, but the Constitution places limits on what we can do.

Just to be clear though, I wish that our judiciary would have some sense and stick with the ORIGINAL meaning of cruel & unusual (basically no torturing people to death or putting them in the pillory) not this contrived crap where we pretend that lethal injection is unconstitutional. We can't burn people at the stake or disembowel them while they're alive, but few brief moments of pain do NOT equal cruel & unusual.
 
ichy said:
Seeing as how Connecticut can't even execute people despite the fact that it theoretically has the death penalty all this talk of state sponsored torture is a little silly. Yes the two scumbags in this case deserve to suffer horribly, but the Constitution places limits on what we can do.

Just to be clear though, I wish that our judiciary would have some sense and stick with the ORIGINAL meaning of cruel & unusual (basically no torturing people to death or putting them in the pillory) not this contrived crap where we pretend that lethal injection is unconstitutional. We can't burn people at the stake or disembowel them while they're alive, but few brief moments of pain do NOT equal cruel & unusual.
Click to expand...

Not quite true, although it does take forever to put someone to death here in CT when they are sentenced to it. We did get rid of Michael Ross in 2005, but even then it was 45 years since the previous one.
 
ichy said:
Seeing as how Connecticut can't even execute people despite the fact that it theoretically has the death penalty all this talk of state sponsored torture is a little silly.
Click to expand...

That presumes the context of the argument was only Connecticut. For my part, it was not.

Just to be clear though, I wish that our judiciary would have some sense and stick with the ORIGINAL meaning of cruel & unusual (basically no torturing people to death or putting them in the pillory) not this contrived crap where we pretend that lethal injection is unconstitutional. We can't burn people at the stake or disembowel them while they're alive, but few brief moments of pain do NOT equal cruel & unusual.
Click to expand...

Lethal injection and other brief moments of pain are not cruel & unusual, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top