They've found the bodies....

[Ladyhawk]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113024,00.html

Sometimes, I just want to dig a hole under the earth and hide for the rest of eternity. There has to be a seperate name for the kind of creature that would do such a thing....it cannot be 'human'.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113024,00.html

Sometimes, I just want to dig a hole under the earth and hide for the rest of eternity. There has to be a seperate name for the kind of creature that would do such a thing....it cannot be 'human'.

Does that mean we can kill it?

IMO, there are crimes one can commit for which one's life can be forfeit. This is one of those crimes.

[Ladyhawk]

Typically, I have not been a proponent of the death penalty. But, this and a few other past cases, are changing my mind.

[HarryKeogh]

In my opinion, I find crimes like these more evil than many of the more sensational ones of the past.

Sure, Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes were hideous but he was nuttier than a fruitcake. To kill three relatives, including a small child, over an issue of money (or so it seems so far) is the epitome of evil.

[Luke T.]

To look a four year old in the eyes and kill him. There are no words for the horror of that. I truly do not understand how a person can do that.

[Ladyhawk]

Can't tell you why this one haunts me. I keep imagining all these scenarios and my heart breaks for the family and especially the little boy. Did he have to see his parents go first? Did he go first? Doesn't matter how it was done, it takes time to murder 3 people. This bastard will probably try to cop an insanity plea.

He didn't know what he was doing. Three seperate times.

:a2:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
This bastard will probably try to cop an insanity plea. Well, at the moment we don't even know if it is this bastard, do we?

He didn't know what he was doing. Three seperate times. I find this statement a bit strange - wouldn't an insane person be perfectly capable of staying insane for a while?

And no, no - it's not like I'm claiming innocense. Just the usual 'until found guilty' stuff.

[Ladyhawk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bjorn
Well, at the moment we don't even know if it is this bastard, do we?

I meant, whoever the bastard is....sorry.

I find this statement a bit strange - wouldn't an insane person be perfectly capable of staying insane for a while?

Yeah, I guess you're right. But, if he really is insane, let's fry him and put him out of everybody's misery...

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113024,00.html

Sometimes, I just want to dig a hole under the earth and hide for the rest of eternity. There has to be a seperate name for the kind of creature that would do such a thing....it cannot be 'human'.

No, it's 'human'. Never be surprised at the horrible things a person will do. Also, don't be surprised when someone does something good also.

[Scoobmaster]

Originally posted by Luke T.
To look a four year old in the eyes and kill him. There are no words for the horror of that. I truly do not understand how a person can do that.

Luke,

That was my EXACT initial reaction. As the father of a (almost) 3 year old boy (http://community.webshots.com/photo/35396035/35397263JkFeTD), I cannot comprehend the mindset of commiting such an atrocity!

:(

[Monketey Ghost]

Unsurprised. Probably the right guy, but here we see presumption of innocence blown off, clamoring for the death penalty (I'm never surprised by people who seem to think applying the death penalty will stop other killers), and people saying it can't be human.

It's human, people are cruel, and this guy might be innocent.

Let's chill, instead of revelling in the horror.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by No Answers
(I'm never surprised by people who seem to think applying the death penalty will stop other killers)


I don't really think that the death penalty is a good deterrent, I just think the bastards shouldn't get to live.

For me, the death penalty is justified in cases where there can be no question as to the guilt of the person. This seems like an impossible standard, but it happens. Luckily, some sick people like Paul bernardo take videotape of their killings.

In his case, I wish Canada could have put him to death. The two young girls that he raped, tortured and killed will never smile ever again. Not even a grin or a smirk. The thought that their killer might, makes me ill.

Adam

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by No Answers
Unsurprised. Probably the right guy, but here we see presumption of innocence blown off, clamoring for the death penalty (I'm never surprised by people who seem to think applying the death penalty will stop other killers), and people saying it can't be human.

It's human, people are cruel, and this guy might be innocent.

Let's chill, instead of revelling in the horror.

Where did anyone say, with certainty, that THIS is the guy? Nowhere. Where do you get that anyone has "blown off" presumption of innocence? You think these three people murdered themselves? Fine, you don't like the "human" definition? Let's try humane . Work better?

Easy to see how you got your tag name....

Edited to add: Sorry about that last line. I'm angry!!!

[tedly]

Originally posted by Scoobmaster


Luke,

That was my EXACT initial reaction. As the father of a (almost) 3 year old boy (http://community.webshots.com/photo/35396035/35397263JkFeTD), I cannot comprehend the mindset of commiting such an atrocity!

:(

Luke and Scoobmaster, we have a retired LtGen, Romeo D'Allaire, just (I hope) recovering from alcoholism and depression who is speaking out on the atrocities in Rwanda. One of the images that he relates is seeing a tarpaulin with little sausages lying beside it. They are children's fingers cut off while the child was being murdered with a machete. The people who did that did it not once but several thousand times. Humans are capable of anything.

Still, this does not bring me to support state execution. The major problem with the death penalty is that juries are less likely to convict, and the cost of all the appeals and trials will keep the killers locked up for three forevers. Make them live with it. l

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by No Answers
Unsurprised. Probably the right guy, but here we see presumption of innocence blown off, clamoring for the death penalty (I'm never surprised by people who seem to think applying the death penalty will stop other killers), and people saying it can't be human.

It's human, people are cruel, and this guy might be innocent.

Let's chill, instead of revelling in the horror.

No one here is "blowing off" the presumption of innocence.

No one here is "clamoring" for execution.

I do not consider execution a deterrant. I think it is an appropriate punishment for some crimes and guarantees that the criminal in question will never be a repeat offender. I also think that DNA confirmation of guilt should be manditory before the death penalty can be used in a case.

No one here literally thinks the guilty party in this case is not human. We are only saying that his/her behavior falls below what we consider "human" (civilized; empathized) and more resembles the savagery of an "animal" (uncivilized; visceral).

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Where did anyone say, with certainty, that THIS is the guy? Nowhere. Where do you get that anyone has "blown off" presumption of innocence? You think these three people murdered themselves? Fine, you don't like the "human" definition? Let's try humane . Work better?

Easy to see how you got your tag name....

Edited to add: Sorry about that last line. I'm angry!!!

No need to apologize for that last line, IMO. He made alot of incorrect assumptions for someone with such a "holier than thou" attitude.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Kodiak


We are only saying that his/her behavior falls below what we consider "human" (civilized; empathized) and more resembles the savagery of an "animal" (uncivilized; visceral).
which is exactly how I feel about people killing people...all killing. Once you start to try to sort good killing from bad killing is where the sillyness starts.

[Zep]

If he's the guy who dunnit, I have no problem with leaving him in a jail cell until he dies. Executing him would be a release from punishment, not an imposition of one.

[kittynh]

I read a really good book once by one of the doctors that the state of NY uses to determine criminal insanity. Pretty interesting. Guy who blew away people on NY train, plenty crazy (still they prosecuted him). Lots of murderers, totally sane. Let's say it was done for the land or money, or just revenge because dad left him out of the will. It's not a nice reason to kill, but it is a reason. Just because someone isn't very nice - would in fact fit our definition of evil - it doesn't mean they are insane. He had a sane reason to be angry, and acted on it.

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty. But, I think this guy should do the time without any perks. No prison dog program, no extra benefits like his own tv for good behavior. And he should have no access to drugs (it can be done in prison, it just requires some extra care). A good old course of solitary for say 20 years would about tip him over the edge I think. Lots of time to be good and bored. However, could be if they let him out in the general population some kind lifer will stalk him - killing kids is going to not go down well with his fellow inmates. They don't have to give whomever killed this child the death penalty. Just make sure a copy of the picture of that sweet child is seen by the other inmates.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by kittynh
However, could be if they let him out in the general population some kind lifer will stalk him - killing kids is going to not go down well with his fellow inmates. They don't have to give whomever killed this child the death penalty. Just make sure a copy of the picture of that sweet child is seen by the other inmates. You're not recommending this, are you?

[kittynh]

Nope I'm not. The state of prisons in this country is pretty sad. I'm just saying that life in prison for this guy will be his own brand of living heck. Trust me, it's the reality of prison life that inmates that have killed or sexually abused children have a short life span or spend their entire sentence in solitary.

Also, I was shocked at the state of hospitals for the mentally insane. If this guy somehow does cop a mentally insane plea it will be with a provision that he spent the rest of his life in a mental hospital that houses the criminally insane. Their budgets are much lower than those of prisons. No gyms, no extras. And the people you are in with ARE really really insane. Safety in prisons may be bad, but in a mental hospital used by the state for prisoners it's terrible.

I actually worked with a cultural program for prisoners in 'Belgium. I have to say that the cells were like Holiday Express rooms. They weren't luxurious, but they were clean and humane. The only problem was that the prison was about 80% "foreigners", so there were some language problems. Most people left during the day for their jobs in town though. I was setting up tours of some local museums to give the prisoners that hadnt been set up in jobs yet something to do while they were waiting. It was really a nice system, but there was beginning to be a little anger at the number of non Belgiums incarcerataed there.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by kittynh
Nope I'm not. I thought so.:)


The state of prisons in this country is pretty sad. I'm just saying that life in prison for this guy will be his own brand of living heck. Trust me, it's the reality of prison life that inmates that have killed or sexually abused children have a short life span or spend their entire sentence in solitary. I'm not going to argue with you on this, but does anyone know how common this is? Is it just one of those (urban) prison myths, or are child-molestors regularly killed in prison? Facts, Kittynh? Anyone? :con2:

[Monketey Ghost]

My father worked in the US prison system for twenty five years. He told me that child molesters are the sorriest lot. They are bitched and beaten regularly, and their lives are a grotesque hell.

And hey, sorry for the blanket statements earlier folks, bad afternoon.

Good evening though...

[gnome]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
I don't really think that the death penalty is a good deterrent, I just think the bastards shouldn't get to live.

For me, the death penalty is justified in cases where there can be no question as to the guilt of the person. This seems like an impossible standard, but it happens. Luckily, some sick people like Paul bernardo take videotape of their killings.


I believe that this does happen--that there is no doubt whatsoever in some cases.

However, to codify this into law requires giving a human being (or a committee of human beings) the power to state that this condition has been met. It is this process that I do not trust.

My reservations about the death penalty can be summed up easily that way: plenty of people deserve to die, and a few of them can offer no reasonable defense. But to me it is more important to avoid what seems to be inherent corruption involved in having a death penalty system than it is to make sure these few "obviously guilty" types meet their fate. Truly, which has greater impact on our society? It would protect the public just as well to lock them up with no possibility of parole.

[Chad Noles]

The current state of the evidence shows me that the family was taken from their home, to the place of their discovery.By removing them, in this way, from their home,there is a indication that the perpetrator was attempting to hide the bodies.There is no way he'll get off on an insanity plea.It's obvious that the legal definition of insanity has not been met.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Chad Noles
It's obvious that the legal definition of insanity has not been met. How is the definition? Just curious.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


I don't really think that the death penalty is a good deterrent, I just think the bastards shouldn't get to live.

For me, the death penalty is justified in cases where there can be no question as to the guilt of the person. This seems like an impossible standard, but it happens. Luckily, some sick people like Paul bernardo take videotape of their killings.

In his case, I wish Canada could have put him to death. The two young girls that he raped, tortured and killed will never smile ever again. Not even a grin or a smirk. The thought that their killer might, makes me ill.

Adam
Slimshady...
I really can't think of what "no question as to the guilt of a person" really means... we already have "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases. Can there be differing levels of reasonable doubt? Do we have to be sure of guilt in order to send someone to prison for the rest of thier life but extra super sure to kill them? How would different levels of the burden of proof work in the real world...what if we are sure enough to send them to prison but not sure enough to kill them? Would they be reasonably able to ask if we are really sure or not? If there is some doubt how come you are throwing me in the can for the rest of my life?

To me there can only ever be one standard of proof in all criminal cases, a bit guilty, very guilty, absolutely guilty, extra specially absolutely guilty? Bit of a can of worms?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Bjorn
How is the definition? Just curious.

I believe the legal definition is usually based on whether the person is capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the act.

While attempts to conceal the evidence is often used to argue against incapacity... I don't find it a slam-dunk.

It seems to me that somoene who was incapable of a moral distinction might still be capable of a practical distinction--that something bad would happen to them if they got caught.

Our system of laws leaves that up to doctors trying to convince a jury of that fine distinction... and well... that suits me just fine. I can't really think of a way to improve it.

[kittynh]

It also differs state by state.

There is usually a history of the insanity to be made. If you have believed for years that God was telling you that whites were the devil, and this was known by you pastor, family, doctor, co workers - and then you went and blew away a bunch of white people while screaming "death to the devils!!!" and insisted to your defense team that you were perfectly sane and objected to even using the insanity defense....(this happened), then you might meet the definition.

If you are a psychopath, and have a total lack of empathy or ability to put anyones feelings of claims above your own - you are one messed up dude, but not criminally insane in most states.

[Chad Noles]

From "How Stuff Works" website....

The law varies from state to state, but in most courts that recognize the "insanity defense," someone is found to be legally insane if he or she meets one of three conditions: 1. Because of a mental disorder, the defendant did not understand that what he or she was doing was illegal. 2. Because of a mental disorder, the defendant did not know what he or she was doing. 3. Because of a mental disorder, the defendant was compelled to commit the crime by an irresistible force.

Gnome wrote:
While attempts to conceal the evidence is often used to argue against incapacity... I don't find it a slam-dunk.

I tend to think it is a slam-dunk(especially because there are a few missed dunks in real life).In this particular case,I think the accused knew exactly what he was doing and was not suffering from any mental disorder.JMHO.

[Bjorn]

Chad Noles, Kittynh, Gnome: Thanks for great info.

Chad, you write this:

In this particular case,I think the accused knew exactly what he was doing and was not suffering from any mental disorder.JMHO.Are you basing this on the newspaper article(s)? He's still just an 'accused' - let's find him guilty first. :)

[epepke]

To be fair, Ladyhawke talked about "the kind of creature" who would do such a thing. No particular presumption of guilt of a particular individual is implied.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that the cognitive- and behavioral-science experiments done in the 1950s (many of which would be considered unethical today) show pretty clearly that the stronger the emotional reaction to the crime, the greater the tendency to want to string up whoever is handy as soon as possible, and fair trial be damned.

This is exemplified by all the talk about "balancing" he rights of the accused by saying "What about the rights of the victim?" This makes not the slightest amount of sense if the rights of the accused are a safeguard against convicting the wrong person, which is what they are supposed to be. There is no logical connection whatsoever. But it's a perfect cognitive connection. Outraged and sometimes grieving people are out for blood. Whose blood is a secondary consideration.

When considering the death penalty, it is important to consider what it's for. I don't think too many people really consider it a deterrent; they just use the argument because it's good rhetoric. Some people talk about what it costs to put a person in jail, but many of these are the same people who will swear up and down that you can't put a price tag on human life. Besides, it's not as if they're about to agree to pay fair retail value for their license plates, anyway. Some people point out that, well, at least it guarantees that the person will never commit the same crime again, which is probably the strongest logical argument of the lot. Yet I think that most of these are just rationalizations, a nice faux-civilized cover for the simple lust for blood.

Not that I wish to denigrate this desire. It's human, and it's very much like the kinds of passions that keep people going from day to day and make them go out, work hard, and do great things. On the other hand, it's even closer to the passions that make a person murder family members for a few bucks.

I oppose the death penalty, or at least I do this week, though not for any of the common reasons. I just consider it a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, won the Kentucky Derby, put out to stud farm, and then converted into dog food and glue. I'd rather see these people killed before they manage to do so many murders. Which is why I support law-abiding citizens in going out and learning how to use firearms properly. Because even if Uncle Fred who's always been a little "touched" comes by waving a weapon, hey, nice knowing ya, but you look good without a head.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by epepke
To be fair, Ladyhawke talked about "the kind of creature" who would do such a thing. No particular presumption of guilt of a particular individual is implied.True. However, my comment was to Chad Noles, who was quite specific when he said 'the accused'.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that the cognitive- and behavioral-science experiments done in the 1950s (many of which would be considered unethical today) show pretty clearly that the stronger the emotional reaction to the crime, the greater the tendency to want to string up whoever is handy as soon as possible, and fair trial be damned.

This is exemplified by all the talk about "balancing" he rights of the accused by saying "What about the rights of the victim?" This makes not the slightest amount of sense if the rights of the accused are a safeguard against convicting the wrong person, which is what they are supposed to be. There is no logical connection whatsoever. But it's a perfect cognitive connection. Outraged and sometimes grieving people are out for blood. Whose blood is a secondary consideration.

When considering the death penalty, it is important to consider what it's for. I don't think too many people really consider it a deterrent; they just use the argument because it's good rhetoric. Some people talk about what it costs to put a person in jail, but many of these are the same people who will swear up and down that you can't put a price tag on human life. Besides, it's not as if they're about to agree to pay fair retail value for their license plates, anyway. Some people point out that, well, at least it guarantees that the person will never commit the same crime again, which is probably the strongest logical argument of the lot. Yet I think that most of these are just rationalizations, a nice faux-civilized cover for the simple lust for blood.

Not that I wish to denigrate this desire. It's human, and it's very much like the kinds of passions that keep people going from day to day and make them go out, work hard, and do great things. On the other hand, it's even closer to the passions that make a person murder family members for a few bucks.

I oppose the death penalty, or at least I do this week, though not for any of the common reasons. I just consider it a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, won the Kentucky Derby, put out to stud farm, and then converted into dog food and glue. I'd rather see these people killed before they manage to do so many murders. Which is why I support law-abiding citizens in going out and learning how to use firearms properly. Because even if Uncle Fred who's always been a little "touched" comes by waving a weapon, hey, nice knowing ya, but you look good without a head. I like it. :) And you're pointing out many of the reasons why the victim should not be the one determining the punishment. Lust for blood never made anyone more fair.

[peptoabysmal]

IMO drugs were a major factor in this case, not insanity. Providing of course, this is the guy and he's found guilty.

[Chad Noles]

Bjorn, JMHO =Just My Humble Opinion
Yes you are correct that I was specific in stating "the accused" as that is how he is defined by law.However,I am entitled to my opinion based on the information and my understanding of the case.

[Babylon Sister]

Don't confuse legal insanity with clinical insanity. They are not the same. It is possible that a person can be diagnosed clinically psychotic and still not meet the legal definition of insanity.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
To look a four year old in the eyes and kill him. There are no words for the horror of that. I truly do not understand how a person can do that. It's no different than looking a fourty-year-old in the eyes and killing him. Disposing of the body is probably a bit simpler, though.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
It's no different than looking a fourty-year-old in the eyes and killing him.

My sentiments exactly.

And with regards to the Paul Bernardo case, I'd still rather see Bernardo spend his life in jail then see David Milgaard put to death. Both were convicted beyond reasonable doubt in the Canadian justice system. It's just that one was innocent. I have no doubt that Bernardo is 100% guilty, but where does the standard get set.

I'm not prepared to make that decision.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
It's no different than looking a fourty-year-old in the eyes and killing him. Disposing of the body is probably a bit simpler, though. How would you know?

Originally posted by Gods Advocate


My sentiments exactly.And you?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
My sentiments exactly. Except presumably you can spell 'forty' correctly. Sheesh.

[Bearguin]

I guess I see murder as murder. Whether a child is the victim, or a 40 year old (see how I got around that one Wrath?). The other thing that bugs me is the demand for the death penalty "because" the victim was a police officer. I've never seen the relevance in "Cop Killer" laws as I feel my life is as valuable as an officers.

Of course I hate to hear "40 dead including 20 women". How is a womans life more valuable than a mans? Oh, and I really hate the "30 dead including 2 Americans".

A life is a life and should be valued the same regardless of race, gender, age or nationality.

There. Who wants the soap box next?

[kittynh]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Except presumably you can spell 'forty' correctly. Sheesh.

Bad spelling is not a crime. Sheesh.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
I guess I see murder as murder. Whether a child is the victim, or a 40 year old (see how I got around that one Wrath?). The other thing that bugs me is the demand for the death penalty "because" the victim was a police officer. I've never seen the relevance in "Cop Killer" laws as I feel my life is as valuable as an officers.

Of course I hate to hear "40 dead including 20 women". How is a womans life more valuable than a mans? Oh, and I really hate the "30 dead including 2 Americans".

A life is a life and should be valued the same regardless of race, gender, age or nationality.

There. Who wants the soap box next?

I tend to agree with you, and thought that was where you were coming from..

However, In the context of the original comment I could look into the eyes of forty year killer of children and contemplate killing them, while it would never cross my mind where the four year old was concerned...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
The other thing that bugs me is the demand for the death penalty "because" the victim was a police officer. I've never seen the relevance in "Cop Killer" laws as I feel my life is as valuable as an officers.

...

There. Who wants the soap box next?

Heh, I'll take it. You may think that your life is more valuable than an officers's, but the cops don't. To paraphrase Blade Runner, if you're not a cop, you're little people.

Here's a handy guide to cop psychology. Before you accuse me of stereotypy, go find the bar where the cops all hang out, buy a few pitchers of beer, and listen.

1) Cops are never guilty of anything, under any circumstances.
2) Auxiliary professionals, such as emergency room nurses and doctors, as well as firefighters, are never guilty while on duty, but they become guilty the moment they get off duty and remain guilty until they start work again.
3) Everyone else is always guilty.
4) Always carry a drop gun. Call it a "backup gun." Get this from a pawnshop that can be persuaded to make the paper trail go away under threat of examination of merchandise for having been stolen. "No questions asked" gun turn-in programs where people get a free pizza or a pair of shoes or a gift certificate for turning in their guns are also a good source.
5) You get one free murder. You might, however, not get a second, so choose your first carefully.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chad Noles
Bjorn, JMHO =Just My Humble Opinion
Yes you are correct that I was specific in stating "the accused" as that is how he is defined by law.However,I am entitled to my opinion based on the information and my understanding of the case.

You're right. You are entitled to your opinion and entitled to express it.

And other people are entitled to their opinion about you and are entitled to express it.

[Chad Noles]

I don't see anyone preventing you,so knock yourself out.

[Bjorn]

Yes you are correct that I was specific in stating "the accused" as that is how he is defined by law.Chad, no big deal at all on my side.

However, when we talk about how 'the accused' should be punished, it sounds like we have decided he's guilty already.

Verdict first, than decide on the whipping. :)

[Chad Noles]

I understand the process.As I stated...based on the information and my understanding of the case.Having read the following from the article.... Prosecutor James Powell said the slayings occurred during the kidnapping of one or more of Michael Hargon's family. He said Hargon had acted alone.
"We've been saying all along since we've anticipated filing these charges that our case is rock solid," said Warren Strain, spokesman for the Mississippi Highway Patrol

more here:
http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0403/02/ma01.html


I have no problem with you Bjorn,you are just "dotting the I(s) and crossing the T(s)".

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
I guess I see murder as murder. Whether a child is the victim, or a 40 year old (see how I got around that one Wrath?). The other thing that bugs me is the demand for the death penalty "because" the victim was a police officer. I've never seen the relevance in "Cop Killer" laws as I feel my life is as valuable as an officers.

Of course I hate to hear "40 dead including 20 women". How is a womans life more valuable than a mans? Oh, and I really hate the "30 dead including 2 Americans".

A life is a life and should be valued the same regardless of race, gender, age or nationality.

There. Who wants the soap box next?

But what if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered?

[Flame]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
It's no different than looking a fourty-year-old in the eyes and killing him. Disposing of the body is probably a bit simpler, though.

I am not sure whether to take this as simply inflammatory, or an honest opinion.

Taking it as an honest open statement, I would say to you that an adult (eg 44 year old) will have done crappy things in their lives. They will have done things that were horrible or mean, or selfish and/or many other things that you could fault them for.

I'm not for killing anyone personally (although there have been govmt. killings which I have been confusingly happy to hear about)
but surely killing an innocent child whose only instinct is to trust you and look to you for everything (protection, knowledge, etc...) is worse than killing a 44 year old who at least has lived & erred and hurt other people!

That's how I see it. I am not for killing 44 year olds though - please don't infer that :D

Toni

ps Just wanted to add - WTF is wrong with me! I see the thread title 'They found the bodies...' and I click to read it? Duh :hit:

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by kittynh
Bad spelling is not a crime. Sheesh. Unless Proposition 308 passes, and we all pray it will.