Father Killed Child Over Video Game
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,272
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Sydney
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- FFXIV
- Lukas
Windy said:
You are referring to the Florida case study, no?
$24 Million saved per person executed (those 44 people, however the figure includes those that were sentenced and won appeals) if guilty parties were given life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.
Capital cases are expensive. Quoted from "Millions Misspelt" by Richard C. Dieter (why, gasp there's a link to it on the site I provided, fancy that - only a click away):
Full Link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=385#sxn3
Also, you have to consider that the actual process of state murder is far more complex than "sticking a needle in some guy's arm". For example, the death penalty cannot be carried out if the sentenced individual is unhealthy at the time, hence they would need medical care. Naturally in such cases, the state foots the bill.
Last edited:
Eliott said:
Sorry I'm tired today and this is making me laugh.
GOD FORBID HE GO TO HELL WITH A COLD!
Sorry.. giggling.
And yeah I forgot our country is so brilliant as to pay lawyers FOR these scum bags. :/ Still though the amount of money spent is ridiculous. Drag em out back and shoot them if it's an obvious case, if not give them ONE appeal.
The only problem with removing prison is a lot less confessions but hey! I don't have time atm, I'm on my way out.. but look up the guy in Arizona.. the Sheriff or something runs a prison, they live in tents.. outside.. and wear neon pink.
THAT is how prison should be.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,006
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
Yeah, why the hell would the US pay for these scumbags Just execute them the day after conviction!Windy said:
According to that list, Nicholas Yarris spent 21 years in prison, before finally being let free, due to new DNA evidence proving that he wasn't guilty, I would bet that man racked up lawyer fees in the millions for the goverment fighting through many many many appeals.
Daveman said:
Congratulations on missing the point, but if you want to make irony there, you go right ahead. As I said, I think anyone who wants to defend a murderer's rights as opposed to the victim's, especially in a case involving a particularly helpless victim (read: CHILD) has something wrong with them. Nothing hypocritical/ironic at all in what I said. I stated an opinion that didn't agree with Act's and he got all defensive because I'm not championing his opinion to forgive a murderer. So I find him amusing. And people like him. Like you.
If it was someone you loved who got murdered because someone had a bad day/bad moment, you wouldn't be coming in here saying "35 years is an awfully long time to spend in jail." And if you would say that then you must be one powerful Christian. Because as far as I'm concerned, if it happened to someone I love or MY child, the person who did it could rot in hell. And I can sleep just fine at night having said that.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 5,333
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Johnson City, TN
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- FFXIV
- Arctyrael
My name is Arctyrael v. v I hope you just making puns with Act - .-
Zyndara, I know the topic is controversial, and likely to inspire a higher level of bloodlust in some than others. No one here is challenging you to your opinions. A multitude of people and different opinions is what makes and breaks this country, but atleast offers a thorough review of all the facts before juries sentence life or death.
I'm not playing Devil's advocate. I earnestly believe, whether or not this was pre-meditated which from the website it was not, this guy needs some serious help. Without raising to question anyone's parenting abilities, I've seen mother's turn around in the drive through and smack their brat children. Did it make me mad? Heck yes it did. Would the mother do this if she were calm and not overtaxed on what she was doing... most likely not.
This guy clearly was not thinking straight, and possibly already irritated by the game, as trivial as that may be, crossed the line. I've heard of far more heinous things by far less stereotypical people. ie...
from google search below: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/12/son_told_of_mutilating_parents/
If you google "Badowski" "Chattanooga" "Murder" -- I knew their daughter(she wasn't home when this happened). If she can ask the DA not to pursue the death penalty over that, which she did, I earnestly feel there is no real need for it(death penalty) in our society.
Say what you think about my opinions, I stick up for no criminals. Our opinions of just punishments is what varies here.
Zyndara, I know the topic is controversial, and likely to inspire a higher level of bloodlust in some than others. No one here is challenging you to your opinions. A multitude of people and different opinions is what makes and breaks this country, but atleast offers a thorough review of all the facts before juries sentence life or death.
I'm not playing Devil's advocate. I earnestly believe, whether or not this was pre-meditated which from the website it was not, this guy needs some serious help. Without raising to question anyone's parenting abilities, I've seen mother's turn around in the drive through and smack their brat children. Did it make me mad? Heck yes it did. Would the mother do this if she were calm and not overtaxed on what she was doing... most likely not.
This guy clearly was not thinking straight, and possibly already irritated by the game, as trivial as that may be, crossed the line. I've heard of far more heinous things by far less stereotypical people. ie...
from google search below: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/12/son_told_of_mutilating_parents/
If you google "Badowski" "Chattanooga" "Murder" -- I knew their daughter(she wasn't home when this happened). If she can ask the DA not to pursue the death penalty over that, which she did, I earnestly feel there is no real need for it(death penalty) in our society.
Say what you think about my opinions, I stick up for no criminals. Our opinions of just punishments is what varies here.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,006
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
Then you're missing something totally different, I do not insult anyone's intelligence or even character because of their oppinion. I could easily insult people who think of death penalty first thing, tell them how barbaric they are, or ask what paint chips where they eating thinking killing someone who killed someone makes you any better. The most I'll use is sarcasm and telling them that they're wrong.Zyndara said:
If someone I cared about was killed, and I had a gun right next to me for w/e reason, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. That in no way would make me right, or a good person, or fair. By being one of the affected people you're now biased, the murder thinks "there should be no punishment!!!" and the loved ones would think "burn in hell!!!". That does not make either of them right.Zyndara said:
I also find it funny how if I could just forgive someone easily over killing someone I loved, that would make me a "Powerful Christian", because that has a good connotation, and is basically saying that, it is a good thing, or "more christian" thing, to be able to forgive or give less strict punishment.
And one last note, not everyone is a christian on these boards.
You people need to become informed of some of the laws of this country before flying off the handle and accusing people of eating paint chips.
When dealing with criminal insanity you should be aware of what are called the M'Naghten Rules, established after a murder in England in the 1840s and named after defendant Daniel M'Naghten. The text is this...
to establish the defense of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
This is to say, when he punched the baby, he didn't know what he was doing, or that it was wrong.
This is easily applicable to a case such as this, It basically says he belongs in an institution to get help not in a regular prison population for punishment. Now don't think that an institution is better than prison, because in many cases you will spend more time in the institution than you would have in prison, and in no cases, less time than how long you would in prison.
To understand what that means - you have to consider 2 different scenarios.
1. A guy murders his wife to collect on life insurance.
-This is a person who is aware what they are doing, and decides that he is willing to do something that is wrong because he will benefit from it.
2. Someone loses control and punches someone and accidentally kills them.
-This is a very different crime than the other example. People should not be executed for this. People getting executed for that is why many people are against the death penalty altogether. I wouldn't say I'm against death penalty but I'd reserve it for people who at the very least kill for benefit to themselves.
Unfortunately people look at situations like punching a baby to death over pulling some cords out, and they can understand the person less than someone who kills their boss for passing them up on promotion. The person did something that makes no sense because the person lost control of themself. You don't decide one day to murder your baby and ruin your own life to avenge an infant pulling at cords. It just happens.
When dealing with criminal insanity you should be aware of what are called the M'Naghten Rules, established after a murder in England in the 1840s and named after defendant Daniel M'Naghten. The text is this...
to establish the defense of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
This is to say, when he punched the baby, he didn't know what he was doing, or that it was wrong.
This is easily applicable to a case such as this, It basically says he belongs in an institution to get help not in a regular prison population for punishment. Now don't think that an institution is better than prison, because in many cases you will spend more time in the institution than you would have in prison, and in no cases, less time than how long you would in prison.
To understand what that means - you have to consider 2 different scenarios.
1. A guy murders his wife to collect on life insurance.
-This is a person who is aware what they are doing, and decides that he is willing to do something that is wrong because he will benefit from it.
2. Someone loses control and punches someone and accidentally kills them.
-This is a very different crime than the other example. People should not be executed for this. People getting executed for that is why many people are against the death penalty altogether. I wouldn't say I'm against death penalty but I'd reserve it for people who at the very least kill for benefit to themselves.
Unfortunately people look at situations like punching a baby to death over pulling some cords out, and they can understand the person less than someone who kills their boss for passing them up on promotion. The person did something that makes no sense because the person lost control of themself. You don't decide one day to murder your baby and ruin your own life to avenge an infant pulling at cords. It just happens.
Firestreak said:
"It just happens." Well, welcome to reality. Where laws are made for reasons and where when you lose control, regardless of what bullshit reason you want to put out there, you are held accountable. Doesn't matter if he killed his own baby or got too drunk, got mad and got into a barfight and "accidentally" punched someone until they died. The biggest issue I have is with accountability. And yes, whether you like it or not, it is not reasonable to "excuse" someone murdering someone else because they somehow don't have the ability to control themselves. And you can stop with the text from the law books. I'm not going to pull out a resume to argue my point, but let's leave it at I have studied law at length, domestic and international and am well aware of how the system works and the loopholes people use. And it wouldn't be the first time that someone did something stupid, said oops, and then tried to use the insanity defense. That's why it's a weak defense at best. If he can cough up some history... some bi-polar disorder or history of rage issues... then maybe he has a leg to stand on as far as inability to control himself. This is also why there are "degrees" of murder that people are charged with, as well as manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. None of them carry exactly light penalties for a reason.
But come on. Yes, there is very little information available in that article. And so we don't single me out, take a look at other people on this thread who have had the exact same type of reaction I did. I'm reacting to the information given. What amazes and upsets me is how people have so vehemently backed taking it easy on this murdering "father" like there's something in that article that excuses away this behavior. If he had developmental issues or a negative mental health history and they said something to that effect in the article, then this might be a different conversation. But don't climb all over my back because I have a problem with people defending somone who took a human life. I guess I'm one of the few who still value that kind of thing. I said it before and I'll say it again: People have reasons to "lose it" a hundred times a day for a myriad of reasons, but what separates us from animals is the ability to stop ourselves. It's called judgement and the ability to reason.
And for your information Daveman, I never said everyone was a Christian. But seeing that one of the big pillars of Christianity is forgiveness, I made an analogy that to express that type of forgiveness, you must be "one powerful Christian." Didn't mean to offend you. Go ahead and insert Allah or Buddha or w/e entity it is you believe in. Forgiveness is a tenet of most religions, and that was the point I was trying to make. If you're capable of that kind of forgiveness, bravo, really. Whether you believe in a God or not. I wouldn't be. And I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,107
- Age
- 39
- Location
- Florida
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- FFXIV
- Zoolander
Zyndara said:
Anyone who, after thinking about the situation and how it likely occured, still thinks that somone deserves to spend the rest of their life in jail or be killed for this crime is a crime in itself.
Theres a very large difference between trying to understand the situation and its cause than defending somone and saying what they did was ok. You are dealing in absolutes, when this situation has a whole lot of gray.
This country's law system will not send this man to jail for life or give him the death penatly, its not how things work. Its not how the world works.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,272
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Sydney
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- FFXIV
- Lukas
Tyrath said:
I remember reading it in one of my old text books, but I can't find it ><. I'm pretty sure it would basically constitute cruel and unusual punishment. For the same reason someone cannot be executed if they are experiencing a mental/psychotic episode. But if I'm mistaken, feel free to correct me.
Best thing I could find at the moment:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/organs/deathrow.html
Zyndara said:
Well I never said he's not going to be accountable. I just don't see those situations above as being the same as the crimes we reserve our biggest punishment for.
You have to take the perspective of the defendant for a moment here. You're playing your X-Box, your kids starts to tug at your cords. Suddenly you lose control. You didn't realize you hit the kid so hard, or that it would be so easily hurt so seriously. Now suddenly you're a murderer. All your life you were never a violent person. You never knew you were capable of such an act and you find yourself with a dead child and a ruined life.
This is not the same person that plans out and deliberately murders a person for revenge or greed or whatever purpose - who decides it's ok to murder.
Zyndara said:
I didn't say it was an excuse, I said it was a reason. There are some excuses for murder, losing control of yourself isn't. It's a reason. The motivation for crimes weight heavily in this country. This case has plea bargain written all over it and I'm sure his lawyer and the prosecuter will be analyzing his mental condition more stringently than any of us can get from this short article describing his crime.
Zyndara said:
I don't think the insanity defense would work in a trial(well to be fair, it could work, I don't know his history at all), but I don't think this is going to trial either.
Zyndara said:
Define "light." I don't think he deserve the death penalty or 35 years in prison. There are plenty of penalties below that I'd consider heavy.
Zyndara said:
Not singling anyone out. Also not trying to disrespect the opinion of those who are for the harshest punishment. When I was younger I probably would have agreed and made similar arguments because I felt this person was best removed from society forever.
Zyndara said:
He obviously had some kind of mental defect. I wrote a few paragraphs at length explaining why, about how the way people are diagnosed often after the fact, on how that may play into legality but I decided to delete it because it was a bit more sympathetic than I really believe.
In short let's just say that "judgement and the ability to reason" is something that many people take for granted.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,006
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
Actually, if you want to talk about reality and where we have laws, we should take a bit of a peek at what those laws are.Zyndara said:
Unless the father planned the videogame to be interupted by making it tempting to the toddler, this is clearly a third degree murder.
Punishment varies from state to state, 2nd degree murder carries from 40years, to life maxiumun penalty depending on the state, the only case of 3rd degree I could find was from pittsburgh where the maximun is 40 years, so I'm assuming most states have around 40 year maximun sentance for third degree murder
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_360936.html
We should Indeed have a modified version of the Code of Hammurabi. The ancients knew what they were doing when they derived this law. What would determine whether its a objectable offense is whether they were conscious that the event was taking place. If they were, do the same thing to them that they did to the victim.
Gun---200$
Silencer---100$
Taking a dumbfuck out back and shooting him like he deserves *Priceless*
That was a mass amount of terrible lines.
Silencer---100$
Taking a dumbfuck out back and shooting him like he deserves *Priceless*
That was a mass amount of terrible lines.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,006
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
dbuman said:
That code would be heavily flawed in modern society, just off the top of my head:
There's a draft, I win (aka: lose) the lottery and have to go to war. I go find someone I hate, I shoot his kneecap, legally he can now shoot my kneecap or w/e. I get out of war, and hurt someone I hate in the process
I shoot someone on the head, the person has a metal plate in his head, the bullet causes moderate damage, and need for surgery, the man fully survives. Should I get shot in the head?
What about the countless people who are found to be innocent for 3rd/2nd/1st degree murder even 20+ years after conviction?
what if I shot someone in the leg, not intending to kill, but he happens to be allergic to lead/steel/gunpowder/whatever, and dies from the allergic reaction?
What if I Steal your car? Do you just steal it back?
what if I kill two people?
Daveman said:
If you would shoot someone in the head, yes you should be shot in the head for shooting him in the first place
Don't have a valid response to the 1st/2nd/3rd degree part
If you shoot someone in the leg you should be shot in the leg regardless
If you steal my car you get your hands or feet chopped off.
If you kill 2 people you get killed twice as bad\
No..the law does not work complete efficient, but hot damn it would make me and others think twice before doing anything
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 5,333
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Johnson City, TN
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- FFXIV
- Arctyrael
I've agreed with everything Daveman and Firestreak have said so far.
I see this plea'ing out for around 30 years, possibility of parole after 15 or 20.
I see this plea'ing out for around 30 years, possibility of parole after 15 or 20.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,517
- Age
- 40
- Location
- with your love <3
- Nation Banner
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- FFXIV
- Westyle
Oh my God! Nintendo 64!