Now that's evil. Not bad, not unseemly. Evil. That's what evil looks like. When you hear the word tossed around it loses its meaning. A monster killing a child for insurance money is irreparably evil. There's is no fixing this monster.

That's not all this monster has done though. He's also:

• Investigators: Has history of harming girlfriends' children to collect insurance
• Accused of burning kids; breaking a baby's leg, putting baby in hot tub, girl in pool

This is nice:


So I ask for debate:

What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?

So I ask for debate:

What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?

I'm not taking up for a "monster" BA, but this story just broke. We haven't had a trial, yet. At this time we should be saying "alleged" monster. Alleged is crucial. Due process is a much more important than specific trials. You know, political science 101 type stuff.

These things take time. How long did it take to put Scott Peterson on California's death row.

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?


Jay Leno once joked about putting a tack in the electric chair when Florida was about to execute Ted Bundy. Maybe we could do something like that.

Seriously, I would recommend life in prison without the possibility of parole upon conviction. I hope the torture a Gitmo hasn't created mentality geared to torturing people domestically.

Thanks for starting an emotionally charged thread this early in the story.

Should he have waited till the story was out a while so you could then say "This story is old news it really doesn't need to be rehashed"

My feeling is you don't like for people to start debates on subjects like this because it is so dammed hard to defend worthless animals like this one.

As for the debate questions:

What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?


Zero. What we need to come up with is an accelerated death penalty. Where these kinds of animals won't be able to appeal over and over.

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?


I would like to see the things they did to their victims be done to them before they die.

Also I would like to see all money/social security this person has earned be given to the victims/victims family.

Stop predict what people going to write Sleeper as this story unfolds. Do you have one of those damned crystal balls or a set tarot cards, or some voodoo to add to the thread? How long was the Scott Peterson case in the media?

How cute, you roll your eyes in a thread talking about abuse of children and the death of a 3 year old.

There was no body in the Peterson case for quite sometime this is part of what fueled the media frenzy. Also a pregnant woman nearly due is more media fodder. This story will have no legs at all in the mainstream media. Comparing this story to the Peterson story is like comparing Rodney King's incident to somebody getting pulled over for making an illegal u-turn.

And I do know what you are going to write concerning this thread. When this monster is found guilty in a court of law you will still say he should be treated like a human being(which he isn't in my mind).

I have relatives who worked in emergency rooms and have told me horror stories of children coming in with burns on the bottoms of their feet. Their parents turn the stove on till the burner is red hot and place their bare feet on them. The same damn thing should happen to them in my opinion.

I will never see the liberal side of this subject. The segment of our population who does these things does not belong here and should be removed once identified.

There will be a small portion of the of the population who will want to come to the aid of this animal and try to get him off death row if that was his sentence turns out to be(hopefully).

Again you interpret things through your own special lens. The eye rolling was not about the issue, but your "alleged" ability to predict what other people are going to write.

3a. Is the death penalty enough?

I'm going to cut this question into two parts.

I think elements of this thread are pure fantasy. The debate is purely theoretical .



http://civilliberty.about.com/od/capitalpu...amoratorium.htm

As of this month, there are currently 660 inmates on California’s death row.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf
(This is a pdf file)

Let’s use the California example. Thirteen executions since 1976? That’s less than half an execution per year. Assuming that most of them, (and us) live that long, it will take it will take approximately 1650 years to execute those on death row now, not to mention those that may be put there in the future. How surreal do you want to get? Could anyone write a better farce if they tried?

Ok, this case is in Washington State. It now has a nine member inmate death row. They’ve performed one execution since 1976.

What both California and Washington seem to have done is create a “virtual” death row, where people are sent to expire naturally rather before thay are actually executed.

3b. Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?

Constitutional procedure is a necessity, not an option.

What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?

Assuming he is guilty of all the crimes listed, he should never see freedom again. The way our prison systems are, a child abuser will suffer worse punishment being incarcerated for the rest of his life than if he were put to death.

I’d like to add that nearly every day we all read about horrific things humans do to other humans. Why in the world would you advocate acting like a monster to punish a monster? It makes no sense to me. Also, for those who have a religious bent, isn’t it the epitome of hubris to assume God’s role in deciding who lives and who dies (and the amount of pain they should suffer)?

I’m hoping the heat of anger is why you propose to torture. I’d like to think we have progressed at least a bit as a society where drawing and quartering, disembowelments, hanging, decapitation and the like are not festive events to be celebrated and cheered for by bloodthirsty men, women and children.

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?
Get freaking real. What, the Old Testament wasn't specific enough when it said an eye for an eye? Go torture the monster with your bad self and keep our legal system, and someone else's soul, far, far away from romanticized depravity.

I would argue that the women who chose to date this guy and thus put their children in harm's way must also be held accountable. There is no excuse for "dating" a guy who does this. My rage is more towards the mothers who are that inept at selecting a man and allow such horrible things to occur.

Having said that.......


What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?

To put him in a hard labor camp, assuming we had one to put him in. Make him work extremely hard for the rest of his life, with absolutely no contact with the outside world (including tv, books, etc.) In other words, he sleeps on a cement bed with a straw blanket, is fed bread and water, and spends his awake hours digging ditches or whatever...

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?

I'm not against the death penalty but if that isn't an option I would go with the above measures.

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?

The death penalty is enough if it is done SWIFLTY. Get rid of him quickly and be done with it. MY criticism of the death penalty is that it is too slow of a process.

It seems this guy has a long history of abusing kids to cash out on insurance policies, or try to. According to the AP aticle one woman dumped him when she found pictures of other women and children. How do you know the women he dated, including Ashley's mother, were aware of Zellmer's past attempts to collect on insurance? I don't suppose he'd confess to women and I can't tell that he had a criminal history by the article.

Assuming he's guilty, and he probably is there is no reason for this useless skin flap to be alive.

Clearly I'm not in that camp.

The death penalty for someone like this is not enough. It isn't. This person should be tortured to death. It should take a few weeks. It shouldn't be public. And the only the Government should wait for to begin his sentence is for his parents to show up to watch the monster they created die. Slowly. Painfully.

BoF, you couldn't be more correct about the death penalty in places like CA and WA. Those governments need to be slapped around until they start executing those criminals. The State demanded it. It still does. Do what the State wants.

When you have a monster like this on trial there should be no defense other than, I didn't do it. Anything else... messed up childhood, drugs, abuse, crazy, incompetent... doesn't matter. Kill this thing immediately. It has lost its humanity. It is an outlaw in the Old West sense that it is no longer protected by the law. Kill it and rid the world of it.

Well, my reason would be I'm against the death penalty in general. This is a typical tactic of the pro-death penalty crowd, give a horrific exmple of an unthinkable crime occuring, the perpetrator of which is obviously guilty and make a case for capital punishment in general. Sadly we cannot only kill those who have committed a crime when we start killing all of those found guilty of murder. There is no legitimate reason to keep this guy alive, assuming he's guilty, if we could be sure that we only executed people as guilty as him, then I wouldn't have an issue with capital punishment.
Life in prison. No parole, no TV in his cell, etc. etc.
Sounds an awful lot like cruel and unusual punisment to me.

CP

As a mother and as a human being I feel there are certain things in life in which there is no margin for error. This is one of them. From what I understand, most of the women were only dating the guy. They obviously didn't know him all that well. So why on earth would they leave their kids under his sole supervision? It's irresponsible!



I just want to point something out here. It is a natural reaction to be horrified, angry, disgusted and to want to see murderers of this degree suffer. It is unfair for you to put someone who feels that way about such criminals in a similar category. A person is not "bad" for feeling that way. Whether or not it is the best thing for those delivering the punishment is another story.

What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?

Assuming that this "monster" is actually guilty (and apparently we are), I am not sure that an execution would in any way make up for the crimes described. There might be some grim satisfaction on the part of those who mourn the deaths and suffering of his victims, but all in all it is pretty empty.

However, being locked away and never being allowed to be free to take part in things that make life meaningful or interesting, not being allowed to make even small decisions in one's own life and being forced to do someone else's bidding forever is punishment.

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?

Life without possibility of parole, hard labor, isolation without the comforts a person would enjoy outside of a prison cell. In other words, plenty of time for the offender to think about what he or she did and the consequences.

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?

No, the death penalty really isn't enough. In addition, it makes no sense to kill a person who violates the law by killing in order to teach him that killing is wrong. Before the death penalty was abolished in England, people bent on ending their own lives but who feared the consequences of committing a mortal sin would murder someone, confess their crime, receive absolution, and then have their lives ended by the state--a perverse way to get their own way, admittedly, but it was actually quite commonplace. Sometimes people commit murder when they want to die. There is the more recent phenomenon of "suicide by cop" nowadays.

As far as the torture question goes, imagine what sort of person would step up and be recruited to inflict torture on offenders...Of course, that person isn't supposed to "enjoy" what he does, because our society has said that torture is wrong. So are we going to foist this job upon someone who feels bad about doing it? Or are we going to open up a new position in law enforcement, "Corrections Torturing Officer," and start a new course called "Corrections Torture 101" for associate's and bachelor's degree programs?

If it is wrong to torture, it is wrong to torture, period.

And as far as calling detestible human offenders "animals" for what they do, let's refrain from insulting animals in this manner.

The subheading of this topic is, "When someone is this evil, why should they live?" Perhaps it should be, why should someone this evil be allowed to die?

The article says Zellmer has a history of dating women but I can only two instances where he harmed the children while he was dating women. One is in April 2000 with Kelly Clauson, the other is in 2003 with Misty Teran. In 2002 he tried collecting insurance on his stepson Mitchel Komendant one year before Ashley drowned. That same year he tried drowning Michelle Barnett, his fiance's daughter. A year later Zellmer's drowns his stepdaughter, Ashley. The only woman I think should have known better is Kelly Clauson in 2000 because there was more than one "accident".

There may not be margins of error for some things in life, DP, but it's plain this guy was a con man. I can't determine how well they knew him without a detailed timeline. Bad things happen to good people, not just irresponsible mothers.


Wanting to beat the bloody snot out of a criminal is natural. They may not be bad for feeling this way, but trying to find out if others support torturing criminals marks them as immature. Fair or not real life isn't a Hollywood script based on the production of 24. Grow up.

Well, this is, unfortunately, an area I have WAY too much experiance with

You first off have to seperate pedophilia and "incurable" criminals from those "crimes of opportunity"

why you ask?

Because it keeps the margin of error and corruption down- goverment employees make mistakes and are even corrupt in rare cases, or have thier own axe to grind- and an innocent person can get caught up on the correctional juggernaut.

A pedophile, typically, as an "orgy of evidence" by the time of the first conviction.

It is rare to find a pedophile that doesn't have AT LEAST 10-20 victims, a mountain of child porn, and pics with the victims.

What you DON'T hear about is how many women fit this profile, and how often THEY are let go, and how often the women are NOT ONLY part of the equation- they are frequently the prime mover in the crime-it is just easier to get a conviction on a man.

So- I believe the death penalty is appropriate for pedophiles- and it can be easily proved, diagnosed, and, um, executed, unlike murder, which there is occasionally some serious doubts as to guilt.

We should, of course, punish the women equally, when culpable,

So, in reality- we would probably NEVER execute an innocent person when talking about pedophiles- it is too easy to define, and the "orgy of evidence" that surrounds them leaves any shadow of doubt as to getting the right person, and they can't EVER be "rehabilitated".

So- more than the death penalty?

In the case of the pedophile- sure- there is a great thing we could do- medical experiments- this is a GREAT opportunity for brain mapping, and other items that we could use them for to help mankind.

Instead of declaring the death penalty- I would rather them declared "not human" and have less rights than a cat- and treated as such.

Not to torture uneccesarily- but rather, to figure out some more about us humans.

I don't agree with you on much CR, but I like this idea.

Pedophiles top my list as the most vile part of our society.

I would give up the death penalty option on all other crimes, if it were specifically administered on pedophiles.

That is very true. Bad things happen to good people all the time. The women involved may or may not have been "good" people. But regardless of their good intentions, there is a degree if irresponsibility on the parts of the respective mothers.




Again, I would say that it's not immaturity. It's a feeling of helplessness that some of us have when it comes to dealing with the issue of such evil. It is very difficult to see the crimes that such people commit and not feel a sense of complete and utter outrage. Especially when it happens to children. It is pure evil and I understand the point-of-view offered by the person who started this thread. Perhaps you should accept that people will have differing views that may seem absurd to you, but they have a right to those views and you saying it's immature doesn't make it so.

The fact that society is the rational, cognizent one. The consideration that this man is truly not in an adequate mental state and that we are more of an enlightened nation than say Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Egypt when it comes to dealing with criminals.

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?

Life in prison, in this guy's case, I believe he'll end up in some psychiatric prison. He isn't the first to do something like this, I'm curious as to why now it's garnering so much attention? Must be a slow news day for FOX.



Arm-chair, knee-jerk emotional anger only drags you down to the level of the criminal, namely, that of a dumb beast. The honorable thing to do is to take the high road and to not become like the murderer yourself.

Why? Unless mothers knowingly put their children in harm's way like this woman did, they are not party to a crime and thus not responsible for the perpetrator's actions. The kind of infallibility you seem to expect requires an FBI background check. I don't think women knowingly hook up with rapists and child sex offenders.


We'll just agree to disagree. It is immaturity. CR and BA have backed torturing molesters under no duress. (I'm reading CR's recommendation of giving them fewer rights than cats as a green light for torture.) I can understand a victim's relative beating and/or killing a suspect before authorities arrive. It's called temporary insanity and under this defense I could be convinced to acquit a defendant of homicide/manslaughter. However there is nothing to "understand" about someone endorsing a policy of torture under any circumstance while they type comfortably from the familiar surroundings of their home. It's not absurd, it's inexcusable. The absurdity is you believing that this alternative viewpoint is legitimate. I wonder if emotionally tuned in advocates of torture would extend the same "justice" to youth sex offenders.

Since we are sharing our views, this is my view. A mother cannot plead "I didn't know" when it comes to a boyfriend causing harm to her child. Maybe you have sympathy for women who are poor judges of men but I do not. There is no excuse for hooking up with a guy who harms your child. Therefore, a mother who does that should be prosecuted for child abuse. A responsible mother can date a man without putting her child at risk.



Nothing is written in god's blood. You have your opinion about people who think child abusers should be tortured, and I have mine, and others have theirs. We are sharing our opinions on this board. Nothing less and nothing more.

doomed,

Strictures concerning torture may not be written “in god’s blood,” but they are written in Amendment VIII of The U. S. Constitution of the United States. Besides, I've always suspected Benjamin Franklin was "god" long before that title was conferred upon George Burns or Morgan Freeman. Unless we have an amendment permitting torture, Amendment VIII outweighs the emotionally laden nonsense BA laid before us in this thread. Indeed, it is outweighs what any individual, including me, has written.

Here’s an article from FindLaw.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...ent08/05.html#1

What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?

Next you'll want to know when I stopped beating my wife. "Keeping him alive", BA? You make it sound as though Zellmer were on a feeding tube and opponents of the death penalty were staging a sit-in to keep Bill Frist from pulling the plug. If you mean "What reason would/could you give for the state to refrain from committing homicide?", then all of the standard death penalty arguments would apply. In fact, I would use the same arguments here that I would use against hate crime legislation.

People are understandably passionate about this sort of crime - who wouldn't want to see a man like this suffer? More than would want to see Matthew Shepard's murderer's be drawn and quartered, I'll wager. But we are ruled by laws, not passions - and the law itself must be dispassionate. That's what "impartial" means. This is why we don't allow the victims of crimes to judge their oppressors - and why trial by jury was such a remarkable breakthrough in the history of criminal justice. It is why we cannot allow the most emotionally charged cases possible to inform the course our law-making or jurisprudence - and why we should not allow the most heart-wrenching cases imaginable to direct public debate on such issues.

It is also why we should avoid such emotional and impossibly biased questions as "What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?" to pass as honest debate. (And yeah, Sleeper, I'm using an eye-rolling emoticon right in the middle of a thread dealing with a sensitive, emotionally charged subject. )

The prejudice of BA's question is compounded by comments like "you don't like for people to start debates on subjects like this because it is so dammed hard to defend worthless animals like this one". Pretending that people who oppose capital punishment are automatically "defending" pure evil worthless animal monsters is about as facile as an argument can get - but at least it avoids intellectual rigor.

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?

Severely. As severely as possible without resorting to cruel or unusual punishment. As severely as our laws and our Constitution allow. But no more. The rule of law and the humane treatment of criminals are among the few things that still, theoretically, set the United States above many other countries - just as our tolerance of capital punishment is one of the many things that places us well below the rest of the civilized world.

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?

There was a time when people who opposed capital punishment were accused of wanting to coddle child-raping, grandmother-flaying, mass-murdering psychopaths - especially the black ones. It looks like we're upping the stakes here: now, it would appear, one must advocate the use of iron maidens, bamboo splints under fingernails, and public crucifixions or one is to be considered "soft on crime".

One more time:
Note: what is being discouraged - nay, prohibited - in this amendment, established to prevent the abuse of power, is excess. It is a repudiation of torture in no uncertain terms. Boy, are some of you living in the wrong country!

But to answer the last monstrous question: no, the death penalty is not enough. Capital punishment is inappropriate for any crime - especially crimes as heinous as those being discussed here. Should Zellmer be guilty of the egregious abuse of these children and the death of Ashley McLellan, he should be imprisoned with no possibility of parole - ever - and no privileges whatsoever. And I hope he languishes behind bars, bereft of all freedom, for a very, very long time. This also addresses when I stopped beating my wife: I'd want to "keep this monster alive" because death is too good for him, too easy. Assuming, of course, that he is guilty.

What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?

The answer to this is in the third question.

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?

The answer to this is in the third question.

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?

Exactly. Death penalty advocates have it all wrong. Death is easy. Living is hard.

There you go. Hate all you want and fling around cliches like monster, the point is still missed.

Could deprive the guy of dental and health care. That will lead to pain and eventually death.

Could deprive the guy of his means to make a living.

Could make him listen to inanities on a daily basis.

Oh, the list could go on for pages. However, the answers to the first two questions are in the third.

You missed my point, BoF. I was stating the obvious when I said that we are discussing and exchanging ideas on this board. That's all we're doing. And the constitution along with every rule or law that's ever been created is nothing more than "agreed upon opinions". The law is so because we decide it is so. This thread is asking a question and we are answering it.

Quite honestly, I'm pretty tired of hearing people spew their holier than thou "opinions" as if they are the Gospel. We're all entitled to feel how we want to feel. On this issue I can see both sides. On one hand, I agree that keeping someone alive is a good punishment ONLY if he is put into very harsh work and living circumstances. That doesn't seem to happen. Often, men sit in their cells and they are allowed to think and feel and breathe and how many of them ever take an ounce of responsiblity for their actions?

It's better to send them away quick and easy and be done with them. They are not worth the time spent on caring for their needs and guarding them. (that would also mean it's not worth our energy to spend unecessary time torturing them when they will meet their makers, so to speak, and their day of judgment will come one way or another)

DP there is nothing holier than thou about unequivocally rejecting torture. It certainly is tiresome for people to play the "think of the children" card to stretch the envelope, on the other hand. Anyone's entitlement to feel however they feel doesn't mean I can't call it like I see it. This also means those I disagree with can say I don't care about children if they think they're more "passionate" about children's welfare than I am.

Edited to add: Actually, I think the posts I've responded to have very little to do with feelings. People have gone beyond expressing their feelings; they've endorsed torture for retribution and theoretical deterrent purposes. When posters endorse torture I assume they've taken a stand in support of it and are no longer strictly speaking from the heart. Should I assume they're too distraught to know what they're saying and respond with that in mind?

Believe it or not, some people are truly disturbed by the abuse of children. And maybe they are emotional about it. I'm sure you are emotional about some things as well.



Very little to do with feelings? We base all of our decisions in life on "feelings." You can claim that you are purely analytical but I don't believe anyone really is. You feel strongly that torture is wrong. That is based on your feelings about torture. Others feel strongly that the punishment should be as equal to the crime as possible. That is where the subject of torture emerges, as punishment for heinous crimes. I don't see any proponents of torture here saying it should be doled out, willy nilly. We are talking about vicious crimes. There is validity to both sides of the argument.

I'm emotional about child abuse too. I've offered examples attesting to this fact. However, I don't and won't use emotion as cover for legalized torture, which requires a methodological implementation and application.


That's right. When you do more than express general a desire to torture certain criminals and state your support for it as a policy your statements go beyond feelings, and that's what I have responded to.


My point is that people in this thread aren't just supporting torture based on feelings. They legally support it and therefore don't warrant a reponse along the lines of "I understand how you feel".


Actually it's more based on my feelings about America and the Constitution than torture. Torture is readily acceptable in foreign countries. That's why we're not like them and I don't want to be like them, no matter how strongly someone thinks the punishment should fit the crime.


Is this supposed to make it somehow better? Avoiding capricious use of torture doesn't justify legalizing it. It also doesn't excuse limited pro-torture proponents in any way.

But the law is not emotional. In fact it is the very basis of the law that it is not emotional. Every effort is made to separate law from emotion and base it on facts and logic. Is your desire to torture criminals based on logic or emotion?

If it is emotional, then it has as much validity as my saying in a fit of anger that i think my ex-girlfriend should be tortured to death for cheating on me: it is a visceral reaction which has no basis in reality and should certainly not be codified into a legal system.

If it is logical, then perhaps you, or one of the other advocates of reinstitution of torture could give us a factual and logical explanation of the new law. How long shall each person be tortured for? What means shall be used? Will they be psychological, non-invasive physical or invasive physical? Shall we flay them? Perhaps burning the soles of the feet and then forcing them to walk around on a floor strewn with bark? (Iroquois) Or we could cut open their bellies, remove a segment of small intestine, affix it to a pole and have them walk around it as it slowly pulls their innards out? (Viking) or they could be lain down on a massive metal plate covered in oil and have a fire lit underneath, literally fry them alive (Caliphate of Baghdad) or you could slowly pile weights on their bellies until their peritoneum ruptures and they exsanguinate internally? (France) Oh hey, why not go for the GUSTO and bring back crucifixion? Nail these criminals up along the Appian way so that passers by can hear the screams as their shoulders dislocate and turn internally gangrenous? Its OK, thirst usually kills them before gangrene, unless they are lucky and bleed to death. I'm sure the moral majority would approve of bringing back good old crucifixion, there is a certain symetry to it, almost 2000 years later. That way kids could peer from their cars, see the bloody suffering victims being fed upon by scavengers while not quite dead, and see what happens if you grow up to be bad!

Why stop with the worst of the worst? Why not minor torture for lesser crimes? Cut off the left hand of a burglar and they won't do it again, thats for sure. It works in Saudi Arabia after all...

Let's stick with practicalities. How long should the torture last? How lengthy should the excruciation be per crime? If the criminal dies early, before the full length of the torture sentence is exhausted, should the torturer be fired? Hey, torturers, now THERE is a good government job. Does that have dental benefits I wonder?

Most executions allow witnesses, friends and family, will the torture allow onlookers as well? Will they be allowed to watch, leave and return if the session lasts a long time? What about the kids, family and relatives of the criminal, should they be allowed to watch 'Daddy' tortured to death by the state? Will the viewing booths be soundproofed or will the family be allowed to hear the agonized shrieking of the criminal for the first few hours, then the gasping and hissing after he has torn his own vocal cords with his screams? Would they be allowed to suggest methods of torture? Maybe crushing each limb slowly in a vice is to the pleasure of the onlookers, over watching them covered in honey and Driver ants. If you really want deterrent effect, just hang the still living criminal in gibbets at crossroads, like the good old days.


Oh did this turn your stomach? Did you find those descriptions unpleasant or nausiating? Then how on earth can you be advocating a reversal of 400 years of judicial progress?


Society does not torture people, no matter HOW evil their crime because it is unimaginably wrong, period. Society is the sum of the morals of its people, and also by definition has to be the guardian and example of this morality. Torturing people to death was banned because no civilized human being could seriously advocate such an obvious atrocity, and what is WORSE no government in the world should be allowed to exercise that kind of power over its people.



Oh, so its about perfect retribution? So lets just rape the criminals. Thats what you want right, excruciating suffering that mirrors the crime? Then we should simply have paid government rapists who rape the criminal to death. Thats the morality you advocate, right? You 'feel' that would be ok, right?

It doesn't help the victim, it lowers the state to the level of the Mongol hordes, is destroys any argument related to morality in the system, but it makes you 'feel' better knowing the man, or woman criminal got rapes to death in a government sanctioned and judicial manner?


This topic is nauseating.

Vermillion- the "reality/practicalities" are why I think that killing pedophiles is a good thing- (let's make sure we define pedophile a bit more clearly- those that prey on, and groom, children for sexual liasons- different that your statuatory rapist that is having sex with a 16 year old and he is 19)


When you imprison someone- they become a ward of the state, and the state is responsible for thier well-being and safety- so why in the world does the state need to see to the well being and safety of a child stalker or murder or massive fraud creator like Fastow- why does the state need to make a life long commitment to thier safe and humane housing- these poeple SHOULD be treated badly, if allowed to live- and ABSOLUTELY 0 funds should be used to feed, house and provide medical care for these animals?

If anything- we need a constitutional change to ALLOW cruel and inhumane punishment to a certain class of criminals- when innocence is not in doubt. The jeffery Dahmer example- there is 0 doubt of guilt.

Why should the state feed, house and care for this scumbag?

The only time the state should make this effort is for minor crimes were rehabilitation is desirable- we should have NO ATTEMPT at rehabilitating murderers, Ken Lay magnitude fraud types, or pedophiles.

I think this is one of the main reasons for the failing of the liberal states/democracies of our time- even the Netherlands is thinking of going right wing - because of some of the long held liberal beliefs in liberal goverments of "capital punishment is wrong"-

I think in most folks hearts, they realize this is a wrong turn in a safe and organized and free society- we must recognize that some folks don't deserve rehabilitation, and certain crimes do not warrant an attempt.

So we perform medical experiments on them in the case of pedophiles, and a bullet in the head of the rest.

I think the great flaw is to treat them as if they are human after conviction- which they are clearly NOT- they have no humanity and certainly no more humanity that a dog.

Why should a murderer be allowed to access the criminal justice system over and over again- sue over lack of cable TV for example- what huge debt does society have to the murderer to allow him/her access for free to things the common citizen does not have access too?


Vermilllion- it is no more uplifting to society to house, cloth and feed evil dirty animals than it is to kill them. It is much more practical and takes away all possibility of release back into the population later.

Now- I will admit- the main area that I have a problem with the death penalty is it's propensity for convicting the innocent- and to be clear- I am NOT for the death penalty as it stands in the US today- simply because there is so much corruption and laziness and lack of resources in our system today- it is hard to get the bad guy, because there are so many distractions and wasting of resources- like busting street walkers and pot smokers instead of rapists and murderers.

So, I concede the point readily about WHY we don't have the death penalty in America today- but, in a perfect world, I am all for drawing and quartering some of the more evil segments of our society.

Vermillion- there is this western reflex that is as bad as any faith based type madness you see in the middle east- this "how can you just throw away 400 years of law" kinda thing- easy- it is and was wrong- toss it out. On this, the Saudis have it right. Career criminal thief- 3 felony convictions for B&E, ya, an HAND AND A LEG are fine by me- makes being a burgler and bit more difficult, at least, and hey- we don't have to house and feed him/her either! A win-win for society.

Give me a break, Vermillion. Court decisions are handed down based on EMOTION! Do I need to give you examples. Laws are borne out of emotions.



We are not talking about an angry boyfriend who wants revenge on his girl, so please do not confuse the issue.



Have you read my earlier posts? I never advocated for the use of torture, per se, unless you consider working every waking hour digging ditches, eating bread and water and sleeping on a cement block torture.

Nice slippery slope you're sliding on.....



Why? Are you getting emotionally upset by other people having a different opinion than you? Don't take it so personally. Be logical about it.

DP- though you and I are basically on the same page here- as a libertarian, I must say- emotional law makes horrible, knee jerk law that usually does more harm than good- patriot act anyone? - so Vermillion makes a good point as far as emotion and the law- the law is supposed to be dispassionate- it is just illogical and emotional TO ME that we even keep these animals alive. I don't hate the wolves that ate my geese (real life thing here)- but I have no problem killing them either.

You don't have to be emotional and knee-jerk when calling someone "evil"- we have a tendency to stop using this word like it should be used.

My point is that European or western thought is not always right, as Middle eastern society may very well get something right- and punishing thieves, murderers and pedophiles may very well be the right track- while we are on the wrong one.

"Revenge is a dish best served cold"- revenge is NOT a bad thing, in fact, quite good in many ways- and doesn't mean that emotion is involved.

I totally agree. I was merely pointing out to Vermillion the fallacy of the "idea" that the law is strictly without emotion driving it.



It is supposed to be, but it is not. So jumping to the argument that there must be no emotion involved when dealing with criminals of this nature (child abusers of every variety) is absurd. Of course there are heavy emotions on this subject. And like you said, we don't have to be hysterical about taking the perpertrator to his death. But we also don't have to treat the criminal like he's as valuable as the rest of us. HE IS NOT.



Definitely. And how interesting that the same people who adamantly criticize America and all of her faults, will all of a sudden claim what makes America great is that a child murderer can be taken care of by the state.



Revenge or not, the men who do this need to be dealt with, one way or another. The quicker the better.

And Women DP- right now, in our justice system, evil behavior from a woman warrants a "pass". Even being a pedophile when a woman is not really the impact it is for a male.

There are women pedophiles out there, and in some fairly large size- we, as a society, generally turn a blind eye to it- but they still groom thier victims, no different than a male. They still kill thier children- exception is- they get away with it compared to a male. Any doubt that a black male doing what Andrea Yates did in Texas would be on death row?

To me- the entire argument FOR the death penalty comes from it's application in US society- NOT from the "it is wrong for the state to kill murderers" angle.

And the real crux FOR the death penalty is the issue of state taking responsibility for this person's safety and security- it is very, very wrong that a tax payer should have to support a murderer, child molestor, or Ken Lay type.

I could easily start a new topic called Why Not Revenge but the standard bearers of "Let's not lower ourselves... wah wah whine complain" would show their online aghast faces and expect us all to feel bad about wanting excruciating pain for monsters like the human waste in the Original Post.

You know what? Let's lower ourselves. Let's let it be known that when you drown a 3 year old for insurance money you have months of horrific torture before you are killed in a grotesque way. Let's let it be know that the State is inifinitely more monsterous than you are. Let's let it be known that preying on the weakest among us will bring wrath upon you like you've never even considered. Further, let's keep it a secret exactly what we do to people like you who think conning mothers and breaking their children's legs is a good way to earn a buck. Let's make it so you sit up at night shuddering at the thought of what might happen to you if you go through with your idea and get caught. Let's make it so you look over your shoulder for even having the thought. Let's make some crimes unthinkable for fear of what might happen to YOU for committing them.

These were no crimes of passion. This wasn't an anomoly. This isn't the bad day of an otherwise good man. This is the work of a monster. Let's make him understand that monsters will not be abided.

Immature? No. Venegful.

BA- there is a part of me that agrees with you- in a perfect world- however- it is all hypothetical- because for every case like the one you mentioned that is cut and dry- there are 100 that you think "what if they got the wrong guy"-

there would have to be some very important checks and balances-

Vermillion's best point, and any anti-death penalty person's point is this- you dont' trust the post office to deliver your mail on time, and lot's of other goverment agencies- what makes the poeple running the torture department any better or less mistake prone?

The protections against torture, I don't really think are there to protect the monsters- but rather- the victims of goverment inefficiency, corruption and laziness.

That is why I prefer death to pedophiles over death to convicted murderers - because it is so much easier to be totallly assured of guilt when you get ahold of a real pedophile. They have kiddie porn, they have multiple victims, some usually that are adult that can testify very clearly as to what happened.

Larry Flynt said it best "when the law protects a scumbag like me, then everyone is protected"- his was on the issue of free speech-

when it comes to torture and death dealing by a goverment- any goverment- well, you can agree that pretty much only bad dictators really used this type of method with dealing with criminals- and then expanded who they considered criminal.

It is not the killing and torturing of bad guys- it is the killing and torturing of the wrong guys that scares me.

It isn't that we "lower ourselves" in some kind of pansy civil way- it is that it usually leads to abuses by goverment- and lowers us to a dictatorship, where innocent poeple are looking over thier shoulders- same as the guilty in your diatribe.

Congratulations on showing your true colors. Apparently those who disagree with you and do not promote the idea of being as brutal or more so as some kind of "fix" to the bad people in this world are whiners and complainers. How very Anne Coulter-ish.

And while I'm at it, wasn't it you or somebody using your name who famously said about posting thread questions: "Your questions should not make a point. You should. Your questions should seek an honest answer"? I noted it among the nominations for best quotation by a member.

And yet your last question states:

Could you have been--horrors!--editorializing a mite in your questions? What happened to "your questions should not make a point. You should. Your questions should seek an honest answer"?

I would suggest that you are trying to dismiss the opinions of other members by demeaning their responses, that is, if they disagree with you.

Let me suggest that opposing opinions can be every bit as valid as yours. It's a pretty easy thing to hop on the bandwagon and call for the death of someone who--has he been convicted of the crime yet?--has apparently already been convicted on this forum owing to the name you have called him ("monster").

So do we work to fit right into the crowd chanting "Crucify him! Crucify him!" because it's the popular thing to do? But is it Barabbas or Jesus? Mobs are notorious for their inattention to things like...the facts.

The state does not execute offenders as vengeance on behalf of the victims. The state executes offenders because they have broken the law, and there are times when imposing the harshest sentences takes place when the judge or the District Attorney is running for re-election, not because a crime was particularly heinous. A family member may be called upon to testify during the sentencing recommendation phase, but these survivors are not the ones to determine the criminal's fate. Judges do not seem to impose restitution in the case of capital crimes--why not? Who has been harmed more, the victim's family or the community? Hence the inadequacy of the death penalty.

I maintain that life without possibility of parole without the amenities we on the outside enjoy is actually a harsher punishment.

As far as the torture aspect goes, again I wonder who would be called upon to commit upon a convicted murderer what members of a community would consider atrocities if they were done to an innocent person? A person who finds torture abhorrent, or a person who would enjoy, yea relish every moment of it? And what would we call the sort of person who would enjoy inflicting torture?

Isn't that what Charles Graner and Lynndie England were convicted of doing? Would you make a mockery of the judgments against them for the sake of state-sanctioned torture in the United States?

I love this. So now anyone who disagrees with you, and thinks that maybe, just MAYBE the practice of deliberately inflictine excrutiating pain is abhorrent and evil period... THOSE people are whiners, complainers, bleeding hearts who live child rapists... way to bring the debate down to the lowest common denominator.

And apart from unfortunate, it is also STAGGERINGLY ironic that the person who wants to brutally torture people in the name of the law is ALSO the person insulting others for their moral position.



No, lets not. Period.

There is a reason civilied society has rules, rules that trancend the nature of the moment. Take for example the rules of war: If two nations hate each other, why NOT use chemical eapons, biological weapons, radiological weapons, why not use every weapon in one's arsenal to destroy the enemy? Because even though two nations hate each other, they recognise that there are some things so horrific that they trancend hate and horror, trancend the need for revenge and petty emotions of the moment. There are some things civilised nations do not do. And when nations defy these rules, they are defying the laws of civilised society, and are justly condemned. There are certain actions that a modern state cannot take and expect to sit at the table as equals with other civilised nations. That is why membership into supranational organisations such as NATO, the EU and others, even if these are predominantly economic or military organisations, still has rules on conduct and morality along certain lines.

Torture is evil. There is no situation in which it is NOT evil. Worse still, you are suggesting not torture for the sake of extracting information (which doesn't work) but simply torture for the sake of watching a person scream. Thats all you want here, that all the argument you have made. You tried at one point to include a deterrent argument in here, but then bandoned it by suggesting the entire proceedure be secret and unknown. So the ONLY think that interests you is torture for the sake of torture. Make em scream, just so you can sleep better at night knowing 'justice has been done'. That, I apologise for saying, is Evil.

You even state in your own words: 'let it be known that the state is infinitely more monsterous than you are'. Well, you would certainly have accomplshed your goal: the US would be revild by every nation on earth. And if that is the message you wish to send then the 'slippery slope' that DPlabelled so she could ignore is all to real. If the one and ONLY intent of your policy is to cause Horror, then why not be horrific? If you abuse a child but the child survives? Torture. You can vary the length and severity of the torture to make things realtive to the crime I suppose.

Society is the reflection of its people, as well as their protector. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? the kind that mirrors and EXEEDS the cruelty of the gestapo, differentiated only by the targets of their atrocity? And let us be VERY clear on that, once you give free liscence to the Government to ignore the bounds of decency, morality and humanity (not to mention the constitution and international agreements signed by the US) for the sole sake of causing horror, then you have descended into a police state, no question about it.



No, both. And neither has any place in the judicial system whatsoever.

Feel free to re-write my questions in a more even-handed way. At least my premise is correct. In this case, in this very very very specific case, with regards to this very very specific crime, this man should be tortured and killed in the most painful way possible.

You might want to read the thread up and down before you come down on me for dismissing people's ideas that are contrary to mine - it's rather popular here now and again.

What happened with Charles Graner and Lynndie England is hardly torture compared to what this monster did and Charles Graner and Lynndie England didn't kill anyone - this guy did. You may want to use another example that might have relevance to the topic at hand. I mean, really, are you going to blame Bush for this too?

Woud you be so kind as to quote what PE wrote - the specific line’s you are rebutting - rather than putting "PE wrote stuff” in a quote box? It makes following the line of reasoning more efficient than having to flip back and forth from one post to another.



Slow down. England and Grainer may not have killed anyone. Sure their crimes were much lesser than the one “alleged” in this thread, but so what. They created an intrnational incident that still makes the U. S. look bad.

Where has anyone blamed Bush for this?

Edited to add:

Since we are rewriting your thread, perhaps it should ask "should we repeal the 8th Amendment."

I remember you were particularly judgmental toward me and made a big fuss of re-writing my questions in another thread in a way more acceptable to you because they were "loaded," that is, heavily slanted. You now stand to win the best quotation for the year for saying that post questions should not give opinions; the poster should.

A little consistency, please?

Please do me the courtesy of trying to understand what I said about Charles Graner and Lynndie England being found guilty and serving sentences for abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Nowhere do you see the name "Bush" in my previous post. YOU are the one who brought up George W. Bush this time. Bush is irrelevant to this thread.

If a military court found Graner, England, et al. guilty of prisoner abuse/torture and punished them for it, it would make a mockery of military justice and the civilian justice system to suddenly say it is "okay" to abuse any prisoner.

That is why the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," because our justice system and our penal system are not instruments designed to inflict vengeance.

Do you really want a legal system sanctioned to be cruel and savage toward prisoners? Remember that when individuals have the power to use the system to abuse people they hate, it is no longer a democracy. As a matter of fact, it would place our government on a par with Saddam Hussein's government where torture was commonplace.

How far would you go in altering our system for the sake of vengeance? Don't pretend for a moment that it would be the "right" thing to do.

I doubt that there's much chance of me winning that (or anything else) here at AD and as flattering as it might be it's not why I am here.

One of the big problems on this thread is that you, and others, keep trying to extend what I am saying past this case and cases like them. I'm not calling for State Sanctioned Torture for traffic violations. I'm talking about exacting revenge for the worst among us. For those who's lack of humanity makes them less than human. This guy doesn't deserve his life. The State, we, should take it from him in a fashion that causes him excruiciating pain and suffering.

It's not that hard a concept. Stop trying to compare it to anything.

Don't you know that it is illegal to make a law that applies to just one person? Think what you like about what should happen to this guy; it is just wishful thinking after all. But the concept, should it be instituted, would be horrific and obviously counterproductive to punishing people for committing horrific crimes.

And on a side note, I thought that making comparisons was integral to debate.

[What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?
Assuming conviction of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't see any reason for keeping him alive, save mercy.

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?
n/a

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?
No cause for torture. Simply stand him up against the wall.... I'm a sucker for the drama of a firing squad. Black powder muskets, drum rolls, the whole nine yards.

What reason would/could you give to keep this monster alive?

Let me approach this from a slightly different direction. Once an act of violence has been committed, nothing that you do -- nothing -- can undo the suffering of the victim. This is why violence is so horrible. Therefore, it is useless to ask what should be done to obtain "justice." The cold, hard fact is that justice, in the strictest sense, is impossible in cases of violent crime. Nothing can give justice to the victim of violence. In particular, the harm done by death is infinite; no attempt to do "justice" can possibly reduce the harm done by any amount.

Thus, it is a meaningless question to ask if the violent criminal "deserves" life or death. Rather, one must ask, first of all and most importantly, what can reasonably be done to minimize acts of violence; secondly, how can society be best protected from those who would do violence to it.

To be sure, the death of the violent criminal removes that particular threat; but an effective system of long-term incarceration does the same thing. It also allows for the possibility of correcting errors of the law system. More importantly, perhaps, it provides absolute proof that the legal system is morally superior to the criminal.

If you are steadfastly against the death penalty how would you recommend a monster like this be punished?

Incarceration for a very long period of time, or life. (Or, in some cases, until mental and/or physical incapacity renders the violent criminal incapable of any acts of violence.) The justice system must -- must -- act without the desire for revenge, or there is no reason for it to exist at all. Revenge is an understandable human emotion; it should never be the basis for governmental actions. As I have said, the harm done by death is infinite; therefore the legal system would have to be absolutely perfect to use the death penalty properly.

Is the death penalty enough? Should there be a period of torture prior to this monster's horrendously painful death?

I take it as absolutely axiomatic that suffering which is not absolutely necessary is always an evil to be avoided. Because I am a biological organism capable of suffering, and because I am a social animal capable of empathy, the suffering of even the most wicked of individuals hurts me, therefore I reject it without "feeling sorry" for the violent criminal. This is pure self-interest on my part. If, under some extraordinary circumstances, it becomes necessary to remove a human being from life, it must be done, if at all possible, without adding a period of suffering to the infinite harm of death.

Tell me why it would be counter productive.

AP--Man Who Killed Child For Insurance Money Tortured And Put To Death