 |
|
Authorities estimate the four girls – ages 5 to 17 – had been dead for at least two weeks. Jacks told police they were “possessed by demons” and had died in their sleep, one by one, within a week of each other, court documents say. Authorities estimate the four girls – ages 5 to 17 – had been dead for at least two weeks. Jacks told police they were “possessed by demons” and had died in their sleep, one by one, within a week of each other, court documents say. The charging documents identify the children as Brittany Jacks, 17; Tatianna Jacks, 11; N’Kiah Fogle, 6; and Aja Fogle, 5.
Although autopsies are incomplete, the medical examiner’s office reported that there was evidence that Brittany had been stabbed, the charging documents state. There was evidence of binding on the necks of the Tatianna and N’Kiah, and evidence of blunt force injury to the head of Aja and binding on her neck, according to the documents. The three children were dressed in white T-shirts when their bodies were found Wednesday, charging documents state. Brittany’s body was naked but was partially covered by a white T-shirt. An object that appeared to be a steak knife lay nearby, and there was a dried maroon liquid around the body, according to the documents.
There have been several incidents, recently, that have me re-evaluating my views on the death penalty. The man who threw his 4 kids off the bridge 80 ft into the river below, the nut bag who decapitated the girl in South Carolina (who, by the way has already cut a deal for life), and this case. Is there any redemption for people like this?
Is there any redemption for people like this?
These people though show every indication of being mentally unstable. They are sick. Maybe, with appropriate treatment they could go on to lead a useful life. Executing or locking the mentally ill up forever helps no one and only shows society’s lack of compassion to those in need of help.
“possessed by demons”
Three cheers for religious beliefs!!!
And you thought the Muslims were creepy.
Abandoning the mentally ill to the care of family and volunteer trusts and commoditizing and remarketing of basic health care as a lifestyle improvement service, seems to have a down side.
I was originally for the death penalty until I saw an interview with the Priest who gave the last rights at a New York State prison. He said “I would lock them all up in a 5×7 cell in isolation till they die”. He said this not out of compassion but revulsion. He felt it was more just to delay their final judgment than give them “the easy way out.”
He was so adamant that Charlie Rose was taken back, but I think it’s the right thing to do. Unfortunately many nutjobs would see this as “cruel and unusual punishment”, and so the death penalty continues.
About #1. Can you imagine that there are some people who must never be allowed in society?
How many times is a killer released just to kill again? Where is the compassion for the innocent victims? When you release a killer back into society and they kill again, are you not just as guilty of the murder for having enabled the killer to kill again?
Hard labor for the rest of their lives. I am talking about breaking rocks for no other reason than that is their punishment type of hard labor.
I think the actual number of cases where a mentally ill person doesn’t know right from wrong is significantly lower than defense attorneys would lead us to believe. They might think they have an acceptable reason for doing what they did, but they still know that our societal rules say their actions are not accepted.
We have never had the Death penalty in Wi.we much prefer to torture our prisoners by locking them up with other crazies.In the case of Jeffry Dahmer he was even to crazy for the other prisoners so they killed him.
#7. So your system works?
The death penalty is NOT a punishment. It’s a way of removing scum from our society so that there is no way they can kill or hurt anyone else.
#5 – re #1. Exactly. When you have these whackjobs what are actively lethal, can you ever trust a theraputic redemption enough to risk letting them out again?
It a wierd thing to say, but ‘there just are some people that need killin’ to quote the movie.
Compasion and Justice should go hand in hand, not one at teh expense of the other.
The important thing is that these children were not raised by gay couples.
There have been several incidents, recently, that have me re-evaluating my views on the death penalty. The man who threw his 4 kids off the bridge 80 ft into the river below, the nut bag who decapitated the girl in South Carolina (who, by the way has already cut a deal for life), and this case. Is there any redemption for people like this?
In my mind… it doesn’t matter if there is redemption. We can only extol a value if we hold that value true for ourselves. If is is wrong to kill another human being (saving for self defense, obviously) then it is still wrong when the state does it.
I obviously have no more info than what is in the article, but the woman claims the girls were possessed… ergo, she’s mentally ill. No I’m not advocating leniency for the multiple killings of her own kids… but killing this woman doesn’t bring back the dead, and it doesn’t make us stronger, and it doesn’t deter others. In the end, she should probably end up being institutionalized for life.
There are all the reasons for not supporting the death penalty, like DNA evidence showing convicted inmates actually being innocent, but more than that, I simply believe its better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to suffer… …that, and then the moral belief that we cannot condemn killing while being killers.
I read many comments outline labor, and locking people in cells, and supporting the death penalty, but the thing is… its all about vengeance. Revenge is not the function of the justice system, and when we use justice to exact revenge, we dehumanize ourselves. We are breeding compassion out of our society. We simply cannot continue on that path and still preserve that values that make us great in the first place.
Agree with #11 and disagree with #1. Letting this type of person live is risking the lives of others and paying for that service. Of course they are insane, but compassion should go to the sane, the innocent and the survivors. The insane wont benefit from compassion, or time spent behind bars. I am not condoning killing in anger or revenge, but instead effectively removing a proven threat. This isn’t an all or nothing opinion. There would have to be exceptions, but in severe cases such as this they should be disposed of efficiently and without regret.
I do not believe all these people are insane, Ted Bundy, Dahmer, the BTK killer, Stalin, and many more. Examples of cold and calculating murderers who have no place in society, I for one do not want to feed and house them. But they must be guilty, with no doubt, and if there is doubt then I vote error on the side of caution.
#13 Interesting comment. I agree with most of what you say, in particular that she (and by extension, others like her) should probably end up institutionalized for life. It is unfortunate that most arguments surrounding the death penalty revolves around vengeance. It shouldn’t. The issue should revolve around compassion and protection. Compassion for all the victims (which in many cases includes those who are mentally ill) while protecting the public. Often they can go hand in hand, like being cared for in an institution. Sometimes it’s not so easy, but vengeance breeds bitterness and it’s the bitterness that keeps on killing.
#13–OFTLO==nice rhetoric but no analysis or justification. Just your own preferences.
I do actually wonder — “why?”
1. If is is wrong to kill another human being (saving for self defense, obviously) then it is still wrong when the state does it. /// Consistency does have value, so the answer would be that it is NOT wrong to kill another human being. Self Defense, defense of others, and punishment for murdering others is completely rational.
2. I agree totally it doesn’t protect society to kill this lady. We should figure out how to humanely warehouse these folks until their time is up.
3. I simply believe its better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to suffer /// Yes, in a vacuum==maybe. But how many more innocent people do these 10 guilty people kill?
4. Revenge is not the function of the justice system, and when we use justice to exact revenge, we dehumanize ourselves. /// Says who? Just words.
#13 – Permanently removing someone from society is self-defense. Society is defending itself from an active danger. Whether that removal is “permanent” or “forever” has many issues involved, but either route can be taken without vengeance or other emotion playing any part.
If I were emperor, with absolute power to decide who gets the death penalty and who doesn’t, I’d be for it, and this witch would get it, and out in public where executions belong.
But, since we have to rely on lawyers, judges, juries that have only heard what the lawyers and judges want them to hear, and so forth, count me out. I’ve been on juries. They simply are no where near reliable enough to be charged with life or death decisions.
We need to implement 15 day waiting periods and background checks before people purchase knives to prevent this from happening again! ;->
#17 – Says who? Just words.
Says me.
What isn’t “just words.”
Life is precious, or it isn’t.
Murder is wrong, or it isn’t.
We value liberty, or we don’t.
We value justice, or we don’t.
Decide.
#13 – OFTLO
“If is is wrong to kill another human being (saving for self defense, obviously) then it is still wrong when the state does it.”
Sorry. Fallacy detected. Argument invalid. When you use the word ‘kill’ you allow it to be defined differently in your premise and your conclusion. That’s a no-no.
Let’s reframe your statement with an unambiguous phrase in each appropriate place.
IF it is wrong for a person or persons to, in violation of the law, take the life of another person who does not deserve to die,
THEN it is still wrong for society to, in accordance with the law, take the life of a person who has transgressed beyond redemption and therefore does deserve to die.
But that’s obviously false. Because your analogizing of a socially-forbidden murder committed against an innocent person with the socially-approved execution of a guilty person is false. They are not remotely morally or ethically equivalent.
So, again, reduced to it’s semantic essence, your statement means:
‘If killing a person who does not deserve to die is wrong, then killing a person who DOES deserve to die is wrong.’
Or: If A=C, then B=C.
And that is simply false.
Problen is that a death penalty is not necessarily “murder”.
Let’s just hope this trend continues in the religious community.
#17, bobbo,
Consistency does have value, … Self Defense, defense of others, and punishment for murdering others is completely rational.
Only that that isn’t consistency. One is defense while the other is revenge. To kill an animal to eat is a necessity while killing for sport isn’t. Killing can be justified to keep ourselves alive, it cannot be justified in most other cases.
I simply believe its better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to suffer ///
Yes, in a vacuum==maybe. But how many more innocent people do these 10 guilty people kill?
No vacuum. When a person commits a crime, they commit it against society. Hence, it is society that will attempt to correct or punish the offender. When we make a mistake, it is all of us that errs, not just one person.
When you get into this “well, how many more will those guilty kill” argument, you miss the point. We do not want to punish the innocent. We do not want to just pick up people off the street and jail them. When we make a mistake, we want to err on the side of caution.
Most people were appalled when after 9/11 so many Muslims were arrested for no or invented reasons. At least, those with an interest in justice and not revenge were appalled.
Revenge is not the function of the justice system, and when we use justice to exact revenge, we dehumanize ourselves. ///
Says who? Just words.
No. Not just words. This is the concept that differentiates between a civilized people and a barbaric society. If society were to blame a certain segment of society for its ills, for example Jews, taking revenge upon that portion might be vengeance, but it sure the hell isn’t justice.
Justice involves doing what is right all the times. No, we aren’t perfect by a long shot. Our imperfection is not a reason to quit trying to do what is right.
So what kind of society do you want to live in, barbaric or civilized?
#22, THC
Sorry. Fallacy detected. Argument invalid. When you use the word ‘kill’ you allow it to be defined differently in your premise and your conclusion. That’s a no-no.
Wrong. OFTLO used the word KILL in the same sense every time. It simply means “to take a life”. When you start putting different sense to the words spoken by others, that is truly wrong.
Let’s reframe your statement with an unambiguous phrase in each appropriate place.
IF it is wrong for a person or persons to, in violation of the law, take the life of another person who does not deserve to die, …
… a person who has transgressed beyond redemption and therefore does deserve to die.
But you didn’t reframe [sic] OFTLO’s argument. You made your own, in your own biased image. Nowhere does OFTLO use the term “deserve to die” or even come close to suggesting it. His argument is very clear in that if it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to kill. His only exception came in the form of self defense.
It is one thing to use a person’s words against him in a rebuttal. It is totally unacceptable to change what a person wrote and use that against them. I hope that people can make an argument without stooping to low tactics of misquoting their opponents.
Just a thought, but instead of thinking of the criminal in death penalty situations, think of the victim. If they can’t be made “whole” again, why keep the criminal around?
Kill someone = death (victim will never be whole again)
Rape a child = death (truamatized for life)
Yes, it is extreme, but instead of wringing our hands over ‘how can we rehabilitate someone who believes in demons, possesions or voices?’.
Steal $50, “justice” would say pay back the $50 and do societies punishment. Death sentences are for those crimes that can’t be undone.
Make it personal. If it were your wife, daughter, Mother, etc, that was brutally murdered, and you had the means to take that person out, would you? I know that I would, and maybe in your eyes that makes me a bad person, but I would have no trouble sleeping at night. Maybe it just make me human. Humans are certainly faulty.
#25, 26 – Mr.
FusCatshitOnce again, after a period of clear sailing, you then get an attack of the heebie-jeebies, or you forget your meds, or whatever occurs, and then proceed to loudly and arrogantly stick both of your feet in your mouth.
It’s times like this that I envy James Hill’s restraint when dealing with your periodic outbursts of utter stupidity.
I’m gonna go watch the new season of J&J, and if I’m still awake afterwards, I’ll come back and deal with you. OTOH, I might wait until my morning coffee. Either way, I’m gonna be carrying a giant economy-size can of whoop-ass with your name on it.
In the meantime, Mr. Illiterate [sic, my ass], I have something for you to take a glance at the next time you feel the ill-advised temptation to correct my English. This, then this. Once that has sunk in, maybe you’ll make the wise move and STFU. 😛
#25–Mr Catshit. Bravo. Good analysis and posting. My considered response:
1. One is defense while the other is revenge. /// Only if you define it that way. An eye for an eye? Reap what you sow? Poetic Justice? Do unto others? He needed killing? He doesn’t deserve to live?===these go the the justice of being so anti-social that “IN JUSTICE” you do not deserve to be part of society–as in erased. Can a legal execution after due process and appeals be “revenge?” Only if you very much twist the emotional requirements out of all recognition. Revenge is the motive of people personally involved. Doesn’t include the legislature from years previous, nor the legal system with no conflicts of interest. NO–execution for capital crimes is 99% a societies call for justice=not revenge.
2. Re vacuum. You avoid the point I made and mischaracterize (or more likely misthink?) the issue as “We do not want to punish the innocent. We do not want to just pick up people off the street and jail them.” Now, is that a fair construction of the argument?
Are people who ARE GUILTY of a crime nonetheless innocent? NO. You switch/confuse hypotheticals completely.
Hypo–you have a group of 11 people. 10 are guilty, 1 is innocent. Now–you can decide to let the 10 guilty free in order to protect the one innocent==but don’t characterize that as solely protecting innocent people as a percentage of those 10 guilty people will kill again! (assuming the underlying crime is murder–or multiple murders? rap sheet the size of War and Peace?).
So–the appropriate protection for innocent people is NOT letting the guilty go, but in providing due process rights as we currently do in the main (yes, improvements needed.)
3. “so many Muslims were arrested for no or invented reasons”–Oh Really? What is your hard number? I recall newstories on 3-5 such cases. All should have been avoided. I recall one Sikh man being killed for being an arab because of his turban. Very Bad. But on the whole–what other nation would be attacked by an ethnic group that is a minority within their borders and not have a greater wave of hostility than showed by GOUSA? We weren’t perfect, but we came close. In fact, we should be profiling all young Muslim men–but we don’t because of sloppy thinking/emoting like yours.
4. You must be getting tired? Your descent into the frivolous misstatement is complete. “So what kind of society do you want to live in, barbaric or civilized?” Capital Punishment after due process is not revenge or barbaric as would be genocide against an ethnic group.
Finally===big if here===”IF” capital punishment were further curtailed so that the guilt of the accused were higher than it is now ((no single witness only death penality cases, no jail snitch death penalty cases, etc)) and then applied more rapidly as the due process was more certain===then, THEN maybe some innocent witnesses would not be killed to prevent their later testimony. Just a maybe.