This kid has no conscience

[Starthinker]

I drove past the Citgo station in the morning when there were still cops standing around pointing and shaking their heads. This is a quiet area, almost sleepy, and everyone knows everyone else. This woman gave him what he asked for, then he just shot her, after it was over and he should have just left. Then he drove up the road, and did it again. One woman had 11 kids, both had families. These were working class people, living paycheck to paycheck, making an honest living.

Yes, this kid was laughing on the way to his arraignment, yes he happily confessed to anyone who listened. Yes, this whole area is shocked and it's the only thing people are talking about. People are asking questions that can never be answered - how can this kid be so cold blooded? How could this happen in this area?

This kid is obviously broken, but right now I hope he never walks free again.

 

[fuelair]

A 15 year old anmed randy Dobbs murdered a 20 year old married with infant girl for a joyride in her van. He was smiling like this too but not anymore. He's been in prison since oct 1989 and prison is where he'll stay. His prison pictures show him with no smile on his face at all.

Nice - though I would prefer pained grimace - like with gall stones with spikes.

 

[fuelair]

Define monster. The Websters dictionary defines a monster seven ways. The sixth definition says A person who excites horror by wickedness. Cruelty etc. Ok so by that definition he is a monster. A human monster. He's a human moonster who needs to be "permanently" removed from society.

He won't be executed. He can read the papers, books and magazines and watch TV and listen to radio. If he can adjust to life in prison the way Charles Manson did he won't even be sexually deprived. The foods crappy but he looks like a McDonalds eater anyway. Quit worrying about him and start worrying about the victims famiilys and friends and of coourse worry about society if he ever gets out of prison.

This^^. A lot of people purposefully or forgetfully on this side are also neglecting a major question - though I suspect I know how it will probably fall out- How would you feel if it was a loved one of yours that was raped/tortured/ murdered by something (I'm prejudiced here) like this?

I know absolutely how I would feel - so I know if someone did and I located it first that it would live a couple of educational days and no trial would be needed. My skill set says the remains would likely not be found either. And, frankly I do not care what it's ife was like, what it's mental state was or anything related - once it does something of that nature it is just a target that can move semirandomly.

 

[I Am The Scum]

This^^. A lot of people purposefully or forgetfully on this side are also neglecting a major question - though I suspect I know how it will probably fall out- How would you feel if it was a loved one of yours that was raped/tortured/ murdered by something (I'm prejudiced here) like this?

I got a better one for you: Why is this question even the slightest bit relevant?

 

[chillzero]

Define monster. The Websters dictionary defines a monster seven ways. The sixth definition says A person who excites horror by wickedness. Cruelty etc. Ok so by that definition he is a monster. A human monster. He's a human moonster who needs to be "permanently" removed from society.

He won't be executed. He can read the papers, books and magazines and watch TV and listen to radio. If he can adjust to life in prison the way Charles Manson did he won't even be sexually deprived. The foods crappy but he looks like a McDonalds eater anyway. Quit worrying about him and start worrying about the victims famiilys and friends and of coourse worry about society if he ever gets out of prison.

You read something into my post that was not there at all.
I am not worried about this person, or any of the other people that some choose to label as monsters. I think they did wrong, and I think they absolutely deserve to be punished for it - although some need some kind of treatment as well.

My issue is that by labelling people as monsters, society can off load the responsibility of recognising that it allows such things to happen ... that those they call monsters aren't actually too far away from themselves.

It also allows society to shirk the burden of considering how to identify these kinds of problems before people get hurt or killed, and how not to breed such problematic people in the first place.

Someone rapes, maims, kills ... "oh - it isn't anything anyone could have done anything about - this is not a person like I am - no this is a monster and can therefore be dismissed as irrelevant. Nothing to learn here... move along."

This^^. A lot of people purposefully or forgetfully on this side are also neglecting a major question - though I suspect I know how it will probably fall out- How would you feel if it was a loved one of yours that was raped/tortured/ murdered by something (I'm prejudiced here) like this?

What 'side' have you decided to put me on?
Your question is irrelevant anyway - I think I know how I would feel, but that does not have any bearing on the fact that the perpetrator is still an actual human being, and not some monster. Naming someone a monster, no matter what the dictionary definition is, sets them apart from so-called civilised society. It adds an air of myth, occasionally of the paranormal to the person in question and ignores the fact that there are things to be learned from every time someone does something so heinous as to be labelled 'monster'.

If someone did this to my loved ones, I'd b angry. I'd want them to be punished. I would also bear in mind that they are a person and hope that someone with the correct expertise would try and ensure lessons are learned from this so as to prevent another family having to deal with something similar. When we call someone monster, we bury our heads and assume they are very rare.

 

[Architect]

Sentencing inevitably has two aspects; a penalty for the crime, and a period for rehabilitation. Different countries place different emphasis on each - the Scandanavian models discussed by other posters previously tend to focus on shorter sentencing, even for serious crimes, with considerable emphasis on rehabilitation. This, they suggested, resulted in lower overall crime rates (specifically re-offending).

I must admit that I have some discomfort at relatively modest (20 year) sentences for murder and similar crimes in the UK, although I note that there are those who committed particularly heinous crimes who are sentenced for much longer. On the other hand, I've not had sufficient time or inclination to look at the Scandanavian evidence and decide whether they might be correct or not.

What I likewise find uncomfortable is the apparent US tendancy to throw away the key at an early juncture, to focus almost exclusively on the penalty aspects. There seems to be no recognition in your post that rehabilitation and re-education might be suffuciently successful to minimise the risk of reoffending for certain crimes (note the caveat) and hence permit release perhaps 30 to 40 years hence.

If the US had low crime rates, of course, then I might see an argument that a very robust sentencing regime had advantages. Alas, this simply doesn't seem to be the case although I'm sure we can expect lots of references to Mexican drug gangs and the like in the imminent future.

On a final note, we also have to remember that crime is very often a symptom of underlying problems. This is not to excuse individuals from their actions, but we have to recognise that - across the industrialised west - we are left with major social inclusion issues, challenges around the breakdwon of the family unit, the "call of the street", and major challenges around poor education. If we are to be successful in reducing crime then we need to look not just at our sentencing and rehabilitation regimes, but also how we stop them occurring. Otherwise we're shutting the gate after the horse has bolted - and perhaps giving it a good whipping to teach it a lesson.

I'm goto flag this up again because not one of the "hang'em'high" brigade has addressed a single substantive point. Even if you disagree with the opening paragraphs, the final one identifies an issue which is of concern across the western industrialised nations.

If society produces brutalised, damaged individuals then society also has to be part of the solution.

 

[dtugg]

I am not sure what there is to address. I don't think that anybody disagrees with the premise that we should try to prevent crimes from happening in the first place. What this has to do with getting rid of the garbage after the fact, I have no idea.

 

[sgtbaker]

I seriously doubt if Randy Dobbs was on medication. Just because you prescribe medication doesn't mean they will take it. Psychiatric patients are known for not taking their meds.

People like the punk in the OP and Randy Dobbs feel great about themselves. Kicking some body after they knock them down gives these kids the same feeling of accomplishment as another more decent kid would get say for winning a trophy for the best model car. Hurting people is what they enjoy doing. Its their hobby.

They resist psychotherapy because it goes against their nature and deprives them of their greatest pleasure. Do you really want someone like this walking around free?

I never said anything about them walking around free. They committed a crime which, they were fully aware was a crime and should be punished according to the law. However, I would venture to guess that neither of the examples just woke up one day with conduct disorder or full on sociopathy (my uneducated opinion). They, more than likely, displayed behavior issues throughout their childhood. With these types of issues, waiting till late teens and early adulthood to treat the disorders, yes, greatly reduces the possibility of success. They would resist treatment and probably not take necessary medication, however, with the likelyhood (based on the assumption of them actually having behavioral issues) of them showing early symptoms, at say 10 or 11, they are more under a parent's control and are more likely to follow through with therapy and/or a prescription regimen, thus giving them a fighting chance to integrate with society. Early intervention is the key but unfortunately, in at least Dobbs case, not enough was being done. I don't know about the other case, yet.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It also allows society to shirk the burden of considering how to identify these kinds of problems before people get hurt or killed, and how not to breed such problematic people in the first place.

Someone rapes, maims, kills ... "oh - it isn't anything anyone could have done anything about - this is not a person like I am - no this is a monster and can therefore be dismissed as irrelevant. Nothing to learn here... move along."

I agree with this.

Threads about heinous crime, capital punishment, and torture have been common on this forum lately. One common theme is treating the accused with disrespect (nevermind whether or not it's warranted). What bothers me about this is the dismissive tone. They're just trash. Get rid of them. Problem solved.

But why does this happen in the first place? Why does one country have much more violent crime than another? Is one country just unlucky? Maybe there's a problem with our criminal justice system. Maybe people who go into our prison are coming out in worse shape. Maybe we should change that.

 

[sgtbaker]

I agree with this.

Threads about heinous crime, capital punishment, and torture have been common on this forum lately. One common theme is treating the accused with disrespect (nevermind whether or not it's warranted). What bothers me about this is the dismissive tone. They're just trash. Get rid of them. Problem solved.

But why does this happen in the first place? Why does one country have much more violent crime than another? Is one country just unlucky? Maybe there's a problem with our criminal justice system. Maybe people who go into our prison are coming out in worse shape. Maybe we should change that.

I remember reading, during the Andrea Yates news story, that the US is the only modernized nation to not recognize post partum psychosis as a real condition. It kind of makes me wonder if we are lagging in other areas, such as early childhood intervention.

In countries with social medicine, is psychiatric care included or does that fall into a different catagory? Perhaps the limitations placed on psychiatric intervention, by insurance companies, plays a part.

 

[Flo]

This^^. A lot of people purposefully or forgetfully on this side are also neglecting a major question - though I suspect I know how it will probably fall out- How would you feel if it was a loved one of yours that was raped/tortured/ murdered by something (I'm prejudiced here) like this?

I know absolutely how I would feel - so I know if someone did and I located it first that it would live a couple of educational days and no trial would be needed. My skill set says the remains would likely not be found either. And, frankly I do not care what it's ife was like, what it's mental state was or anything related - once it does something of that nature it is just a target that can move semirandomly.

Do you really think revenge and adding cruelty to cruelty solves anything and helps a society become more civilised ?

As for the reaction from relative of crime victims, there have been a number of very horrible criminal affairs recently in France, where children or teenagers have been victims of exceptionally vile rapists/murderers (Fourniret, for example, who with the help of his wife has abducted, raped and killed at least a dozen teenager girls, and is playing cat and mouse with justice over a number of cases that haven't been elucidated yet). The baying for blood, torture and death has come from all kinds of people, however none of the families of the victims, who are putting their trust into the judicial authorities. Of course, they've expressed the desire to see those horrible persons being punished to the maximum extent of the law, and to never see the outside of prison. However, I've never heard them rejoicing at the thought of them being ill treated or murdered. Certainly hurting to an extent I cannot fully imagine, but still remaining civil and decent ...

 

[blutoski]

This^^. A lot of people purposefully or forgetfully on this side are also neglecting a major question - though I suspect I know how it will probably fall out- How would you feel if it was a loved one of yours that was raped/tortured/ murdered by something (I'm prejudiced here) like this?

It works both ways, though.

That's why I introduced the malaria side-effect case. The family of the victims understood that the kid didn't attack the victims with understanding of what he's doing. They're treating it as really bad luck for everybody and not blaming somebody who is not really to blame just to get closure.

So, reversing it: if that was my kid who had an unexpected side effect from the malaria tablets, and he ended up getting convicted as if he killed people on purpose, I might think it was very unfair.


Generally speaking, it's precisely because mentally ill people have parents, siblings, and children of their own to speak up for them that the laws take intention into consideration.

A recent example here in Vancouver is a guy who exposed himself on the Library steps while floridly psychotic. He wasn't charged with anything, but was taken into mental health services for treatment. This is his first psychotic episode - last month he was finishing up his PhD.

I think it would be pretty unfair to charge him with public indecency, and this is precisely because I'm a parent, and think about what I'd consider fair if he was my kid who's had this tragic turn of bad luck due to genetics or whatever other combination of biological predispositions.

 

[blutoski]

In countries with social medicine, is psychiatric care included or does that fall into a different catagory? Perhaps the limitations placed on psychiatric intervention, by insurance companies, plays a part.

Speaking for BC in Canada, there is an inventory of diagnoses covered by public funding. Pretty much everything organic: psychosis, mood, eating disorders, mental disability, injuries to the brain, including HIV.

Some support for personality disorders.

It's not a total carte blanche, though. Patients with personality disorders can have their file closed if they're clearly not interested in help (pretty common).

There is monitoring to prevent MSP compensated psychiatrists' cherry-picking out psychotic and personality disordered patients (they're more difficult and have bad prognoses).

There is also the option for a psychiatrist to offer private practice and bill patients directly, but not for diagnoses. This would be therapy or counselling for nondiagnoseable 'issues'.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Putting him away for 40 years.
What will that achieve?
Let me clarify:-
Will it rehabilitate him?
Will it punish him?
Will he even notice?
Will he be sane at the end?
Is he sane to start with?


Alternate suggestion.
Execution by injection of anaesthetic, followed by removal of vital organs for transplant surgery.
Debt to society- to whatever extent possible, repaid.
Debt in terms of 50 years feeding- avoided.

Call me a cynic- but...

Reminds me of an exchange from News Radio:

Jimmy: I'm going to kill Matthew.
Dave: Sir, that won't accomplish anything.
Jimmy: It'll make him dead.

 

[fuelair]

I got a better one for you: Why is this question even the slightest bit relevant?

Got you, you would not care. Thanks, No further input will be needed.

 

[fuelair]

It works both ways, though.

That's why I introduced the malaria side-effect case. The family of the victims understood that the kid didn't attack the victims with understanding of what he's doing. They're treating it as really bad luck for everybody and not blaming somebody who is not really to blame just to get closure.

So, reversing it: if that was my kid who had an unexpected side effect from the malaria tablets, and he ended up getting convicted as if he killed people on purpose, I might think it was very unfair.


Generally speaking, it's precisely because mentally ill people have parents, siblings, and children of their own to speak up for them that the laws take intention into consideration.

A recent example here in Vancouver is a guy who exposed himself on the Library steps while floridly psychotic. He wasn't charged with anything, but was taken into mental health services for treatment. This is his first psychotic episode - last month he was finishing up his PhD.

I think it would be pretty unfair to charge him with public indecency, and this is precisely because I'm a parent, and think about what I'd consider fair if he was my kid who's had this tragic turn of bad luck due to genetics or whatever other combination of biological predispositions.

I agree fully with you on the specific case, it is completely seperate from the type I am speaking of. Someone can dance nude in a fountain and shove snakes in his/her body all day long and I will be undisturbed. My interest is only when other people are harmed. There is no relation, for me, to the two things.

Or, to put it another way. A person is free to have problems and be unhappy about them - I will even sympathise and help where I can (I'm sure this surprises some unhappy with my attitude on this and certain related here, but there are others here who know that is true). But I have no tolerance for people who harm/etc. persons who have done them no harm regardless of the reason.

 

[dtugg]

Do you really think revenge and adding cruelty to cruelty solves anything and helps a society become more civilised ?

As for the reaction from relative of crime victims, there have been a number of very horrible criminal affairs recently in France, where children or teenagers have been victims of exceptionally vile rapists/murderers (Fourniret, for example, who with the help of his wife has abducted, raped and killed at least a dozen teenager girls, and is playing cat and mouse with justice over a number of cases that haven't been elucidated yet). The baying for blood, torture and death has come from all kinds of people, however none of the families of the victims, who are putting their trust into the judicial authorities. Of course, they've expressed the desire to see those horrible persons being punished to the maximum extent of the law, and to never see the outside of prison. However, I've never heard them rejoicing at the thought of them being ill treated or murdered. Certainly hurting to an extent I cannot fully imagine, but still remaining civil and decent ...

If this were me making sure the garbage responsible felt unimaginable pain for the rest its life would make me feel better. Simply because I think bad thing deserve to happen to bad people. And since the subject is a piece of garbage society loses nothing. Now, I don't think this should be state sanctioned, especially in the USA because of that pesky 8th Amendment, but if I were on the jury it would either be not guilty or a hung jury.

ETA: While I would torture and murder somebody who did the same to a family member if I could, if I believed in Hell, I would simply kill him because surely the devil would be a better torturer than I.

ETA II: How uncomfortable does it make those of you who disagree with me that I am not denied the right to own a wide variety of firearms?

 

[sgtbaker]

If this were me making sure the garbage responsible felt unimaginable pain for the rest its life would make me feel better. Simply because I think bad thing deserve to happen to bad people. And since the subject is a piece of garbage society loses nothing. Now, I don't think this should be state sanctioned, especially in the USA because of that pesky 8th Amendment, but if I were on the jury it would either be not guilty or a hung jury.

ETA: While I would torture and murder somebody who did the same to a family member if I could, if I believed in Hell, I would simply kill him because surely the devil would be a better torturer than I.

ETA II: How uncomfortable does it make those of you who disagree with me that I am not denied the right to own a wide variety of firearms?

I understand that desire for revenge, most people feel that the punishment should fit the crime. I certainly can't say that I wouldn't want a part in exacting that revenge on either of the kids talked about here, were they to have murdered someone that I love. However, nothing changes the fact that it's an appeal to emotion and lacks logical footing.

 

[commandlinegamer]

ETA II: How uncomfortable does it make those of you who disagree with me that I am not denied the right to own a wide variety of firearms?

Not uncomfortable at all; 3,000 miles of ocean is a great psychological as well as physical barrier. And living in a country with some of the strictest gun legislation in the world makes me sleep easy at night.

 

[Cainkane1]

Not uncomfortable at all; 3,000 miles of ocean is a great psychological as well as physical barrier. And living in a country with some of the strictest gun legislation in the world makes me sleep easy at night.

It isn't your gun control laws that cut down on crime because illegal guns can and are being smuggled into your country. What keeps you relatively safer is your society which is less violent than ours. Congratulations.