“They’re young adults. And they make stupid decisions,” Duffin said. “That certainly will be part of whether or not we seek a hate crime to determine whether this is sincere or just stupid ranting and raving.”
However, you should read the rest:
Investigators were also looking at whether the victim was targeted for his race or, instead, he was targeted for his mental health challenges. Under Illinois law, it is a hate crime to commit battery on someone due to a physical or mental disability as well as their race.
These "kids" are in serious trouble. Let's watch the charges get filed before calling out the police, please.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: So when is the bus leaving for the protests shutting down local interstates and burning down neighborhoods that had nothing to do with it?
I am (hopefully) going to do a little USPSA shooting tonight. Can I count that towards my rioting scholastic requirements? Also I'll be driving an M4 in April for my birthday, can I count that too?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: So when is the bus leaving for the protests shutting down local interstates and burning down neighborhoods that had nothing to do with it?
I thought your side was better than the untermensch?
Frazzled wrote: Also I'll be driving an M4 in April for my birthday, can I count that too?
Jordan Hill, 18; Tesfaye Cooper; 18; Brittany Covington, 18; and Tanishia Covington, 24, have each been charged with hate crime, felony aggravated kidnapping, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Hill, Cooper and Brittany Covington also face charges of residential burglary. Hill also faces charges of possession of a stolen motor vehicle.
Personally I think 'hate crimes' are stupid, making the thought/motivation a crime in itself especially when the actions are crimes with pretty hefty penalties. I don't care if race/hate were the motivation, I care they kidnapped and hurt some poor kid who had no way to defend himself.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: So when is the bus leaving for the protests shutting down local interstates and burning down neighborhoods that had nothing to do with it?
We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
But the van to go protest on the freeway is leaving in 20 minutes.
...charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, residential burgerly and robbery.
"Lets do a stupid thing, then double down on the stupid and videotape it as evidence.Then lets quadruple down on the stupid with a livestream on Facebook of us doing the stupid thing".
I would posit that the least mentally disabled person involved in this incident would be the victim.
If this went down the way its claimed, nothing of value will be lost if these people spend a nice looooooooong time away from society.
...charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, residential burgerly and robbery.
Good. I couldn't wrap my head around how this wasn't a hate crime. Hope those gaks enjoy prison.
...charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, residential burgerly and robbery.
Like the Mannequin Challenge posted on facebook which lead to weapons charges and the arrests of 2-3 people.
That was awesomely dumb.
Edit: I still can't believe Bundy's federal squatters got off Scott-free...
Edit 2: For clarity, I'm not comparing the 2 directly. I was just thinking of a time when dumbasses recorded themselves being dumbasses and somehow got a dumbass jury.
It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
You just wrote SJW. I rest my case.
I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
You just wrote SJW. I rest my case.
I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
That's because a hurtful tweet or criticising a political-religious movement is not a hate crime by any sane standard; torturing a young man for hours because of his race and assumed political party while saying "Feth white people" and "Feth Trump" and making sure everyone knew it is.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
You just wrote SJW. I rest my case.
I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
Hrmph... well then, I feel like I need to respond.
A) I haven't advocated for those 4 to be charged with hate crimes.
B) I despise hate crimes laws, as it attempts to assess intent/motivations when determining additional punishment.
C) We already have laws making it illegal to kidnap, assault, steal, etc...
D) However, APPLY THE LAW OF THE LAND EQUALLY... if this act didn't constitute as a 'hate crime' as defined by Illinois' statute, then nothing is ever a hate crime.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
You just wrote SJW. I rest my case.
I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
You just wrote SJW. I rest my case.
I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
Hrmph... well then, I feel like I need to respond.
A) I haven't advocated for those 4 to be charged with hate crimes.
B) I despise hate crimes laws, as it attempts to assess intent/motivations when determining additional punishment.
C) We already have laws making it illegal to kidnap, assault, steal, etc...
D) However, APPLY THE LAW OF THE LAND EQUALLY... if this act didn't constitute as a 'hate crime' as defined by Illinois' statute, then nothing is ever a hate crime.
Wasn't actually directed at you (I was actually now aware of your view on them), this is more being entertained by the hypocrisy on reddit and elsewhere by the "I'm not racist, but-" people.
Although, I have a question to ask, now that I know. Are you OK with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter having different sentencing?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
You just wrote SJW. I rest my case.
I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
Hrmph... well then, I feel like I need to respond.
A) I haven't advocated for those 4 to be charged with hate crimes.
B) I despise hate crimes laws, as it attempts to assess intent/motivations when determining additional punishment.
C) We already have laws making it illegal to kidnap, assault, steal, etc...
D) However, APPLY THE LAW OF THE LAND EQUALLY... if this act didn't constitute as a 'hate crime' as defined by Illinois' statute, then nothing is ever a hate crime.
Wasn't actually directed at you (I was actually now aware of your view on them), this is more being entertained by the hypocrisy on reddit and elsewhere by the "I'm not racist, but-" people.
Ah... I see. Apologies then.
Although, I have a question to ask, now that I know. Are you OK with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter having different sentencing?
Sure.
Keep in mind that there are the same sort of "tiers" with respect to other infractions. For instance, in most jurisdictions, there are different sentencing guidelines between 'assault' and 'aggrevated assault'... likewise, 'robbery' and 'armed robbery'.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
You just wrote SJW. I rest my case.
I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
Hrmph... well then, I feel like I need to respond.
A) I haven't advocated for those 4 to be charged with hate crimes.
B) I despise hate crimes laws, as it attempts to assess intent/motivations when determining additional punishment.
C) We already have laws making it illegal to kidnap, assault, steal, etc...
D) However, APPLY THE LAW OF THE LAND EQUALLY... if this act didn't constitute as a 'hate crime' as defined by Illinois' statute, then nothing is ever a hate crime.
Wasn't actually directed at you (I was actually now aware of your view on them), this is more being entertained by the hypocrisy on reddit and elsewhere by the "I'm not racist, but-" people.
Ah... I see. Apologies then.
Although, I have a question to ask, now that I know. Are you OK with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter having different sentencing?
Sure.
Keep in mind that there are the same sort of "tiers" with respect to other infractions. For instance, in most jurisdictions, there are different sentencing guidelines between 'assault' and 'aggrevated assault'... likewise, 'robbery' and 'armed robbery'.
So is this. The law regards the motivation of the crime as an additional aggravating factor. How is the law not applied equations all? Everyone is equally protected by this.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Personally, I'm in favour of giving them a nice sunny wall to stand in front of. And a cigarette.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I am glad the four of them were so stupid to post it on Facebook.
This election really brought out the worst in people :(
No, these people were going to be gak bags regardless of the election and its outcome. Th outcome just gave them something to add to their diatribe as they screwed up some poor guy.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Personally, I'm in favour of giving them a nice sunny wall to stand in front of. And a cigarette.
Perhaps a blindfold to keep the sun out of their eyes?
Frazzled wrote: This is some major F'd up behavior and racism.
I have to agree here - this is actual straight racism
I assume they would have turned to crime in the future and would have been locked up eventually. I'm also glad they livestreamed this instead of torturing the poor guy and dumping him in the city.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
You just wrote SJW. I rest my case.
I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
Hrmph... well then, I feel like I need to respond.
A) I haven't advocated for those 4 to be charged with hate crimes.
B) I despise hate crimes laws, as it attempts to assess intent/motivations when determining additional punishment.
C) We already have laws making it illegal to kidnap, assault, steal, etc...
D) However, APPLY THE LAW OF THE LAND EQUALLY... if this act didn't constitute as a 'hate crime' as defined by Illinois' statute, then nothing is ever a hate crime.
Wasn't actually directed at you (I was actually now aware of your view on them), this is more being entertained by the hypocrisy on reddit and elsewhere by the "I'm not racist, but-" people.
Ah... I see. Apologies then.
Although, I have a question to ask, now that I know. Are you OK with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter having different sentencing?
Sure.
Keep in mind that there are the same sort of "tiers" with respect to other infractions. For instance, in most jurisdictions, there are different sentencing guidelines between 'assault' and 'aggrevated assault'... likewise, 'robbery' and 'armed robbery'.
So is this. The law regards the motivation of the crime as an additional aggravating factor. How is the law not applied equations all? Everyone is equally protected by this.
If I understand correctly, the degrees of murder and assault focus on whether or not prior intent or planning existed, not the reason why. Hate crime laws focus on the reasoning behind the motivation, not whether or not intent existed. So they are different. A person could certainly be okay with one and not the other.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Damikeis wrote: We learned from the SJWs not to protest on interstates.
You just wrote SJW. I rest my case.
I'm just entertained about the same people who always complain about hate-crime laws not complaining about their use here (in the internet in general, not Dakka [yet]).
Hrmph... well then, I feel like I need to respond.
A) I haven't advocated for those 4 to be charged with hate crimes.
B) I despise hate crimes laws, as it attempts to assess intent/motivations when determining additional punishment.
C) We already have laws making it illegal to kidnap, assault, steal, etc...
D) However, APPLY THE LAW OF THE LAND EQUALLY... if this act didn't constitute as a 'hate crime' as defined by Illinois' statute, then nothing is ever a hate crime.
Wasn't actually directed at you (I was actually now aware of your view on them), this is more being entertained by the hypocrisy on reddit and elsewhere by the "I'm not racist, but-" people.
Ah... I see. Apologies then.
Although, I have a question to ask, now that I know. Are you OK with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter having different sentencing?
Sure.
Keep in mind that there are the same sort of "tiers" with respect to other infractions. For instance, in most jurisdictions, there are different sentencing guidelines between 'assault' and 'aggrevated assault'... likewise, 'robbery' and 'armed robbery'.
So is this. The law regards the motivation of the crime as an additional aggravating factor. How is the law not applied equations all? Everyone is equally protected by this.
If I understand correctly, the degrees of murder and assault focus on whether or not prior intent or planning existed, not the reason why. Hate crime laws focus on the reasoning behind the motivation, not whether or not intent existed. So they are different. A person could certainly be okay with one and not the other.
Has anyone seen the mugshots of these upstanding citizens? My God, they actually look proud. The men have their chins up with their best "thug life" look on their faces.
People who would feel any shame for what they did probably wouldn't have livestreamed it in the first place.
These are grade-A dumb people about to spend the best years of their lives in prison with no real future to look forward to at this point. Looking hard is probably their smartest career move at this point.
Vaktathi wrote: People who would feel any shame for what they did probably wouldn't have livestreamed it in the first place.
I got the impression that the Livestreaming was accidental. One of the girls was recording it and then noticed she was live, but continued anyway.
These are grade-A dumb people about to spend the best years of their lives in prison with no real future to look forward to at this point. Looking hard is probably their smartest career move at this point.
Agreed. If I was facing decades of life in prison I'd do my best to look hard as possible, too.
Keep in mind that there are the same sort of "tiers" with respect to other infractions. For instance, in most jurisdictions, there are different sentencing guidelines between 'assault' and 'aggrevated assault'... likewise, 'robbery' and 'armed robbery'.
But the difference there is not the same as the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Robbery and Armed Robbery are differentiated by solid physical evidence, whether the suspect had a weapon, same with assault and aggravated assault. The distinction between murder 1, murder 2 and manslaughter does not entirely depend on what killed the victim (you can commit all of them with a gun, for example) but the intention and reasoning of the victims actions, much in the same way as hate crime legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its essentially a thought crime, criminalizing thoughts and motives. Which is inherently absurd and distinctly Orwellian.
The same applies to the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder which is entirely about premeditating. So thinking about killing your wife and then doing it how you thought carries a harsher sentence than just killing your wife without having previously thought about how you'd do it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its essentially a thought crime, criminalizing thoughts and motives. Which is inherently absurd and distinctly Orwellian.
It isn't a thought crime because you can't be punished only for having the thoughts. If you hate someone but don't commit any other offense you won't be punished under hate crime laws. What hate crime laws are meant to do is account for the intimidation factor, the implied "and you're next" directed at everyone like the victim. It's the same reason why "normal" murder and terrorism are treated as separate crimes, instead of something like 9/11 being nothing more than a lot of first degree murder charges.
Keep in mind that there are the same sort of "tiers" with respect to other infractions. For instance, in most jurisdictions, there are different sentencing guidelines between 'assault' and 'aggrevated assault'... likewise, 'robbery' and 'armed robbery'.
But the difference there is not the same as the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Robbery and Armed Robbery are differentiated by solid physical evidence, whether the suspect had a weapon, same with assault and aggravated assault. The distinction between murder 1, murder 2 and manslaughter does not entirely depend on what killed the victim (you can commit all of them with a gun, for example) but the intention and reasoning of the victims actions, much in the same way as hate crime legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its essentially a thought crime, criminalizing thoughts and motives. Which is inherently absurd and distinctly Orwellian.
The same applies to the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder which is entirely about premeditating. So thinking about killing your wife and then doing it how you thought carries a harsher sentence than just killing your wife without having previously thought about how you'd do it.
That's because premeditated murder usually carries a large degree of malicious forethought on the killers part. Crimes of passion (which is what a lot of second-degree murder cases involve) are usually done in "the heat of the moment".
That's a big reason why first degree murder carries heavier penalties and (depending on the jurisdiction) fall under the classification of "capital murder" (i.e. has the possibility of carrying a death sentence).
That's because premeditated murder usually carries a large degree of malicious forethought on the killers part. Crimes of passion (which is what a lot of second-degree murder cases involve) are usually done in "the heat of the moment".
That's a big reason why first degree murder carries heavier penalties and (depending on the jurisdiction) fall under the classification of "capital murder" (i.e. has the possibility of carrying a death sentence).
And attacking someone for the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation also carries a large degree of malice aforethought. Most people do not suddenly decide "that person is black so I'll beat them up/kill them", they will have entertained the idea and malice towards black people for some time before actually committing the act. So the main difference is that hate crime malice is potentially directed at a much larger group of people and than the malice of first degree murder, which makes it potentially more dangerous as it cares less who its target is.
oldravenman3025 wrote: That's because premeditated murder usually carries a large degree of malicious forethought on the killers part. Crimes of passion (which is what a lot of second-degree murder cases involve) are usually done in "the heat of the moment".
Yes, that's kind of the point here. The difference depends not on the physical evidence or facts of the crime, but on the killer's personal thoughts before committing it. If hate crime laws are "thought crime" then so is the difference between first and second degree murder.
oldravenman3025 wrote: That's because premeditated murder usually carries a large degree of malicious forethought on the killers part. Crimes of passion (which is what a lot of second-degree murder cases involve) are usually done in "the heat of the moment".
Yes, that's kind of the point here. The difference depends not on the physical evidence or facts of the crime, but on the killer's personal thoughts before committing it. If hate crime laws are "thought crime" then so is the difference between first and second degree murder.
My understanding is the difference is motive vs intent.
1st degree vs 2nd degree is a difference in intent.
Hate crime vs not hate crime is a difference in motive.
You can support varying punishment for varying intent (1st degree murder vs 2nd degree) without supporting varying punishment for varying motive (hate crime vs not a hate crime).
It's like murdering your wife for not making you a sandwich vs sleeping with your best friend (motive) or murdering your wife in the heat of passion for not making you a sandwich vs planning weeks in advance that you'd kill her for not making you a sandwich (intent).
Personally I think motive is important, but not something we should be building laws around but intent is, ie. it doesn't matter if you were motivated by the sandwich or infidelity to kill your wide, but it does matter that you planned in advance to kill her.
Intent is more solid ground to stand on and if you can prove malicious intent then I don't think it's necessary to try and legislate based on motive which are murkier depths and more prone to bias rather than evenly applying the law.
But I'm not a lawyer so maybe I have the terminology wrong.
oldravenman3025 wrote: That's because premeditated murder usually carries a large degree of malicious forethought on the killers part. Crimes of passion (which is what a lot of second-degree murder cases involve) are usually done in "the heat of the moment".
Yes, that's kind of the point here. The difference depends not on the physical evidence or facts of the crime, but on the killer's personal thoughts before committing it. If hate crime laws are "thought crime" then so is the difference between first and second degree murder.
My understanding is the difference is motive vs intent.
1st degree vs 2nd degree is a difference in intent.
Hate crime vs not hate crime is a difference in motive.
You can support varying punishment for varying intent (1st degree murder vs 2nd degree) without supporting varying punishment for varying motive (hate crime vs not a hate crime).
It's like murdering your wife for not making you a sandwich vs sleeping with your best friend (motive) or murdering your wife in the heat of passion for not making you a sandwich vs planning weeks in advance that you'd kill her for not making you a sandwich (intent).
Personally I think motive is important, but not something we should be building laws around but intent is, ie. it doesn't matter if you were motivated by the sandwich or infidelity to kill your wide, but it does matter that you planned in advance to kill her.
But I'm not a lawyer so maybe I have the terminology wrong.
But then the difference between murder 2 and voluntary manslaughter can come down to motive. Starting a bar fight and killing a guy in the heat of it = 2nd degree murder Starting a bar fight after you discover a guy was sleeping with your wife and killing him in the heat of it = voluntary manslaughter.
So in your examples killing your wife for not making a sandwich would be 2nd degree murder for sure whereas killing her for sleeping with your best friend could be voluntary manslaughter (provided you did it pretty much immediately upon finding out so didn't have time to cool off).
A Town Called Malus wrote: But then the difference between murder 2 and voluntary manslaughter can come down to motive. Starting a bar fight and killing a guy in the heat of it = 2nd degree murder Starting a bar fight after you discover a guy was sleeping with your wife and killing him in the heat of it = voluntary manslaughter.
So in your examples killing your wife for not making a sandwich would be 2nd degree murder for sure whereas killing her for sleeping with your best friend could be voluntary manslaughter (provided you did it pretty much immediately upon finding out so didn't have time to cool off).
Mmmm, I guess that's true to an extent but I still think it's different enough from "hate crimes" to not necessarily draw a parallel.
My understanding is involuntary manslaughter is a concession to the fact humans are emotional beings and that is used somewhat as justification and thus reduces the sentence.
It's not really the same as saying someone's crime is worse because they did it because of the victim's skin colour rather than because they didn't like the way the victim looked at them.
If you torture someone, does it really matter that you tortured them because of the colour of their skin or because they looked at you funny? I don't think it does really. To say it's worse because it was racially or politically motivated is to simultaneously say that someone who was tortured for no reason what has somehow had less of a crime committed against them.
oldravenman3025 wrote: That's because premeditated murder usually carries a large degree of malicious forethought on the killers part. Crimes of passion (which is what a lot of second-degree murder cases involve) are usually done in "the heat of the moment".
Yes, that's kind of the point here. The difference depends not on the physical evidence or facts of the crime, but on the killer's personal thoughts before committing it. If hate crime laws are "thought crime" then so is the difference between first and second degree murder.
Not really. To prove 1st degree generally the prosecution has to show actions proving premeditation. The actions of going out to buy a barrel of acid, duct tape, plastic sheeting, writing a blog post declaring your intent or so on. Going well outside your normal route/pattern to commit the murder. Asking your buddy for a gun so you can go cap someone. Actions. If they can't prove the premeditation by showing actions the perp committed, the jury generally won't convict on the charge of 1st Degree. It is the actions, not thoughts, that make it premeditation in most cases.
In addition one of the suspects had demanded $300 from the victim’s mother for his return.
More info how the victim escaped.... evidently a downstairs neighbor heard the fighting and threatened to call the police. Two of the suspects went to the neighbor’s door and broke it down. That apparently was when the victim was able to get away.
I'm assuming the neighbor is the one who called the police.
Hopefully these scumbags end up picking up a LOT of soap in prison. Beating up a disabled person will make them really popular in prison, either as punching bags or... well, use your imagination.
I can't believe the restraint from the kid's family. My wife and I are both people of faith, but I can't imagine my response if anything like this ever happened to our son... Godspeed to them all and the boy's healing.
Realistically, I think that they will get somewhere around a 12 year sentence. That means they could be eligible for parole in 6 years. My best bet anyway.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At least it took until page 3 for the rape-revenge fantasies to start. I guess we're improving.
I believe you mispelled justice.
Not a fantasy. More a shrug and leave the jail to it.
Just separate jails. Wait till what they did is found out and whatever happens happens.
Even people In prision. Some things even among convicted criminals is considered low and wrong. A theif is one thing.
A torturer of a disabled person.. That's pretty damn low.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It's terrible, and from what I read, the victim is seriously affected. Those men are a danger to society and should be locked away for a very long time imo.
Personally, I'm in favour of giving them a nice sunny wall to stand in front of. And a cigarette.
Perhaps a blindfold to keep the sun out of their eyes?
If they'd like. I'm not vindictive. (But I do want to be 100% sure they'll never do something like this again.)
timetowaste85 wrote: Sigh, it was a joke. Anyway, yeah, I'm sure prison-justice will do something about this and these 4 won't hurt anyone ever again.
Or make them bitter and instil more mental illness and more likely to reoffend when they get out.
There psychopaths already. Already gone from thought to acting upon torture. They already crossed that line. They did it..
Someone may think bad things.. Everyone does. But however. They do not act upon them. however they went the hell of the way and did it.
They need locking up for publics own safety. What happens in jail is there fault for doing such a savage crime.
Unless you're trying to suggest they'll get murdered in jail or debilitated beyond functioning, they'll probably be out roaming the streets again in a few years.
And I'd say that attitude is one of many things wrong with the US prison system
I'm not trying to defend the actions of these people, but they are still *people* and unless they get life sentences they are going to be reintegrated in to society at some point.
If I recall all of them were over eighteen so I doubt that any of them will be out "in a few years" as they are considered adults for trial and sentencing. Considering the charges and evidence they won''t be out of prison for quite some time.
Make a recording of the victim impact statement of the victim and his family.
Play that recording in their cells on a loop for an hour, twice a day, in the morning and before curfew, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Force them to watch it.
Give them copies of the victims family albums and home videos.
Keep them in regular solitary, and severely restrict their access to luxuries. Relaxation of these conditions will be subject to long term good behaviour and psychological rehabilitation.
Force them to really get to know their victim and his family, and the effect their actions had on them. Let them stew on what they've done until the day they're released.
None of them should be permitted to ever walk free until they've repented. (As in, become remorseful for what they did, not in the religious sense).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At least it took until page 3 for the rape-revenge fantasies to start. I guess we're improving.
I believe you mispelled justice.
Extra-judicial justive, because for some reason your judicial system is unable to inflict justice in a non-hypocritical way? Why is that? I really wonder, why do you think that "cruel and unusual punishment" such as, uh, corrective rape, are explicitely forbidden by law?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At least it took until page 3 for the rape-revenge fantasies to start. I guess we're improving.
I believe you mispelled justice.
Have an exalt you beautiful person.
I wonder though, since those who attack children are widely considered to be scum even in prison, if it wouldn't be worth announcing to general population that these people fethed with a kid. They go to prison which satisfies the law, prison takes care of the rest, which satisfies the people.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At least it took until page 3 for the rape-revenge fantasies to start. I guess we're improving.
I believe you mispelled justice.
Extra-judicial justive, because for some reason your judicial system is unable to inflict justice in a non-hypocritical way? Why is that? I really wonder, why do you think that "cruel and unusual punishment" such as, uh, corrective rape, are explicitely forbidden by law?
Corrective rape? I damn near fell out of my chair laughing, thinking about a judge in this country sentencing someone to it. It also put in mind an image of the state's rapist being called to perform the duty.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At least it took until page 3 for the rape-revenge fantasies to start. I guess we're improving.
I believe you mispelled justice.
Extra-judicial justive, because for some reason your judicial system is unable to inflict justice in a non-hypocritical way? Why is that? I really wonder, why do you think that "cruel and unusual punishment" such as, uh, corrective rape, are explicitely forbidden by law?
Corrective rape? I damn near fell out of my chair laughing, thinking about a judge in this country sentencing someone to it. It also put in mind an image of the state's rapist being called to perform the duty.
"Mr.Slippyfist-happypants, your government needs your services..."
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At least it took until page 3 for the rape-revenge fantasies to start. I guess we're improving.
I believe you mispelled justice.
Extra-judicial justive, because for some reason your judicial system is unable to inflict justice in a non-hypocritical way? Why is that? I really wonder, why do you think that "cruel and unusual punishment" such as, uh, corrective rape, are explicitely forbidden by law?
Corrective rape? I damn near fell out of my chair laughing, thinking about a judge in this country sentencing someone to it. It also put in mind an image of the state's rapist being called to perform the duty.
"Mr.Slippyfist-happypants, your government needs your services..."
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At least it took until page 3 for the rape-revenge fantasies to start. I guess we're improving.
I believe you mispelled justice.
Have an exalt you beautiful person.
I wonder though, since those who attack children are widely considered to be scum even in prison, if it wouldn't be worth announcing to general population that these people fethed with a kid. They go to prison which satisfies the law, prison takes care of the rest, which satisfies the people.
Good enough for me, although if they are killed in a prison incident too soon it'll be too good for them.
