Mother sets fire to her daughter's gloating rapist

[hammer]

Yes, but its still murder.
So, WHO or WHAT gave her that power ?

Okay, you said you would beat that pedophile to pulp, given the same situation. WHO or WHAT gives you that power to do that?

When someone is a threat to your family/kids, you don't stop and ask silly questions like WHO or WHAT gives me power to act. You just act or suffer the consequences.

I used the word 'even' to show she had a decisive edge. nothing more.
Which bystander, cop, lawyer, judge or jury wouldn't give her the benefit of the doubt. You can get into trouble for threatening ppl. You can even get into trouble over beating others up. Does not matter whether you were in the right or not. Better have a good explanation for the judge.

So we are just basically bending the laws to protect ourselves, aren't we? :)

Try again.

If the law fails to punish this lady then it will be doing society a disservice. As to the quantum, i'm easy so long as the message gets through. The dumbest thing she could have done is getting herself into trouble over this thereby depriving her family.

Nothing to try again. I stick to my viewpoint. And as per your last post, the court might do exactly what we have been hoping. Granting her a pardon. Again in a way the public pressure has forced the law to bend and not punish her for all nine years. The govt might yield to the pressure and pardon her. We are not letting her suffer for 9 years by bending the law, aren't we? Which is good.

One year is more than enough. If you ask me, a symbolic one day in jail would've sufficed.

Yeah, ppl have gotten smarter since. All of Europe incld 26 states in the US no longer have a death penalty. Our country is unique, it has laws but chooses when to apply them. Defnitely an up in this case.
Hitler, OBL, Kasab, life not death. Life means real life, sentences running consecutively.

Saddam Hussein? But anyway this is a whole different topic. Lets save it for another time.

Don't commingle war & peace. War is essentially self-defence, kill or be killed or surrender.

Out of context. Was refuting crooks that hypocrisy is one sided. Read my whole post you will understand what I am saying.

[Double Edge]

It is a sad story - with no real winners, I doubt it made anyone happy. Personally, I took an opportunity to vent on this- fueled by some other injustices in my own life that I can't do much about. It was mildly cathartic to imagine torturing and killing a hypothetical pedophile in a fictional circumstance, but the reasonable arguments about why it is wrong are indeed valid. I know from personal experience, killing the rapist often is not a realistic option.

Ah, guess that would explain your position here.

Your earlier posts took me aback and seemed a bit out of character.

[Double Edge]

hammer, does it matter any longer. The court in Span has long since pronounced its verdict. If you still want to play....

Okay, you said you would beat that pedophile to pulp, given the same situation. WHO or WHAT gives you that power to do that?

You equate what i said to murder ? do you not see the difference.

A beating does not always imply kicking someone into a pulp. In hindsight, reckon this would also have been a bad move. Its just lame bravado to claim such. The courts would have been an easier win. The system is rigged to prevent violence wherever necessary.

When someone is a threat to your family/kids, you don't stop and ask silly questions like WHO or WHAT gives me power to act. You just act or suffer the consequences.

The question isn't about acting or not but rather HOW you act.

Did he come up to her house and say that ? no. it was in the street.
Did he stalk her daughter ? no

A valuable advice is you cannot control what ppl say but you are in full control of how you react. That is all it took to make a difference in this case. She did a dumb thing and is prolly why she pleaded temporary insanity.

So we are just basically bending the laws to protect ourselves, aren't we? :)

Only because you equate verbal attacks, physical attacks & murder.

Nothing to try again. I stick to my viewpoint.

If you want to stick to a weak position thats your business, i'd strongly doubt it would withstand scrutiny in a court. Just as well her lawyers did not attempt a defence around it.

And as per your last post, the court might do exactly what we have been hoping. Granting her a pardon. Again in a way the public pressure has forced the law to bend and not punish her for all nine years. The govt might yield to the pressure and pardon her. We are not letting her suffer for 9 years by bending the law, aren't we? Which is good.

But a message has been made to society at large. Was it adequate or not ? dunno. Its very hard to argue how many years she should or not serve. This is why i said i was easy with the quantum of punishment.

One year is more than enough. If you ask me, a symbolic one day in jail would've sufficed.

That would have been a travesty and made a mockery of their justice system.

[bonehead]

Hmm. A smart-assed rapist got to feel the physical burning agony for a couple of weeks before dying of said injuries. His victim and the mother of the victim will feel anguish for the rest of their lives because of what he did. Its the victim and the mother who should be comforted. I am not shedding any tears for the rapist. He still got off easy as far as I am concerned. Anyone who goes after the mother has no clue the lifelong damage, pain, and trauma a rape does to the victim and those close to the victim.

[hammer]

hammer, does it matter any longer. The court in Span has long since pronounced its verdict. If you still want to play....

Play? sorry mate, I didn't think it to be some measuring competition. What I said, I really meant it.

You equate what i said to murder ? do you not see the difference.
The question isn't about acting or not but rather HOW you act.
Only because you equate verbal attacks, physical attacks & murder.

I think I understand where you are coming from, you are more concerned about sanctity of life rather than sanctity of law. Your view against capital punishment conforms with what you are saying here. I guess you wouldn't have had a problem if the lady just kicked his ass and let him live.

A beating does not always imply kicking someone into a pulp. In hindsight, reckon this would also have been a bad move. Its just lame bravado to claim such. The courts would have been an easier win. The system is rigged to prevent violence wherever necessary.

The western system is rigged to provide justice after something bad happens. Our system is much worse and its best left unsaid.

If you want to stick to a weak position thats your business, i'd strongly doubt it would withstand scrutiny in a court. Just as well her lawyers did not attempt a defence around it.

Exactly why I said, am no legal expert. And in my mind, I believe she has done what she has done for the right reasons. And those reasons don't appear weak at least to me.

That would have been a travesty and made a mockery of their justice system.

To each his own. Nothing more to say.

[Double Edge]

Play? sorry mate, I didn't think it to be some measuring competition. What I said, I really meant it.

yeah and you're wrong.

I think I understand where you are coming from, you are more concerned about sanctity of life rather than sanctity of law. Your view against capital punishment conforms with what you are saying here. I guess you wouldn't have had a problem if the lady just kicked his ass and let him live.

How do you justify her killing him. You're the one advocating it, so quit deflecting and dodging the question.

No one has been able to offer a satisfactory answer on that and really doubt you can do better. All i get is emotional reasons, that don't count.

There is no self-defence argument. We know because her lawyers did not use it. If all she had was an insanity plea then that was her best chance of not getting banged up for much longer which would have been a disaster. So the system worked as far as i can tell.

The western system is rigged to provide justice after something bad happens. Our system is much worse and its best left unsaid.

Would she has got a lighter sentence if this occurred in the US ? i doubt it they tout the independence their judiciary has as a virtue. The court in the US would not be easily swayed by public opinion which basically what this thread is about. Populism. Mobocracy, not what a republic is about and the rule of law.

what about India ? It would have become a scandal if political considerations came into it. If the woman & man were of different communites there would have been ever more drama.

Making comparisons between different countries legal systems is very difficult. What metric would you use ? On what basis would you make a comparison. We use common law here, like the commonwealth & US. Spain and the rest of the continent use civil law. So thats two different types of legal systems to be initially reconciled.

At the same time if our system was much worse we would be in chaos. That is the acid test of whether the public has any faith. If things are relatively peaceful then its working. India gets touted positively abroad comparatively speaking when it comes to doing business. This is supposed to be one of our advantages over say China. Our system takes longer thats all. It's better in the south than in the north for serious cases. How it can be improved is a topic in itself.

One thing i found in my travels, everybody thinks their system could be better or is messed up in some way. I bet, a century from now they will still be saying the same. So its all relative which isn't saying much.

Exactly why I said, am no legal expert. And in my mind, I believe she has done what she has done for the right reasons. And those reasons don't appear weak at least to me.

There is no way to argue this. You can stick to it because you 'feel' its right, i'd stick to my position because i 'think' it is.

She broke the law and was convicted. Murder is murder.

[gunnut]

Pfffttt and here's me thinkin it was Homer Simpson who inventid the flaming Mo

The secret ingredient is cough syrup....

Back to topic. I might be late on this, didn't ready through the whole thing, but I see bigross's argument. We don't know for sure what happened. The guy was convicted, but are we 100% sure he was the guy?

Recently a scandal broke in Taiwan. A soldier was convicted of raping and murdering a 5 year old girl 15 years ago. He was executed after confessing to the crime. Recent evidences came out suggesting he had confessed under duress and wrongfully convicted. The real criminal had eluded capture.

TWO innocent lives were ruined. I can see why some people don't believe in the death penalty. We can't reverse it once it's done. We are rarely 100% sure we got the right guy, unless we can catch someone in the act like the Arizona shooter and the Fort Hood shooter.

I hope the mother got the right guy. I really hope so.

[Double Edge]

TWO innocent lives were ruined. I can see why some people don't believe in the death penalty. We can't reverse it once it's done. We are rarely 100% sure we got the right guy, unless we can catch someone in the act like the Arizona shooter and the Fort Hood shooter.

That's actually a lesser reason. The philosophical position is govt shouldn't be allowed to turn citizens into non-citizens by waving some magic wand and strip them of all their rights by executing them, guilty or not.

Give'em life, not death.

Back to topic. I might be late on this, didn't ready through the whole thing,....

I hope the mother got the right guy. I really hope so.

How would you justify it ? Thats the main bone of contention here.

Self-defence is the only valid defence but even her lawyers did not make that case ergo it wasn't sufficient and pleaded temporary insanity instead. So she got nine years, that got commuted to five and ultimately only served a year and 10 days after which they suspended her sentence (based on a petition we are led to understand) so she's free now.

[gunnut]

That's actually a lesser reason. The philosophical position is govt shouldn't be allowed to turn citizens into non-citizens by waving some magic wand and strip them of all their rights by executing them, guilty or not.

Give'em life, not death.

I disagree with this reasoning. They (criminals) took rights away from others and shall suffer the consequences.

How would you justify it ? Thats the main bone of contention here.

Self-defence is the only valid defence but even her lawyers did not make that case ergo it wasn't sufficient and pleaded temporary insanity instead. So she got nine years, that got commuted to five and ultimately only served a year and 10 days after which they suspended here sentence so she's free now.

My justifications are 1. punishment and 2. crime prevention.

[Double Edge]

I disagree with this reasoning. They (criminals) took rights away from others and shall suffer the consequences.

Really, so when did CA carry out its last execution ?

Two wrongs making a right ? This isn't justice its revenge.

And you are ok with empowering govt to do such ?

i don't think they should have such immense power, one advantage of which is you can remedy a wrongful conviction. Your right to life remains inalienable thats the key point. They can strip you of everything else which is also questionable and depends but you live should you choose to do so.

Anyway did not intend for this to become a death penalty debate, already made my case in an earlier thread about that here.

My justifications are 1. punishment and 2. crime prevention.

Who gets to do that ?

You're thinking of it terms of guns here. You can defend yourself if threatened. You would be acting in self-defence.

The guy in this case bumped into her in the street after he was paroled and asked her how her daughter was. She went nuts and set him alight. Where was the self-defence there.

[gunnut]

Really, so when did CA carry out its last execution ?

Currently there is a moratorium on CA death penalty. Something about the drugs being a "danger" to the deathrow inmate. Or some other bullshit.

Two wrongs making a right ?

You assume the 2nd act is an intrisic wrong. Some do not believe so.

This isn't justice its revenge.

Sometimes justice is about revenge. We executed bin Laden. It won't bring the dead back but it showed the world we mean business and it showed bin Laden that his time has run out.

And you are ok with empowering govt to do such ?

No problem at all. Our government is made up of people like me. We do not take a criminal trial lightly. I've sat on a jury that convicted a man of (only) criminal misdemeanor. It wasn't easy to get a unanimous opinion. Unanimous opinion is the only way to convict someone of a criminal act that could impose jail time and in some cases, death.

i don't think they should have such immense power, one advantage of which is you can remedy a wrongful conviction. Your right to life remains inalienable thats the key point. They can strip you of everything else which is also questionable and depends but you live should you choose to do so.

What do you mean by "strip you of everything else?" A criminal doesn't really care about "everything else." What does a convicted rapist, or murderer, or child molester need, or care about? If he was wrongfully convicted, his life is ruined whether he lives or dies. You're OK with the state ruining a man's life forever but not OK with the state killing him? I am OK with both but have a problem with getting the wrong guy. It's the ONLY reservation I have about the death penalty: did we get the right guy?

Who gets to do that ?

We call that our judicial system. He would be convicted by a jury of his peers in a court of law. The judge does not decree him to be innocent or guilty. The jury does.

You're thinking of it terms of guns here. You can defend yourself if threatened. You would be acting in self-defence.

The guy in this case bumped into her in the street after he was parloed and asked her how her daughter was. She went nuts and set him alight. Where was the self-defence there.

I am not against him for defending himself in the attack. He had the right to defend himself. But did he? What did he do after gasoline was poured onto him? What would you do? My first reation would be to get away as fast as possible. My second reaction would be to attack whoever is pouring the flammable liquid, probably by getting as close as possible, preferrably getting him (her in this case) in a bearhug so that we would both be set on fire together. Maybe that would be enough deterrant.

There was not enough information in the news article to determine if he did try to get away. I would not blame him if he defended himself with a weapon. That is the natural reaction and every man's right.

[Double Edge]

Currently there is a moratorium on CA death penalty. Something about the drugs being a "danger" to the deathrow inmate. Or some other bullshit.

Haha, the way you put it does sound like nonsense. Anyway you would know best why your state no longer has a death penalty. The word moratorium implies its temporary, i doubt that. If you make a move like this it tends to endure for long.

You assume the 2nd act is an intrisic wrong. Some do not believe so.

How can it not be if the first was judged so ?

Its not ok if the someone does it but it magically becomes ok if the govt does.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction there.

Sometimes justice is about revenge. We executed bin Laden. It won't bring the dead back but it showed the world we mean business and it showed bin Laden that his time has run out.

I read he struggled and resisted arrest. Others argued he hid behind his wife. No idea if we will know but you have the benefit fo the doubt for now. You are given a choice to surrender or else. If there the choice is there then its better than not. That what this is about. Let them choose.

No problem at all. Our government is made up of people like me. We do not take a criminal trial lightly. I've sat on a jury that convicted a man of (only) criminal misdemeanor. It wasn't easy to get a unanimous opinion. Unanimous opinion is the only way to convict someone of a criminal act that could impose jail time and in some cases, death.

Yes but thats because the law allows this. I'm saying that law is wrong. Not in some flippant way but on the basis of rights, a concept our countries are built on. A concept we hold in high esteem over those that do not. And yet they can vanish entirely if a judge or jury says so, not fair.

What do you mean by "strip you of everything else?" A criminal doesn't really care about "everything else." What does a convicted rapist, or murderer, or child molester need, or care about? If he was wrongfully convicted, his life is ruined whether he lives or dies. You're OK with the state ruining a man's life forever but not OK with the state killing him? I am OK with both but have a problem with getting the wrong guy. It's the ONLY reservation I have about the death penalty: did we get the right guy?

By everything else i mean other rights that we also have ie right to vote etc. Those get stripped away when in prison. We had this debate about the UK as there was a larger contravailing reason to maintain it. The brits wanted to deprive prisoners of those rights, the EHRC said no, so it became a soverignty issue.

I'm not ok with the state ruining a man's life forever, don't know what made you think that.

We call that our judicial system. He would be convicted by a jury of his peers in a court of law. The judge does not decree him to be innocent or guilty. The jury does.

Right, so do you agree she was not justified in murdering him then ?

I am not against him for defending himself in the attack. He had the right to defend himself. But did he? What did he do after gasoline was poured onto him? What would you do? My first reation would be to get away as fast as possible. My second reaction would be to attack whoever is pouring the flammable liquid, probably by getting as close as possible, preferrably getting him (her in this case) in a bearhug so that we would both be set on fire together. Maybe that would be enough deterrant.

There was not enough information in the news article to determine if he did try to get away. I would not blame him if he defended himself with a weapon. That is the natural reaction and every man's right.

He had no chance despite patrons in the restaurant helping him, he died of 60% burns two weeks later. The question then became what do we do with this woman whose daughter was raped by the same guy years earlier and who taunted her.

Question still stands -- was she justified in murdering him ?

[gunnut]

How can it not be if the first was judged so ?

Its not ok if the someone does it but it magically becomes ok if the govt does.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction there.

No contradictions here. It would not be OK for the state to arbitrarily deprive me of my rights, property, or life. It's called due process. Our entire legal system is based on such a concept.

I read he struggled and resisted arrest. Others argued he hid behind his wife. No idea if we will know but you have the benefit fo the doubt for now. You are given a choice to surrender or else. If there the choice is there then its better than not. That what this is about. Let them choose.

Obama administration couldn't get its story straight. I don't believe he resisted. Even if he didn't, I wouldn't be surprised if the order was to kill on sight. He's too much trouble alive. Besides, he declared war on us. Would you give a trial to an enemy soldier on battle field? Would you give a trial to a captured enemy soldier?

Yes but thats because the law allows this. I'm saying that law is wrong. Not in some flippant way but on the basis of rights, a concept our countries are built on. A concept we hold in high esteem over those that do not. And yet they can vanish entirely if a judge or jury says so, not fair.

How do you punish someone without taking away something from him? Jailing is to deprive freedom of movement. Fine is to deprive of monetary possession. People used to hack off limbs. In fact, some still do.

By everything else i mean other rights that we also have ie right to vote etc. Those get stripped away when in prison. We had this debate about the UK as there was a larger contravailing reason to maintain it. The brits wanted to deprive prisoners of those rights, the EHRC said no, so it became a soverignty issue.

On the one hand you don't want to take away someone's rights, on the other hand you want to take away someone's rights. I am confused.

I'm not ok with the state ruining a man's life forever, don't know what made you think that.

Jailing a wrongfully convicted man for 20 years and then release him with an "oops!" That happens here and I hope those men sue the hell out of the state. Their entire adult lives were over. You can't give the man 20 years of freedom back.

Right, so do you agree she was not justified in murdering him then ?

I wouldn't say it's murder. More like a revenge or a crime of passion. Some would claim temporary insanity.

He had no chance despite patrons in the restaurant helping him, he died of 60% burns two weeks later. The question then became what do we do with this woman whose daughter was raped by the same guy years earlier and who taunted her.

Question still stands -- was she justified in murdering him ?

If she got the right guy, it would be revenge. If the man was innocent, then it's murder.

We have something in between murder and self-defense. It's voluntary man-slaughter. I would say she's guilty of that. Not murder though.

[hammer]

yeah and you're wrong.

sue me.

How do you justify her killing him. You're the one advocating it, so quit deflecting and dodging the question.

Because she could. What did I advocate? What question? I think you are running around in circles like a dog chasing its own tail. You keep asking the same questions again and again in spite of me answering is not gonna put you on some imaginary moral high ground. It rather sounds silly.

Don't even harp about the sanctity of law. Coz you yourself were suggesting that the lady could've concocted a story and send the guy back to the prison. You also mentioned you would've hurt the guy, had you been in that situation. So don't ever harp on the sanctity of law again on this thread.

No one has been able to offer a satisfactory answer on that and really doubt you can do better. All i get is emotional reasons, that don't count.

You are not the judge and the jury and I am not the lawyer representing the lady. So chill out. And, I really don't care if it doesn't count.

There is no self-defence argument. We know because her lawyers did not use it.

I keep repeating that whatever I say is not based on any legal book. According to "me", its a good enough self-defence argument and she is no criminal in my book. Kapish? I didn't expect her lawyers to use this argument.
You feel there is no self-defence argument as per your beliefs and the legal system? Fair enough. Believe what you want. Its a free country.

So the system worked as far as i can tell.

The lady might get released in a year or so for murdering a guy. The law has an excuse to bend. Its called "Pardon". In "your" perfect world, she should've been incarcerated for 9 years for murder. You sure the system worked?

There is no way to argue this. You can stick to it because you 'feel' its right, i'd stick to my position because i 'think' it is.
She broke the law and was convicted. Murder is murder.

According to me, she ain't a criminal. Period.

[tim52]

Back to topic. I might be late on this, didn't ready through the whole thing, but I see bigross's argument. We don't know for sure what happened. The guy was convicted, but are we 100% sure he was the guy?

Recently a scandal broke in Taiwan. A soldier was convicted of raping and murdering a 5 year old girl 15 years ago. He was executed after confessing to the crime. Recent evidences came out suggesting he had confessed under duress and wrongfully convicted. The real criminal had eluded capture.

TWO innocent lives were ruined. I can see why some people don't believe in the death penalty. We can't reverse it once it's done. We are rarely 100% sure we got the right guy, unless we can catch someone in the act like the Arizona shooter and the Fort Hood shooter.

I hope the mother got the right guy. I really hope so.

I don't know who you are sir but I want gunnut released immediately.