Well this is sad, Mom tells police ''DEVIL'' made her do it.

[Aurian]

Awful woman. She should be locked up for life.

 

[Flagius]

This woman neads to be exacuted A.S.A.P! Psycho MOM in San Antonio EATS her childs BRAINS & MORE! http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/2-week-old_baby_stabbed_to_death.html I can't imagine what the scene was like when the cops got there.

I agree, she should be exacuted immediately. To the gawllos!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

We can dream, can't we?

No. Dreams are forbidden in these lands.

There goes my Cindy Crawford harem.

So you'd have dozens of clones of Cindy Crawford? Kinda creepy when you think about it, especially when all those moles start following you around the room.

Wait, what was this topic about again? Oh, right. Carry on.

 

[JuanBolio]

Justice? No. Natural selection? Yes.

It's got nothing to do with natural selection, sorry. Not a single solitary thing; that's a really lame suggestion.

Now, the fact that she's a child-murderer does play into natural selection, since her behavior is not conducive to passing on her genetic heritage - a tendency to kill your own prepubescent children pretty much writes you out of the Book of Life.

The eventual execution of the woman, doubtless years or decades after she's been effectively removed from the breeding population, has a negligable limiting effect on her genetic impact on future generations. She's had her children, killed them, and due to the likely severity of any non-death sentence will almost certainly never have the opportunity to breed again. Even if she does, circumstances dictate that any offspring will be pretty disadvantaged in the competition for resources and mates.

If people get off on the idea of killing "bad people" that's one thing - but they should not throw around terminology like "natural selection" without thinking a little bit about what it means.

Oh, but I did. As long as she's alive she's a potential breeder. Death is the only 100% effective solution to that, short of hollowing her out. And not only is killing one's offspring an undesirable genetic trait, but being the sort of person who hears the devil commanding you to do things isn't exactly great for humanity either. People like that gave us organized religion.

No, you won't. Executions always end up costing more money.

Not if you do them the quick and dirty way. This could easily be employed when the guilt of the defendant is not in question in any way. Saves money, saves time. Why should our tax dollars go to keep people like her alive, fed, and sheltered one minute longer than necessary?

 

[Kelthaz]

If people would read the article they would see that she not only confessed and made no attempt to hide her crime, but stabbed herself twice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like the act of a sane person to me. She deserves psychiatric help, not a bullet through the head.

 

[JuanBolio]

If people would read the article they would see that she not only confessed and made no attempt to hide her crime, but stabbed herself twice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like the act of a sane person to me. She deserves psychiatric help, not a bullet through the head.

A bullet through the head is simpler and less expensive, and guarantees an effect that psychiatric therapy can only HOPE to achieve - namely making the monster GONE.

 

[miraclefan]

Cant belive I agree with ''JuanBolio'' on this.

 

[JuanBolio]

Cant belive I agree with ''JuanBolio'' on this.

I make a lot of sense most of the time.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

If people would read the article they would see that she not only confessed and made no attempt to hide her crime, but stabbed herself twice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like the act of a sane person to me. She deserves psychiatric help, not a bullet through the head.

A bullet through the head is simpler and less expensive, and guarantees an effect that psychiatric therapy can only HOPE to achieve - namely making the monster GONE.

So we should kill mentally handicap people that kill other people as well?

 

[StolenThunder]

This woman neads to be exacuted A.S.A.P!

Ah yes. Something we definitely want to rush into.

 

[JuanBolio]

If people would read the article they would see that she not only confessed and made no attempt to hide her crime, but stabbed herself twice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like the act of a sane person to me. She deserves psychiatric help, not a bullet through the head.

A bullet through the head is simpler and less expensive, and guarantees an effect that psychiatric therapy can only HOPE to achieve - namely making the monster GONE.

So we should kill mentally handicap people that kill other people as well?

Sure. I have no problem with allowing crazy/retarded people to exist and to attempt to help them as long as they harm no one. Once they start killing, though, especially if its not accidental... what's the point?

 

[miraclefan]

A bullet through the head is simpler and less expensive, and guarantees an effect that psychiatric therapy can only HOPE to achieve - namely making the monster GONE.

So we should kill mentally handicap people that kill other people as well?

Sure. I have no problem with allowing crazy/retarded people to exist and to attempt to help them as long as they harm no one. Once they start killing, though, especially if its not accidental... what's the point?

I would have used a more ''PC'' name for retarded, But other then that I compleatly AGREE! (If I'm agreeing with ''Bolio'' I need my HEAD examined!)

 

[Peach Wookiee]

What I wonder is how no one noticed she wasn't mentally right...

 

[Jayson]

A bullet through the head is simpler and less expensive, and guarantees an effect that psychiatric therapy can only HOPE to achieve - namely making the monster GONE.

So we should kill mentally handicap people that kill other people as well?

Sure. I have no problem with allowing crazy/retarded people to exist and to attempt to help them as long as they harm no one. Once they start killing, though, especially if its not accidental... what's the point?

It's imoral though to kill people who don't have any control over their actions. I mean the whole point of murdering killers, and rapist and pedophiles should be added to this list of people who deserve to be killed, is that the victim gets justice over someone who knownly hurt them and didn't have the human decency to not hurt them. There is no justice in killing someone who is so fucked up in the head that they are basically forced into doing horrible things, that i'm sure that they can't even understand why they are doing them. Even if we did this for pratical reasons I don't want the government killing people just because it's pratical. Murder should only be done, when it's the moral thing to do or self-defense, which I guess also fits under the moral clause as well.

Jason

 

[Jayson]

What I wonder is how no one noticed she wasn't mentally right...

They might have, butthey didn't knowjust how bad it was. I mean I have OCD and I can explain it to people but in the end it's hard to really grasp what is going on inside another human beings mind. Also it's possible that "Satan" wasn't talking to her, until recently. That might have been something that was new to her.

Jason

 

[JuanBolio]

I would have used a more ''PC'' name for retarded

Your choice... but that's what they are.

But other then that I compleatly AGREE! (If I'm agreeing with ''Bolio'' I need my HEAD examined!)

Why do people keep saying this?

It's imoral though to kill people who don't have any control over their actions. I mean the whole point of murdering killers, and rapist and pedophiles should be added to this list of people who deserve to be killed, is that the victim gets justice over someone who knownly hurt them and didn't have the human decency to not hurt them. There is no justice in killing someone who is so fucked up in the head that they are basically forced into doing horrible things, that i'm sure that they can't even understand why they are doing them. Even if we did this for pratical reasons I don't want the government killing people just because it's pratical. Murder should only be done, when it's the moral thing to do or self-defense, which I guess also fits under the moral clause as well.

Jason

My morals must differ from yours. I don't believe they should be killed out of spite, but because it is simply the best way to end the problem - for everyone, including them. I'm sure some of them DO understand what they're doing, AND enjoy it. Probably far from most, but some. That's beside the point, though.

I can understand keeping a retarded person around - its not their fault, and they're harmless enough. But a dangerous, murdering retarded/crazy person? Why bother? Why waste the resources to keep them alive and locked up? That money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Why do people keep saying this?

Because you advocate cold-bloodedly shooting Human Beings in the head?

 

[Goliath]

I can understand keeping a retarded person around - its not their fault, and they're harmless enough. But a dangerous, murdering retarded/crazy person? Why bother? Why waste the resources to keep them alive and locked up?

I think the answer is, out of respect for their rights.

Your own country's declaration of independence says that every man has a right to life--which is to say, that no person should be killed unless they've done something to deserve it.

What is more, most people agree that people with serious mental illnesses are not really responsible for their actions, and don't deserve to be punished in the same way as mentally healthy people.

So the answer to your question "why waste the resources to keep them alive and locked up" is the same as "why waste the resources to keep you alive and free." If someone committed a crime against you, why should any of us pay for police to investigate this crime, and courts to judge, and prisons to punish? Why shouldn't you have to pay for the whole process yourself?

Simply, because it's what you're entitled to, by right. It's what we all deserve, as persons.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

A bullet through the head is simpler and less expensive, and guarantees an effect that psychiatric therapy can only HOPE to achieve - namely making the monster GONE.

Psychiatric therapy doesn't try to make the monster gone, it tries to rewind the monster into a human being who can live a normal life in our society. Big difference, that. And a bullet through the head is never an acceptable answer.

 

[Jayson]

I would have used a more ''PC'' name for retarded

Your choice... but that's what they are.

But other then that I compleatly AGREE! (If I'm agreeing with ''Bolio'' I need my HEAD examined!)

Why do people keep saying this?

It's imoral though to kill people who don't have any control over their actions. I mean the whole point of murdering killers, and rapist and pedophiles should be added to this list of people who deserve to be killed, is that the victim gets justice over someone who knownly hurt them and didn't have the human decency to not hurt them. There is no justice in killing someone who is so fucked up in the head that they are basically forced into doing horrible things, that i'm sure that they can't even understand why they are doing them. Even if we did this for pratical reasons I don't want the government killing people just because it's pratical. Murder should only be done, when it's the moral thing to do or self-defense, which I guess also fits under the moral clause as well.

Jason

My morals must differ from yours. I don't believe they should be killed out of spite, but because it is simply the best way to end the problem - for everyone, including them. I'm sure some of them DO understand what they're doing, AND enjoy it. Probably far from most, but some. That's beside the point, though.

I can understand keeping a retarded person around - its not their fault, and they're harmless enough. But a dangerous, murdering retarded/crazy person? Why bother? Why waste the resources to keep them alive and locked up? That money could be better spent elsewhere.

It's not about the crazy people,so much as it's about us as a society. We are human beings and not robots. That means we shouldf have standards, that rise above pure pratical concerns. We should have ethics and follow them. That means some people are seen as off limits, when it comes to who we should kill. That would be inocent people,children,Jayson,mentally ill people and retarded people. Might be a few others I missed but I can't think of them.

I see no reason to make exceptions for any of these people, with the exception of inocent people in war who are sometimes, put in a postion were there death is acceptable, such as if there being used as human shields.

Jason