VA - Couple & two teens found murdered, Farmville, 15 Sept 2009 #5

[AndresEscobar]

Why would you want to keep this monster alive? That's the great thing about TX and VA, we've got express lanes to death for idiots like Sam. He had no remorse for the horrific things he did to the families he killed (I don't care if he "says" he's concerned now.) The only thing I hate is that we don't really fry people anymore:furious: we are too concerned about these monsters and give them death by lethal injection. Maybe we should punish people to die by the same means they committed their murders.

There are numerous arguments against the DP, but I'm not going to rehash them here. If "frying" someone makes you feel good, so be it.

 

[AndresEscobar]

I disagree! I just don't think spending our tax money to keep him or people like him in prison for the rest of their lives is worth it. I do not value him as a human as he did not value the lives of his victims.

It actually costs more to put someone to death, if you're worried about your tax dollars.

 

[AndresEscobar]

I believe that the death penalty should only be used if it can be a deterrent in future crimes. That's very open to debate. Now the old adage "an eye for an eye" that boygenius refers to would not be a bad way to go if it applied to horrific crimes committed on wholly innocent people. I imagine that there would be a significant drop in vicious premeditated crimes of torture and murder. Perhaps as much as 10-20% (pulling #s out of my butt of course). The remainder of the people that would still commit these acts are likely to be psychopaths who don't have a conscience and don't experience fear like we do. Hence they wouldn't really care what happened to them anyway.

The death penalty does not have a deterrence factor. It's just for retribution. And, I don't know what kind of drop you're imagining, but where the DP is applied, there is no drop in violent crime.

 

[nakedmanjoe]

The death penalty does not have a deterrence factor. It's just for retribution. And, I don't know what kind of drop you're imagining, but where the DP is applied, there is no drop in violent crime.

I am talking about "eye for an eye" here. If we tortured and murdered people the same way that they did it to others it may be a detterent. There's no studies on this as far as I know.

 

[nakedmanjoe]

The death penalty does not have a deterrence factor. It's just for retribution. And, I don't know what kind of drop you're imagining, but where the DP is applied, there is no drop in violent crime.

Oh and I didn't know the stats on the DP deterrence factor. I will say that I'm against because I didn't know that it wasn't a detterent. I've never looked at the facts before.

 

[dangrsmind]

I believe that the death penalty should only be used if it can be a deterrent in future crimes. That's very open to debate. Now the old adage "an eye for an eye" that boygenius refers to would not be a bad way to go if it applied to horrific crimes committed on wholly innocent people. I imagine that there would be a significant drop in vicious premeditated crimes of torture and murder. Perhaps as much as 10-20% (pulling #s out of my butt of course). The remainder of the people that would still commit these acts are likely to be psychopaths who don't have a conscience and don't experience fear like we do. Hence they wouldn't really care what happened to them anyway.

Virginia has the death penalty and yet these crimes were committed. So obviously the deterrent was ineffective in this case. The fact is that while he might very well die for his actions, this knowledge did not prevent Sam from doing what he did.

 

[AndresEscobar]

I am talking about "eye for an eye" here. If we tortured and murdered people the same way that they did it to others it may be a detterent. There's no studies on this as far as I know.

So you mean like, the perp would be killed in the exact matter he did the killing? You wouldn't be troubled by a society that condoned rape, torturing, and murdering people, regardless of the circumstances? Just clarifying, not arguing or anything.

What about where, as often happens, DNA evidence exonerates the person after the fact? Do you know how many times courts get DP cases wrong? It would make you sick to your stomach.

 

[nakedmanjoe]

So you mean like, the perp would be killed in the exact matter he did the killing? You wouldn't be troubled by a society that condoned rape, torturing, and murdering people, regardless of the circumstances? Just clarifying, not arguing or anything.

What about where, as often happens, DNA evidence exonerates the person after the fact? Do you know how many times courts get DP cases wrong? It would make you sick to your stomach.

Yeah, basically that's what I'm saying.
If murdering, raping, and torturing guilty people that everybody agreed 100% on their guilt meant saving innocent people you would be against it.

 

[AndresEscobar]

Yeah, basically that's what I'm saying.
If murdering, raping, and torturing guilty people that everybody agreed 100% on their guilt meant saving innocent people you would be against it.

Yeah, i'd still be against it. But, everyone's entitled to their opinions. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still buy you a beer.

 

[nakedmanjoe]

I hear ya Andres. From a logical standpoint I would like to do what is good for society as a whole. I think that's what most of us shoot for. We all just have a different path that we take to get there.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I am talking about "eye for an eye" here. If we tortured and murdered people the same way that they did it to others it may be a detterent. There's no studies on this as far as I know.

First of all that is unconstitutional. Secondly, where does the state get the right to do such. I am not willing to give the state that sort of authority, you may be willing to in a short sighted manner but if you think of the other possible long term consequences and precedents of doing such you may change your mind.

 

[Farmvillian]

Yeah, basically that's what I'm saying.
If murdering, raping, and torturing guilty people that everybody agreed 100% on their guilt meant saving innocent people you would be against it.

I have had the worst done to my family, but I do not believe in the death penalty. We have no right to take a life. God or no god it is just wrong. It seems wrong, it feels wrong, so to me that makes it wrong. What can we do with these people who can no longer be free in society? Make them work for free or give the money they make to the remaining family? Send them over seas to war? Lab testing? Heck if I know....

 

[PAXIMUS]

I hear ya Andres. From a logical standpoint I would like to do what is good for society as a whole. I think that's what most of us shoot for. We all just have a different path that we take to get there.

While I do care about what is good for society that is the least concern of mine, my main concern is the willingness to give the state that sort of power. I dont care much for the government as it is and we should be taking power away from those criminals in DC not giving them more.

 

[Farmvillian]

I guess someone beat you to it Pax. Other people have been writing him according to that link. haha!
And also WOW!!! No psychiatric evaluation? That's just odd. Maybe he figured what's the point?
Edited: I was just thinking, why hasn't any of his family members been to see him? Don't get me wrong, I would be really *advertiser censored**ing pi**ed off if my brother or son had done this, not to mention broken-hearted, but I don't think I wouldn't at least go visit them even once. Even if it was only to tell them how disappointed I was and just to see them one last time. I love my family too much to just dump them like that even if I don't agree with what they did. I would look at it as he is being punished for what he's done, but I couldn't turn my love off just like that. I may would even only be able to go see him once because of how stressful it would be for me, but I'd at least go once.
Wouldn't you guys?

Def. Would be there no matter what. I would go see him everyday.

 

[dangrsmind]

Yeah, basically that's what I'm saying.
If murdering, raping, and torturing guilty people that everybody agreed 100% on their guilt meant saving innocent people you would be against it.

Since it will never happen that everybody will agree 100% on someone's guilt no one would ever be executed under this model.

Is this what you really mean?

 

[dangrsmind]

Def. Would be there no matter what. I would go see him everyday.

His family isn't rich. Seems like they might want to conserve their limited resources if there is going to be a trial.

Which reminds me...

Did Sam have a job? I don't recall hearing about one. The freelance web design thing couldn't have been paying him too much IMO.

 

[dangrsmind]

How about some new material: A message from Sam/LiLdEmOnDoG - Horrorcore Forums

Enjoy!

 

[PAXIMUS]

His family isn't rich. Seems like they might want to conserve their limited resources if there is going to be a trial.

Which reminds me...

Did Sam have a job? I don't recall hearing about one. The freelance web design thing couldn't have been paying him too much IMO.

Thats what I see, I dont think they have the money to make two trips but will be there for the trial. I am sure thats a difficult decision for at least his mother and sister to not be there for him now but I assume they have spoken on the phone.

 

[dangrsmind]

PS Just want to point out the fellow there with the name "I am Gilgamesh" who claims to know Sam. In Sumerian myth, Gilgamesh slew Humbaba by decapitating him in the sacred cedar forest. Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[nakedmanjoe]

Since it will never happen that everybody will agree 100% on someone's guilt no one would ever be executed under this model.

Is this what you really mean?

Food for Thought:
Let me pose my opinion by asking you a question in a implaussible scenario.

If you had the ability to turn back time and found yourself in a predicament that made it where you was unable to help your son but knew that he was going to be attacked and possibly killed by a vicious murderer that would have otherwise been detered by the state if he knew that he would get the exact same treatment to himself...would you want him carry out the attack or would you rewind the hands of time so that previous murderers', rapists, etc.. before had been executed (by whatever means) if it meant deterring him from killing your son?

Hope you followed that. Not trying to be a prick...I'm just curious in you answer. Sorry if it's not a clear question.