FL FL - Danny Rolling, Gainesville Ripper, 8 known victims LA/FL 1989-90

[kcksum]

The fact that you want to execute Governor Bush makes me think you need help, not that you disagree with me. BTW, what crime did Gov Bush commit?


After what Danny Rolling did, he deserves much worse than the needle, but that's all he'll get. Why he tortured and brutalized those young people doesn't really matter to me. What's done is done. Time to write the final chapter for old Danny.

I second that emotion

 

[Sherlockmom]

>Not really. He immediately admitted guilt, asked from the start that no one defend him and that he be executed immediately without wasting time on appeals. He then assisted the police in finding remains. <<


Well he did what he should have done if he had truly repented to God and wanted to save his soul. It doesn't change what he did however nor should it change his punishment.


>>Apparently, appeals are automatic. It's not always the prisoner that is trying to "leech" of anyone. Several commit suicide, several ask for the death penalty and to not have appeals. <<

I don't know if it is the same from state to state but some states do require at least one appeal in DP cases. I rarely hear of any of committing suicide, asking for the death penalty or to not have appeals. It must be a very very small minority.

And I think that we should follow their wishes in these cases. Promptly.

 

[GlitchWizard]

Actually, Sherlockmom, this one guy didn't repent to God - truly or otherwise. He knows "something" is wrong with him, but he doesn't know what. He doesn't want to be released because he is as afraid he will kill again as we would be. Sure, he'd like to give the women back their lives, and does understand WHAT he's done and how bad it is. He hates himself for what he's done - but he also knows it's not something he can just "not do." (Probably like child molesters are prone to repeat their offenses, too.)

I find it sad, interesting and scary because of what it means about the people who are not yet caught!

There are many suicides and people asking to not be represented. No one puts them in the paper, but as I read more and more cases, I see it often. It's something I noted in looking at court cases of many, many individuals - not something I see on the news or was told by anyone. I'm not saying it's most, or even half - but the most heinous of crimes, it seems they do often ask for no appeals.

I don't know why there is a problem - if someone says "I want to die" why not just let them?

I am against the death penalty AS IT IS TODAY, but I have to shake my head in wonderment at some other people against the death penalty that will ask me (in mass email) to stop "State assisted suicide" when someone who asks to die is up for execution.

That, to me, makes no sense. I know they're on my side of the fence, but they aren't necessarily on my way of thinking.

>Not really. He immediately admitted guilt, asked from the start that no one defend him and that he be executed immediately without wasting time on appeals. He then assisted the police in finding remains. <<


Well he did what he should have done if he had truly repented to God and wanted to save his soul. It doesn't change what he did however nor should it change his punishment.


>>Apparently, appeals are automatic. It's not always the prisoner that is trying to "leech" of anyone. Several commit suicide, several ask for the death penalty and to not have appeals. <<

I don't know if it is the same from state to state but some states do require at least one appeal in DP cases. I rarely hear of any of committing suicide, asking for the death penalty or to not have appeals. It must be a very very small minority.

And I think that we should follow their wishes in these cases. Promptly.

 

[Ntegrity]

Actually, Sherlockmom, this one guy didn't repent to God - truly or otherwise. He knows "something" is wrong with him, but he doesn't know what. He doesn't want to be released because he is as afraid he will kill again as we would be. Sure, he'd like to give the women back their lives, and does understand WHAT he's done and how bad it is. He hates himself for what he's done - but he also knows it's not something he can just "not do." (Probably like child molesters are prone to repeat their offenses, too.)

Glitch, you and I have had differences of opinion on this thread, but I wholeheartedly agree with you here. It's my opinion that some people are born with a defect that causes them to think and act differently than a "normal" person. They may have compulsions the rest of us simply can't understand. I'm not convinced they have control over their sickness any more than a diabetic has control over their insulin production. I do believe they know something's wrong with them but feel helpless to change it. In no way do I think that EXCUSES their behavior, but -- in some cases -- it may help explain it.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty but this wasn't one of those cases where I had any doubt. Danny Rolling needed to be euthanized in the same way dangerous animals are "put down" ... to protect innocent lives from coming in contact with him ever again. I find no joy in that.

 

[GlitchWizard]

Being against the death penalty SYSTEM doesn't mean I'm against the death penalty altogether. Rollings could have taken a bullet the day he admitted guilt and I wouldn't have cared. Cooey - I'd torture and shoot HIM myself.

Often, people assume when you are against the death penalty, you are "for" people like Rollings. That's totally not the case with me. It's all about the system. If we sat down over a cup of coffee someday about it - I'll bet we wouldn't be as different as you think.

Glitch, you and I have had differences of opinion on this thread, but I wholeheartedly agree with you here. It's my opinion that some people are born with a defect that causes them to think and act differently than a "normal" person. They may have compulsions the rest of us simply can't understand. I'm not convinced they have control over their sickness any more than a diabetic has control over their insulin production. I do believe they know something's wrong with them but feel helpless to change it. In no way do I think that EXCUSES their behavior, but -- in some cases -- it may help explain it.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty but this wasn't one of those cases where I had any doubt. Danny Rolling needed to be euthanized in the same way dangerous animals are "put down" ... to protect innocent lives from coming in contact with him ever again. I find no joy in that.

 

[Ntegrity]

I'm sure I'd like you very much, Glitch -- except when you start talking about shooting my governator, LOL.

 

[GlitchWizard]

I'm sure I'd like you very much, Glitch -- except when you start talking about shooting my governator, LOL.

Just 'cause I can't SPELL facetious, doesn't mean I can't BE facetious. :blushing:

 

[Sherlockmom]

>I am against the death penalty AS IT IS TODAY, but I have to shake my head in wonderment at some other people against the death penalty that will ask me (in mass email) to stop "State assisted suicide" when someone who asks to die is up for execution.

Amazing isn't it? The same people are probably pro-abortion and pro-euthanisia for terminally ill patients. They probably would have been first in line to pull the plug on a comatose patient. But the child murderer on death row? Somehow they see something that must live at all costs.

 

[GlitchWizard]

I don't think the ones that are against the death penalty to that extent are for any other types of death either. I'm talking about the people who are up in arms about any type of death other than old age. They're against birth control, abortion for any reason, and euthanasia - the whole nine yards. I think it's the ones that follow their religeon to the teeth - and interpret everything as whatever does no harm to anyone for any reason.

I assume that the people who choose to think hard about how they feel on any of those subjects will come across situations where they feel strongly about pieces and parts of each issue - but in different situations would feel differently.

I rarely find anyone who would choose to abort a full term perfectly healthy baby with no defects, or execute a perfectly proven innocent man.... but there are some people - I guess it's inevitable.

Perhaps that's why I don't get upset about other people's opinions - it's just a spectrum most of the time. Where we fall on that spectrum is just a matter of our thoughts, experiences, feelings and what we believe we know from living the lives we've led. I don't want a world where everyone thinks alike, I just want a world where everyone THINKS.

>I am against the death penalty AS IT IS TODAY, but I have to shake my head in wonderment at some other people against the death penalty that will ask me (in mass email) to stop "State assisted suicide" when someone who asks to die is up for execution.

Amazing isn't it? The same people are probably pro-abortion and pro-euthanisia for terminally ill patients. They probably would have been first in line to pull the plug on a comatose patient. But the child murderer on death row? Somehow they see something that must live at all costs.

 

[nanandjim]

....Amazing isn't it? The same people are probably pro-abortion and pro-euthanisia for terminally ill patients. They probably would have been first in line to pull the plug on a comatose patient. But the child murderer on death row? Somehow they see something that must live at all costs.

Yes, it is amazing and quite an enigma.

 

[Ntegrity]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Just 'cause I can't SPELL facetious, doesn't mean I can't BE facetious. :blushing:

I thought it was fuhseeshus.

 

[Sherlockmom]

>I assume that the people who choose to think hard about how they feel on any of those subjects will come across situations where they feel strongly about pieces and parts of each issue - but in different situations would feel differently.<<


That's called situational ethics. I do not subscribe to something that allows someone to change the rules according to what they want to do and not feel guilty about.

>>Perhaps that's why I don't get upset about other people's opinions - it's just a spectrum most of the time. Where we fall on that spectrum is just a matter of our thoughts, experiences, feelings and what we believe we know from living the lives we've led. I don't want a world where everyone thinks alike, I just want a world where everyone THINKS. <<

I do get upset about opinions that cause harm to others. Especially death. Where we fall on the spectrum is not just a matter of whatever floats your boat. In order to believe that you have to give moral equivalency to everyone's opinions and actions. All is not equal. For example, adherents to radical Islam seem to think it is okay to kill people because they aren't muslim. I do not give moral equivalency to their ideas, thoughts or feelings. One is clearly right and the other clearly wrong. Not all countries are equal either. Some are dictatorships who oppress their people. I do not consider that a simple matter of a difference of opinion. One is right and the other is wrong.

Sometimes it is pretty clear which is good and which is bad. You cannot put every idea or action on the same moral plane.

 

[Details]

>I assume that the people who choose to think hard about how they feel on any of those subjects will come across situations where they feel strongly about pieces and parts of each issue - but in different situations would feel differently.<<


That's called situational ethics. I do not subscribe to something that allows someone to change the rules according to what they want to do and not feel guilty about.

Are you sure? I'd feel guilty about killing a person, but not guilty if it were in self defense as that person was trying to hurt my baby, for example. Isn't that situational ethics?

>>Perhaps that's why I don't get upset about other people's opinions - it's just a spectrum most of the time. Where we fall on that spectrum is just a matter of our thoughts, experiences, feelings and what we believe we know from living the lives we've led. I don't want a world where everyone thinks alike, I just want a world where everyone THINKS. <<

I do get upset about opinions that cause harm to others. Especially death. Where we fall on the spectrum is not just a matter of whatever floats your boat. In order to believe that you have to give moral equivalency to everyone's opinions and actions. All is not equal. For example, adherents to radical Islam seem to think it is okay to kill people because they aren't muslim. I do not give moral equivalency to their ideas, thoughts or feelings. One is clearly right and the other clearly wrong. Not all countries are equal either. Some are dictatorships who oppress their people. I do not consider that a simple matter of a difference of opinion. One is right and the other is wrong.

Sometimes it is pretty clear which is good and which is bad. You cannot put every idea or action on the same moral plane.

Not everything is OK - but there's still a spectrum. I think a 18 year old can have sex. Other cultures think 17 is good, others may say 21, maybe there's others that say 35, maybe some other that says 8. It's a spectrum. There are points on the spectrum that I will say are definitely wrong - 8, for example - but I won't say only my answer is correct for some of the other numbers. Some countries are evil dictatorships, run only for the convenience and power of those in power - and that is wrong - but there are others where I think our choices are better, but theirs are not clearly wrong either. Having a spectrum doesn't mean that good and evil don't exist, doesn't mean you can't say something is wrong... or right. Just that maybe I think a little to try to figure out if it is clearly wrong, or if it is one of those cases where something has some degree of reason and rightness to it, even if it's the opposite of what I'd do.

 

[GlitchWizard]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I thought it was fuhseeshus.

I looked it up in the dictionary. I wasn't even phonetically as close as you.


No time to copy and paste, on my way out the door, but the person who doesn't subscribe to situational ethics - what do you do when a five year old asks you what "" means. Do you give them the same answer you'd give your teenager? Your coworker? Would you punish a person for a self defense act equal to a person who laid in wait, then tortured someone for days?

Situational ethics are a part of every day life. If your mind is closed to motives and reasons, you'll be completely unfair most of the time to most people.

I respect your position, but God help me if you are ever on my jury if I accidently kill someone when they run a red light.

 

[julianne]

I looked it up in the dictionary. I wasn't even phonetically as close as you.


No time to copy and paste, on my way out the door, but the person who doesn't subscribe to situational ethics - what do you do when a five year old asks you what "" means. Do you give them the same answer you'd give your teenager? Your coworker? Would you punish a person for a self defense act equal to a person who laid in wait, then tortured someone for days?

Situational ethics are a part of every day life. If your mind is closed to motives and reasons, you'll be completely unfair most of the time to most people.

I respect your position, but God help me if you are ever on my jury if I accidently kill someone when they run a red light.

Well, if MY 5 year old asked me what a was, I would seriously have to question who and what I had been exposing my child to, and then make some big-time changes in my parenting. It would more important to me to determine where she/he heard that term.

I understand the whole situational ethics thing, but not sure it would apply in your scenario. It's one thing to kill someone accidentally in a traffic accident where they ran a red light, and something totally different to be a cold-blooded, serial murderer who purposely snuffed out the life of innocent people for his own depraved enjoyment.

 

[GlitchWizard]

Well, if MY 5 year old asked me what a was, I would seriously have to question who and what I had been exposing my child to, and then make some big-time changes in my parenting. It would more important to me to determine where she/he heard that term.

I understand the whole situational ethics thing, but not sure it would apply in your scenario. It's one thing to kill someone accidentally in a traffic accident where they ran a red light, and something totally different to be a cold-blooded, serial murderer who purposely snuffed out the life of innocent people for his own depraved enjoyment.

My daughter goes to public school. I nearly wrecked my van the day she said "Mom, if a hermaphrodite has a wet dream, would he get pregnant?"

SO MANY things to answer - NONE of which I had prepared for! (It's funny NOW, but at the time - wow.)

Yes, the two situations are different - but someone died, and some victim's family member would want you to be punished in either situation. Should you be punished equally since the victim is equally as dead?

 

[julianne]

My daughter goes to public school. I nearly wrecked my van the day she said "Mom, if a hermaphrodite has a wet dream, would he get pregnant?"

SO MANY things to answer - NONE of which I had prepared for! (It's funny NOW, but at the time - wow.)

Yes, the two situations are different - but someone died, and some victim's family member would want you to be punished in either situation. Should you be punished equally since the victim is equally as dead?

Wow, I don't know how old your daughter is, but if she knows what hermaphrodites and wet dreams are, it definately sounds like it's time for (insert scary music here) "THE TALK." Ya know, the birds & bees, sperm & egg LOL.

But seriously, though, I can honestly say I disagree with you about family members wanting punishment in either situation. If my family member was killed because he/she ran a red light, I wouldn't expect or even want any punishment put on the person who my family member collided with. The other person wouldn't be charged with involuntary manslaughter because it would have been MY family member who ran the red light. Now, if someone else ran a red light killing my family member, sure I would expect some sort of punishment. Even though the end result is death, there is a HUGE difference between involuntary manslaughter and cold blooded murder.

 

[michelle]

My daughter goes to public school. I nearly wrecked my van the day she said "Mom, if a hermaphrodite has a wet dream, would he get pregnant?"

Holy Moly, what a question!

 

[julianne]

Holy Moly, what a question!

LOL, michelle....ditto.

GlitchWizard, I HAVE to ask....how old is your daughter????

 

[Sherlockmom]

>No time to copy and paste, on my way out the door, but the person who doesn't subscribe to situational ethics - what do you do when a five year old asks you what "" means. <


Well I've never had that happen so if it did I wouldn't be worried about my answer. As someone else said I'd be more worried about where they heard that term.

I think some of you are confusing situational ethics with discretion. Discretion is determing what it appropriate for a teenager and what is appropriate for a child. Discretion is determining whether a death is accidental, in self-defense or premeditated with malice. Anyone who cannot understand the difference between killing in self-defense or war and accidentally causing the death of someone, well, doesn't understand the difference between discretion and situational ethics.

For example. In the state of WI it is illegal to destroy an eagle egg or eggs of any migrating bird. Yet it is not illegal to destroy an unborn child. This is situational ethics. One unborn life (that of an eagle) is valued more than another (that of a human child). An adherent to situational ethics could say well, I think it is okay to destroy a human embryo if for example the mother was raped, or the unborn child was deformed or damaged or if the embryo could benefit another like being used for stem cell research. They would believe that since the result or ends was for a more loving good then it would be okay.

Another example is allowing an underage child to drink alcohol as long as they are with their parents. It is illegal for a child under 21 to drink. By allowing a child to break the law when they are with you but not when they are not with you is situational ethics. You are giving a message to the child that it is okay to break a law as long as they are with you but you are acting in a loving way if you believe that you are saving your child from experimenting without you and possibly coming to harm. It's sort of like the ends justifies the means and was a liberal idea from the 60's. I think the theory has something to do with acting in the most loving manner when you make decisions but that situations are all different so require different rules. The problem is that a society cannot function that way when it comes to criminal activity as what is right and loving isn't the same for everyone and God did not have qualifiers when he gave us the 10 commandments. It would be anarchy and chaos to use situational ethics to run our justice system.

Having discretion is something we do everyday. Discretion is used when sentencing criminals for example. But not everyone has good discretion. The scenarios that were presented here are not about situational ethics but about discretion. When a criminal is on trial for murder the trial isn't about whether or not murder is wrong but about whether the person is guilty of the crime or not. The discretion in the case is already considered in the charges (1st degree, 2nd degree,) and the plea (not guilty, self defense, insanity pleas etc) and will also be used in the sentencing phase if guilty (life in prison, DP).