I think he’s gonna get his wish.
And it’s gonna show how backwards Taiwan is.
There will be more cases like this as long as the government continues to provide a way for these sickos to get media attention, and a free state-assisted suicide to boot.
Giving the guy free room and board until someone decides he’s cured, costing the state untold amounts of money, then letting him go when he might kill someone again, is not a good approach to take with issues like this. He should be hanged (or whatever it is they do here), people should pray for him and try to forgive him and then we move on.
The whole “holier than thou (but secular!)” attitude where forgiveness is entirely material means letting him make things a nightmare for other people for the rest of his life and possibly killing other people later on, it’s very unhealthy. It’s tempting to go there because then at least our hands don’t look dirty, for we’ll always have someone else to point the finger at over it (the psychiatrist, the cops, society, God, the list never ends) and that may look like a solution at first but it’s really the devil’s work.
Did anyone suggest this?
Did anyone suggest this?[/quote]
Well, not giving him the death penalty means exactly that. Room and board in a prison until his time has been served or society feels he can be free.
I have an alternative…its no pretty but it solves both issues:
Don’t kill him and don’t lock him up. Instead, brand him with a hot iron right on his face that he is a child murderer, put an electronic collar on his neck to track him and also install perimeter sensors around schools where children are so if he goes anywhere near there, he will get shocked so badly it will put him flat on his back. The brand means he only has “optional” rights. People in society can’t kill him, but they don’t have to give service to him if they don’t want. He is stripped of his rights completely, other than the right to breathe. People will not be punished for humiliating him either. That, would be a deterrent and a punishment he has to live with until he either ends his own miserable life or his time runs out.
It all comes down to what exactly do we want to achieve.
If killing these sickos will not in anyway prevent other sickos from killing innocent people/children, and many studies proved all the media hype encourages sickos to follow suit, whose benefits are the punishments for?
Are we doing it because it would make the victims’ families feel better? Or is capital punishment simply the easiest way for the public to feel like we’ve done something, so we don’t have to think about the complicated underlying social issues that needs to be addressed?
Every time sick things like this happens I hear people say “see that’s why the death penalty shouldn’t be abolished.” Well, it isn’t abolished now, and it still happened. No one in the right mind is going to say “hey, there’s no death penalty, let me go and kill some random people.” Those who aren’t in the right mind, who would kill random people, don’t give a frak about death penalties.
If the punishment is to make sure one sicko will never carry out shits like this again, life in prison without the chance of parole seems to get the job done equally well, and do so without the encouraging others to follow suit part.
As per CNA
[quote]Taipei, May 31 (CNA) Taiwan’s government is currently unable to abolish capital punishment because society still needs time to reach a consensus on the issue, presidential spokesman Charles Chen (陳以信) cited President Ma Ying-jeou as saying Sunday.
Chen’s remark came after some interpreted a comment by Ma a day earlier as a sign that his administration might be considering abolishing the death penalty.
[b]
When asked by a reporter on his view of rising calls against the scrapping of the death penalty following the recent murder of an eight-year-old girl in a school bathroom, Ma said two opposing views have been in the debate for quite some time – some people believe that capital punishment is unable to provide a deterrent, while others believe that abolishing the punishment will actually encourage crime.
“I think we better observe this for some more time,” Ma said.
On Sunday, Chen cited Ma as saying that the government is unable to scrap capital punishment at the moment, but will continue to work toward reducing its use.[/b]
When meeting recently with a British all-party parliamentary group in favor of the abolition of the death penalty, Ma noted that the majority of the people in Taiwan are against abolishing capital punishment, Chen said.
The president also cited a Ministry of Justice poll in 2012 showing that 76.7 percent of the respondents are against scrapping the death penalty, while over 85 percent believe that abolishing the death penalty would affect public security, Chen said[/quote]
IMHO, this guy -like the MRT guy- wanted to be killed, so the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent for such cases. Suicide by police they call it in the States.
Neither the humiliation method. These people already feel humiliated, they loathe themselves, they feel inferior and want to be kicked in the gonads because they feel their lives are useless because use they are inherently bad, flawed, insignificant. Hence, since they are already evil, they commit evil acts that support this perception of themselves and what they think others think about them. In their minds, they already live in Quarters scenario.
As said, mental problems are tricky. This last case was a functioning member of society, successful by the measurements of tests and salary. Not so much regarding human contact and communication. Hence, unsuccessful as a person, but in a manic, profit oriented society, who cares? His parents, his teachers, anyone around him, wouldn’t know better. They can’t spot this, they do not have the knowledge, training. And that is why this tragedy will happen again and will keep on happening until people become aware of the issue of awareness. Then, maybe, something can be done.
[quote=“Icon”]
IMHO, this guy -like the MRT guy- wanted to be killed, so the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent for such cases. Suicide by police they call it in the States.
Neither the humiliation method. These people already feel humiliated, they loathe themselves, they feel inferior and want to be kicked in the gonads because they feel their lives are useless because use they are inherently bad, flawed, insignificant. Hence, since they are already evil, they commit evil acts that support this perception of themselves and what they think others think about them. In their minds, they already live in Quarters scenario.
As said, mental problems are tricky. This last case was a functioning member of society, successful by the measurements of tests and salary. Not so much regarding human contact and communication. Hence, unsuccessful as a person, but in a manic, profit oriented society, who cares? His parents, his teachers, anyone around him, wouldn’t know better. They can’t spot this, they do not have the knowledge, training. And that is why this tragedy will happen again and will keep on happening until people become aware of the issue of awareness. Then, maybe, something can be done.[/quote]
Well put Icon. I agree. The underlying reason or cause for people to go off the deep end like this needs to be addressed. But that will take years of cultural and societal education and change. As for what to do with the sicko right now…I don’t see the harm in erasing him from the Earth.
That is what he wanted, but unfortunately, he was already “erased” from society beforehand. Displaced, unknown, ignored, surplus, angry, gone.
No it doesn’t. There’s such a thing as “life imprisonment”.
yea thats kinda an important detail… was he schizophrenic or was he a psychopath using that as cover up for his actions? i am going to assume that other guy was trolling when he said the psychos are the only risk to society. shanghaiist.com/2015/05/08/schiz … _child.php
[quote=“hansioux”]It all comes down to what exactly do we want to achieve.
If killing these sickos will not in anyway prevent other sickos from killing innocent people/children, and many studies proved all the media hype encourages sickos to follow suit, whose benefits are the punishments for?
Are we doing it because it would make the victims’ families feel better? Or is capital punishment simply the easiest way for the public to feel like we’ve done something, so we don’t have to think about the complicated underlying social issues that needs to be addressed?
Every time sick things like this happens I hear people say “see that’s why the death penalty shouldn’t be abolished.” Well, it isn’t abolished now, and it still happened. No one in the right mind is going to say “hey, there’s no death penalty, let me go and kill some random people.” Those who aren’t in the right mind, who would kill random people, don’t give a frak about death penalties.
If the punishment is to make sure one sicko will never carry out shits like this again, life in prison without the chance of parole seems to get the job done equally well, and do so without the encouraging others to follow suit part.[/quote]
I’ve been around many career criminals and my impression is that the death penalty is definitely a deterrent. No one has taken the position that its existence is supposed to stop crime entirely.
Did anyone suggest this?[/quote]
Well, not giving him the death penalty means exactly that. Room and board in a prison until his time has been served or society feels he can be free.
I have an alternative…its no pretty but it solves both issues:
Don’t kill him and don’t lock him up. Instead, brand him with a hot iron right on his face that he is a child murderer, put an electronic collar on his neck to track him and also install perimeter sensors around schools where children are so if he goes anywhere near there, he will get shocked so badly it will put him flat on his back. The brand means he only has “optional” rights. People in society can’t kill him, but they don’t have to give service to him if they don’t want. He is stripped of his rights completely, other than the right to breathe. People will not be punished for humiliating him either. That, would be a deterrent and a punishment he has to live with until he either ends his own miserable life or his time runs out.[/quote]
People in the past basically called this “exile” and they would just not let the person back in since even with all the modern technology, he’ll eventually get mad and hit someone with a plank or worse. There’s no reason to exile a child murderer. People just need to accept that you can’t always keep your hands clean when other people are doing wrong. Clean hands and being an ethical person aren’t the same thing. To do justice is always to be hated by someone.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Quarters”]
Well, not giving him the death penalty means exactly that. Room and board in a prison until his time has been served or society feels he can be free.
[/quote]
No it doesn’t. There’s such a thing as “life imprisonment”.[/quote]
Um, yes it does. Who exactly is paying for his food, running of the prison, clothes, guards, etc? “life imprisonment” is a financial burden on the whole of society since we are picking up his life-sentence’s tab.
[quote=“Quarters”][quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Quarters”]
Well, not giving him the death penalty means exactly that. Room and board in a prison until his time has been served or society feels he can be free.
[/quote]
No it doesn’t. There’s such a thing as “life imprisonment”.[/quote]
Um, yes it does. Who exactly is paying for his food, running of the prison, clothes, guards, etc? “life imprisonment” is a financial burden on the whole of society since we are picking up his life-sentence’s tab.[/quote]
Death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. Get your facts straight.
Shall we fire up the “death penalty discussion” over at International Politics for this one?
It’s a bit late to be locking this guy up. Should’ve been done before he killed someone.
I’ve known killers. I don’t like them. You can talk about tolerance and not being judgmental all you like, but “live and let live” doesn’t really apply when it’s not reciprocal.
[quote=“Gain”]
Death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. Get your facts straight.[/quote]
Not by nature, it isn’t. The expense is artificial. An adjustment of societal attitudes will make the death penalty as cheap as a single bullet.
[quote=“Gain”][quote=“Quarters”][quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Quarters”]
Well, not giving him the death penalty means exactly that. Room and board in a prison until his time has been served or society feels he can be free.
[/quote]
No it doesn’t. There’s such a thing as “life imprisonment”.[/quote]
Um, yes it does. Who exactly is paying for his food, running of the prison, clothes, guards, etc? “life imprisonment” is a financial burden on the whole of society since we are picking up his life-sentence’s tab.[/quote]
Death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. Get your facts straight.[/quote]
Chris Clem, JD, Attorney at Samples, Jennings, Ray & Clem, PLLC, in a Jan. 31, 2002 statement in response to a press release about the cost of capital cases as reported by the Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing, stated:
"Executions do not have to cost that much. We could hang them and re-use the rope. No cost! Or we could use firing squads and ask for volunteer firing squad members who would provide their own guns and ammunition. Again, no cost."
Gary D. Beatty, JD, a Florida Assistant State Attorney, in his Dec. 1, 1997 article, “The Next Time Someone Says the Death Penalty Costs More Than Life in Prison, Show Them This Article,” available at www.fed-soc.org, stated:
"If the mutiple layers of appeal are pursued in an ethical, and fiscally responsible manner, execution is less costly than warehousing a murderer for life."
Edwin H. Sutherland, PhD, late President of the American Sociological Society, and Donald R. Cressey, PhD, late Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the 1974 revised edition of their book titled Criminology, wrote:
"It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher."
in short: the judicial process is what ends up costing a fortune…not the actual act of capital punishment. He did it, he admitted it, he is guilty. Done. Hang him up and then use the rope again.
[quote=“Il Ðoge”]
People in the past basically called this “exile” and they would just not let the person back in since even with all the modern technology, he’ll eventually get mad and hit someone with a plank or worse. There’s no reason to exile a child murderer. [/quote]
Exile traditionally involved sending somebody so far away he couldn’t get back. That’s trickier in the modern world, but perhaps we could set up remote islands for the purpose. Pick a place where they might conceivably survive if they learn to work together. There’s rehabilitation for you. And if they don’t… there’s your death penalty. Perhaps one of those penguin-infested rocks in Antarctic waters? Make a deal with whatever country has a claim to it. Sort of a human toxic waste dump.
There’s plenty of reason to exile a child murderer. However, a bullet to the head would be simpler and cheaper. Arguably more humane as well.