Forums | MacLife

Mars_Attacks wrote:

This predator has murdered an innocent child.
He had his chance to be a productive member of society and he chose to destroy lives.

He gave his victim no due process and sentenced her to death violating her right to live. If y'all even consider a nine year old child a person yet is unclear.

He forefited his life as soon as he started digging.

So...because he gave the victim "no due process" (that statement doesn't even make sense, but I'll humor you) he should in turn not receive due process?  Is due process only for the innocent?



What are you trying to say?

bratboy wrote:

Mars_Attacks wrote:

Well, this one deserves it when proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

...because our justice system differentiates between convictions proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and those other lesser convictions, right?

It should... but the system in its current form would crumble if it did.

There are some inadequacies in the justice system that should be allowed to be worked around by simple human compassion.

Mars_Attacks wrote:

If he knew he had "problems" then that makes him aware of and accountable for his actions.

Yes he deserves a fair trial so the public can see out in the open just how leaniant we are on pedophiles. He does not, however deserve to be locked away form society.
He still poses a danger in the future. There is only one way to ensure he never hurts a child ever again.

It can come down a wire or the end of a needle, either is fine by me.

Well how dare I mention "due process," when you obviously agree with me!



Jesus.

He deserves as much due process as his victim did.

Deserves and constitutional rights are two different things.

He deserves to be taken out back and smacked with a rubber mallet until he stops bleeding.

Even Jessica? When does she get hers?

bratboy wrote:

Mars_Attacks wrote:

well, I guess we now see what "rehabilitation" does.
He failed to follow the law (see that's what criminals do) and register his whereabouts and the victims paid for it.
An innocent child lost her life.


What I find so appalling is that his family helped cover up the crime if not out right help him.

Yes, because "rehabilitation" (what "rehabilitation" did he receive, a prison sentence?) didn't work here, that means that it never works.  Interesting logic.

There is very little rehabilition  that in fact does work for sexual predators.

The government failed to protect her rights by letting this monster free and not constantly tracking it's movements.

bratboy wrote:

...so because the government "failed" to protect the victim's rights, the perpetrator should not receive any rights?

Exactly... this sexual predator was released previously, constituting reckless endangerment upon youth, which Jessica paid for with her life... any rights due the perpetrator have been foresaken... the "government" clearly failed in this case, as the predator's background was clear...

Camp David wrote:

bratboy wrote:

...so because the government "failed" to protect the victim's rights, the perpetrator should not receive any rights?

Exactly... this sexual predator was released previously, constituting reckless endangerment upon youth, which Jessica paid for with her life... any rights due the perpetrator have been foresaken... the "government" clearly failed in this case, as the predator's background was clear...

Fascinating (and incorrect) understanding of the due process clause.

Mars_Attacks wrote:

I guarantee he'll never kill another child.
Ever.

It's highly unlikely that he'll kill a child from his prison cell, correct.

Camp David wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Camp David wrote:

Exactly... this sexual predator was released previously, constituting reckless endangerment upon youth, which Jessica paid for with her life... any rights due the perpetrator have been foresaken... the "government" clearly failed in this case, as the predator's background was clear...

Fascinating (and incorrect) understanding of the due process clause.

Did I not make myself perfectly clear? What part is incorrect?

This John Evander Couey was arrested before on sexual predatory charges...
He was incorrectly released upon society, posing a threat...
Jessica paid for such reckless enfdangerment with her life...
The "government" (Judge et al.) clearly failed...

Where did I go wrong?

Me:  "...so because the government "failed" to protect the victim's rights, the perpetrator should not receive any rights?"

You:  "Exactly."

He was arrested before.  He was "incorrectly" (I'm not sure what you mean by that, other than hindsight) released.  The government "failed."

Thus....he shouldn't be allowed due process rights?

Mars_Attacks wrote:

Highly unlikely is still too much of a risk because he killed after he was released before.

If you are willing to take that chance with your children's lives, house him with you.

Did I advocate his release, EVER?  Of course not.  You posts continue to lack any sense whatsoever.  I think you're just trying to argue for the hell of it.

Oh that's right, you have no children and can't possibly understand.

You do? 

 

Mars_Attacks wrote:

He has a chance of release and escape.

That's too much of a risk for me.

So what are you saying?  That he shouldn't get due process because he could possibly get a sentence in which he could possibly be released at some point? (I find this highly unlikely.)

I consider the child's rights over that rancid monster pedophile any day and I'm proud of it.

No substance.  What "child?"  What rights?  If you're all bent-out-of-shape because I said I believe EVERYONE deserves their rights under the constitution, regardless of what they've done...so be it.  Agree to disagree....and try to do it without alluding to some accusation that I thought she deserved it, that I like pedophile murderers, that I don't care about children, etc.  That's just BS.