Forums | MacLife

I have kids too. I can relate to Mars' sentiment. I don't think anyone really believes that people should be exterminated without trial. Emotionally, I would have to say that I would want blood too, if it were one of my kids. However, this criminal is entitled to a trial, and if he's convicted he's entitled to die. Rehabilitation has it's place, and there is valid reason for re-evaluating our rehab programs. However, there are billions of other people on the planet that do restrain there 'darker' urges every day. I find it hard to exempt this person because he has 'issues'. That's too damn bad, if he truly was so concerned about his 'sickness' he would have sought help on his own. Regardless of the circumstances, this man abducted, molested, and murdered an innocent little girl. I'm not interested in arguing that he could have gotten more help, he should have sought it. He didn't so now justice must be served. We must have faith in our government, and assume everyone will do their jobs. If something does fail in the process, this is one of these examples to consider when electing our government officials.

The thing to consider is this;
If an alchoholic is abusive when drunk, do you excuse their physical assualts and excuse them because they have a drinking problem? I wouldn't and I don't. They know what's going to happen when they take that first drink. If the dependancy is stronger than their will to respect their family and loved ones, than perhaps they aren't strong enough to continue in society. All citizens deserve their constitutional rights, however, once they infringe on anothers rights, than their freedom should be revoked, possibly their life.

bratboy wrote:

jax wrote:

Rehabilitation has it's place, and there is valid reason for re-evaluating our rehab programs. However, there are billions of other people on the planet that do restrain there 'darker' urges every day. I find it hard to exempt this person because he has 'issues'. That's too damn bad, if he truly was so concerned about his 'sickness' he would have sought help on his own. Regardless of the circumstances, this man abducted, molested, and murdered an innocent little girl. I'm not interested in arguing that he could have gotten more help, he should have sought it. He didn't so now justice must be served. We must have faith in our government, and assume everyone will do their jobs. If something does fail in the process, this is one of these examples to consider when electing our government officials.

I wouldn't be so sure that everyone here believes that just everyone is entitled to a trial, or to due process...including the right to appeals.  I've read much that would suggest otherwise.

I have not said that this man deserves anything less than life in prison.  I don't agree with any use of the death penalty, but my comments concernings "rehabilitation" have nothing to do with this specfic case.  This isn't simply a "sexual predator," this was murder.

However, I don't believe that the outcome here predicts the outcome in every case in which someone might be labeled a "sexual predator."

I know what you're saying. I think emotions run high in situations like this. People are bound to have differences in opinion, hey this is MiniThink after all. Heh.
I didn't take what you've said as advocating this guys actions. I think some of the other Mars' point is that emotionally-he deserves nothing less than death, but at the same time he concurs that he is entitled to a trial. Maybe, I'm trying to hard to make everyone get along.

bratboy wrote:

jax wrote:

I know what you're saying. I think emotions run high in situations like this. People are bound to have differences in opinion, hey this is MiniThink after all. Heh.
I didn't take what you've said as advocating this guys actions. I think some of the other Mars' point is that emotionally-he deserves nothing less than death, but at the same time he concurs that he is entitled to a trial. Maybe, I'm trying to hard to make everyone get along.

I've witnessed him post pretty flippant comments concerning the deaths of innocent people before.  We're unlikely to "get along."

Just everyone keep your noses clean Big Brother

Last edited by jax (2005-03-21 4:01 pm)

everlong205 wrote:

jax wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I wouldn't be so sure that everyone here believes that just everyone is entitled to a trial, or to due process...including the right to appeals.  I've read much that would suggest otherwise.

I have not said that this man deserves anything less than life in prison.  I don't agree with any use of the death penalty, but my comments concernings "rehabilitation" have nothing to do with this specfic case.  This isn't simply a "sexual predator," this was murder.

However, I don't believe that the outcome here predicts the outcome in every case in which someone might be labeled a "sexual predator."

I know what you're saying. I think emotions run high in situations like this. People are bound to have differences in opinion, hey this is MiniThink after all. Heh.
I didn't take what you've said as advocating this guys actions. I think some of the other Mars' point is that emotionally-he deserves nothing less than death, but at the same time he concurs that he is entitled to a trial. Maybe, I'm trying to hard to make everyone get along.

And while he is entitled to a presumption of innocence in a court trial, that applies to the jurors sitting on the jury. However, we, who have been following the case, know that he not only confessed, but led the cops to where he buried her, in his sisters house no less.
His guilt is pretty much a given, for most people.

Now, I would certainly expect him to have a trial, but am assuming that the outcome of the trial will be that he is found guilty. Do I personally think he deserves such rights? Probably not. If the father were to find him and kill him I wouldn't shed too many tears.

I don't expect him to see too many more birthdays either, and if the father were to find him I wouldn't have too much sympathy for Couey (or whatever his name is). It would be better for the justice system to see him dealt with so the father can retain his freedom, though.

I suppose I'm not getting this whole bit about "deserving."

To me, it only makes sense that if you think someone doesn't "deserve" their constitutional rights, then it follows that you believe that those rights either shouldn't exist or you feel that those rights should be denied to them.

It's not like the rights in question are meant for other people and not the guilty.

Camp David wrote:

bratboy wrote:

What "child?"

Jessica

bratboy wrote:

What rights?

Exactly... she had none!

You've lost me.  Try a response that doesn't involve chopping up a reply to another poster and "answering" it in a nonsensical way.

It isn't written in stone anywhere that "all those convicted of a sexual crime must be given a second chance!"  Sentencing laws vary from state-to-state, depend on the crime involved, any plea reached, behavior in prison, parole, etc.  There are many factors involved.

Camp David wrote:

bratboy=>Child Jessica was given no rights when she was killed in buried in backyard; why should any at all be extended to her killer, who admitted the deed? The sooner this killer is dead the sooner the family of Jessica can rest, and other famlies be safe. Why would you advocate rights for someone who admitted to murder? Why would you do that?

Oh I dunno, because they're guaranteed under the Constitution?  If you only support the rights of people who you like and agree with, then you really don't support those rights at all.

Camp David wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Camp David wrote:

bratboy wrote:

What "child?"

Jessica

Exactly... she had none!

You've lost me.  Try a response that doesn't involve chopping up a reply to another poster and "answering" it in a nonsensical way.

bratboy=>Child Jessica was given no rights when she was killed in buried in backyard; why should any at all be extended to her killer, who admitted the deed? The sooner this killer is dead the sooner the family of Jessica can rest, and other famlies be safe. Why would you advocate rights for someone who admitted to murder? Why would you do that?

Let's not confuse advocating rights with sympathizing for murderers. That's not what is going on here. The fact of the matter is that our judicial system is centered around the principal of innocent until proven guilty. The reason why trials are necessary is to ensure that justice is served. Without a trial the killer could go back on his confession and state that it was forced. The fact that he has confessed should if nothing else guarantee a faster process once at trial. All citizens are entitled to a fair trial, that is not the same thing as a 'get out of jail' card. No one is saying this guy should be released. He does deserve a trial, not just for the sake of preserving his rights, but for the sake of the injured party. Once he is convicted of murder and abduction and repeat sexual offenses, his proverbial grave will be sealed. Death penalty or not he will not be seeing the light of day. Once in prison, do any of us really feel he will be in a 'safe' and comfortable environment? Most likely he will be on the reverse side of his own predation, maybe a lifetime of that is better vengeance than a quick death, anyway.

jax wrote:

Let's not confuse advocating rights with sympathizing for murderers.

Oh, I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

Your point is stupid. In fact, when liberals suggest giving money to families who need help you call it socialism.
The Constitution guarantees rights - not "perceived rights" (whatever that means) - including rights to criminals. Deal with it.

Camp David wrote:

jax wrote:

The fact of the matter is that our judicial system is centered around the principal of innocent until proven guilty. The reason why trials are necessary is to ensure that justice is served...

Our justice system is broken if this guy was let out to kill...
Our justice system is broken if it allows women to starve to death...
Our justice system is broken if it allows pedaphiles to remain in society...
Almost half the posts in MiniThink concern our justice system out of control...
(some aspect thereof or thereto)

The guy admitted he killed Jessica... why waste money on his behalf? Why not give money to family who truely needs help... they are not well off...

Liberals seem to want to bend over backward to defend this killer's perceived "rights" but extend nothing to victim or victim's family.... that is point I have been trying to make...

Again... our justice system is broken if a killer who admits his guilt is endowed with rights that said killer didn't even extend to his victim...

Yes and the fact that such killers do violate others rights in such a manner is the very reason our justice system exists. Without it we would be reduced to marshal law, lawlessness is not a suitable replacement for an imperfect system. I don't deny that there are flaws in our justice system, that doesn't mean we should abandon all hope and sense of order. Giving this man his right to have his day in court does not mean he will be given anything beyond just that. He must be tried so that he can be sentenced. It doesn't mean we have to like him, at this point I doubt  few do.

Our justice system is a product of our elected officials, if there is something that one is unhappy with, perhaps they should keep such grievances in mind when voting for said officials. This is an example of why the common citizenry should look beyond partisanship when voting, and instead base our decisions on the issues that the politicians stand for. This should apply for all offices, from the President to the county clerks. This is not a liberal/ conservative issue. This is simple legal process. Murders happen everyday, and they are all equally heinous. If we simply execute all suspected criminals without trial and fair representation than we are not the country we set out to be. This man will face judgement, if he is guilty (which it certainly appears he is) he will pay. Whether it is in this life or his next. We shouldn't misdirect our outrage on anyone other than the criminal who perpetrated this crime.