What would you do in this murder case?

I love it when I read about cases like this where they talk about the offender sobbing in the court room.

Yeah, right. If you were that damned emotionally distraught about the welfare of your child, you would have never done it in the first place. You're just upset that it's out there for the whole world to see.

@Rott: Still, she was a defenseless innocent in his care. Unless he to was getting abused to the point where he couldn't even call the police for her sake, he deserves everything she does in my opinion.

edited 11th Feb '11 10:58:26 PM by Meeble

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

To be fair, I wouldn't put a lot of emotional responses beyond someone batfuck insane enough to do what she did.

The problem with "just kill them, I don't want my tax dollars going to feeding someone in prison" is, last time I checked, it's actually about four times more expensive to keep someone on death row than to put them away for life. Perhaps a streamlining of the death penalty is in order?

And yes, I would take immense satisfaction from this woman's suffering. I can't even begin to imagine the horror her daughter went through, and I simply can't accept her getting off with a simple chop to the head or whatnot. She caused an unbelievable amount of pain, and my sense of justice demands that she experiences, at least in part, what it feels like.

Not unless you feel like setting a precedent to expedite the process for these guys.

"Holy Shit."

And then the logical part of my brain would kick in, and focus on wether this case fits the laws description of one worthy of a death penalty, even if only so I don't have a psychological break in the courtroom. Not that that would stop it, but I've gotta at least try not to have it happen in public.

Doesn't the death penalty have to go through an automatic appeal process anyways? It might have been state law and completely irrelevant here, but I do remember hearing that somewhere.

Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit Deviantart.

Solitary confinement for the rest of her life. Death is too quick, basic life imprisonment is not enough. Please get the siblings into good foster homes; I'm sure they had some sort of neglect also. Just no way they were spared everything.

I'm holding back tears here.

edited 12th Feb '11 1:46:28 AM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

This woman deserves slow and painful death. And her husband too - for doing nothing.

Exactly

However, this one is still against death penalty in practice (despite being convinced that certain people deserve it)

edited 12th Feb '11 9:30:11 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Life in prison.

What she did isn't the point; it's how long we want her out of society's hair. And death doesn't put her away any longer than life.

There's no point to causing people extra pain no matter how horrible they are.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

"What she did isn't the point; it's how long we want her out of society's hair. And death doesn't put her away any longer than life." - Black Humor

To be fair, there's always the argument that life imprisonment risks the possibility that the inmates would escape. It's a small risk, but this a justification often used for the death penalty, which supposedly eliminates that risk altogether. (In practice, though, it takes a while for them to actually be exectued so there's still a risk before they are.)

It decreases the risk after they're executed, yes, but they have infinite motivation to escape before they're executed.

My intuition is that the increased attempts to escape because of the infinite profit would balance out the inability to escape after execution.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

This is one of the problems with the Death Penalty. They still suck up tons of resources, there are still innocent people found guilty. The best they can do is attempt to minimise one or the other, there will always be an (unacceptable) balance between the two).

I'm all for hard labour, myself. Eighteen hours a day, until they get too old and sick. Then they do what they can each day before any work they achieve is useless. The punishment side of it appeals to me in an aesthetic way, the fact that they're contributing to society and potentially giving themselves a (false) idea that they're redeeming themselves appeals to me in my own little quasi-ethical way.

Is that an option under American laws? [hasnoidea]

I think I would not go for the Death penalty. Reading over what she did, though, it was hard not to let my aesthetic desire for her slow and painful death override my feeling that all intelligent life capable of empathy has an inherent worth due to the potential to do good. Imprisonment for life, and if hard, hard labour is an option, then that.

I find it difficult to believe that her husband was not involved on a far more intimate level than he claimed.

Oh this story shakes my faith in humanity.

EDIT:

This too.

Also, I think I get why Hard Labour ain't allowed. It incentivises convictions. Strongly. Big shame, really.

As long as you can dress it up as a 'step towards rehabilitation' though, perhaps pay them a token wage taken out of money that would've been spent on other prison stuff, would that be legal?

edited 12th Feb '11 12:28:48 PM by mmysqueeant

I'd say "escape" via having your sentence commuted later by soft-hearted judicial officials is a bigger risk than a prison break.

Probably not relevant in this... woman's case, though.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Hard labor probably won't happen, as I've said, we lack the backbone for such things.

@Rott: If soft-hearted judicial officials cause repeat murders reasonably often, than there is a strong incentive for the system to eliminate the kind of judicial officials who will commute sentences.

If they don't, what's the problem? Again, no point in causing people extra pain, no matter how horrific their actions were.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Based on this I'd vote for life without parole.

• The daughter was 15 and the law says "under 14" so the appeal could use that.
• Lethal Injection is up in the air because of drug issues.
• Death penalty cases are ludicrously expensive.
• Child abusers are not popular in prison.

But this... person... should never be trusted to be alone with another person again. I would also write a letter to the judge requesting any "minor" related sentences be served consecutively.

The husband should get a lengthy sentance but not necessarily life.

If the "wild west - era" laws were still in effect, I'd have voted to hang them both together in public.

edited 12th Feb '11 12:30:22 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

It's definitely legal to sentence this woman to death, at least.

edited 12th Feb '11 12:43:42 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Well, her crimes don't make me angry or outraged, if that's what you're getting at. I have no desire to see her suffer  ^*

^{at least, not for her crimes. She's decent-enough looking that I could enjoy watching her suffering whether or not she'd committed any crimes}

. I don't think she, or anyone else, "deserves" suffering. But of course, there still needs to be a consistent penalty, for the sake of deterrence and all that. Life imprisonment is a stupid, stupid concept in my eyes. I don't see how she could really have any future in society or even in the general prison population after this, so I'd go with death. I'd prefer that the method be nitrogen asphyxiation, but lethal injection is acceptable.

...I believe that hottip just broke the record for "most disturbing thing Tongpu has ever said."

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Wait, I thought you just got through saying in the other thread you're a sadist. That's basically exactly what that hottip is, just minus the bullshit

Anyway, got a friend keeping an eye on this case.

edited 12th Feb '11 1:02:37 PM by Pykrete

Life imprisonment, isolated so the other prisoners won't abuse her, no appeal process if possible.

Humane treatment.

That's the first thing I thought of.

Oh, and same for the guy, but not together.

edited 12th Feb '11 1:04:59 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

@Pykrete: Yeah, but that doesn't mean I have to be attracted to the suffering of every woman in the world.

You don't get off on her and you're attracted to women, right?

edited 12th Feb '11 1:09:33 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Which is retarded in a country where the death penalty is legal. Why destroy what you can exploit? My only discomfort would be the possibility of such prisoners depressing the low wage jobs market, which can be handled easily if we make "renting" our convicted psychopaths out to private buyers a deal more expensive than hiring law-abiding citizens at minimum wage.

For the record, Rottweiler, I only mentioned "or insane" because I'm not a health-care professional and I don't know all the details. But if I were a gambling man, I'd put my money on this couple being sane, functional, and simply evil. Oh, and ditto on equal punishment for that asshole of a husband.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Me neither. There are tons of women who aren't necessarily "decent-enough looking".

I don't really buy the death penalty is inhumane arguments. While I don't believe in being vindictive, by committing this level of crime and being unfixable you've basically forfeited your rights. However the state decides to treat you should be to its own benefit, not yours. Because you no longer deserve them due to your violations. It's not in the state's benefit to torture you, but not having to pay for your continued existence is.

Maybe she should be locked away in one of those closed psychological ward / prisons like the one Hannibal was in?

Then there'd be no chance (except escape, but that's extremely unlikely) of her hurting society or other people (well, there's the cost of her treatment, but there's no moral (to my standards; this is my opinion) way around that) ever again.

Plus there'd be the slim chance that she'd be cured and could contribute to society, maybe even be released or at the least maybe she'd want to do some work while locked up, so she'd be useful out of her own will (I don't approve of forcing anyone to work under any circumstance).

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.