View Full Version : 17 year old Sentenced to 90 Years for Vicious Attack
Crazed Rabbit
12-12-2006, 20:26
That's right, a 17 year who was part of a vicious, long, sadistic and brutal attack that was racially motivated, was sentenced to 90 years, and will have no chance of parole unitl he's 47 years old. Also note: noone got killed, so he didn't commit murder.
Teen sentenced to 90 years for brutal attack
A 17-year-old suburban teen was sentenced Monday to 90 years in prison in the brutal attack of a Hispanic boy who was beaten, kicked, stomped, burned and sodomized with the plastic pole of a patio umbrella.
Keith Turner was the second teen convicted of aggravated sexual assault in the April attack at a house in Spring, north of Houston.
David Henry Tuck, 18, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison on Nov. 16.
Turner was convicted late Friday after about 90 minutes of deliberations. The jury took about five hours over two days to reach the sentence of 90 years.
Turner will have to serve at least 30 years before becoming eligible for parole.
Although Turner was the younger of the assailants and didn’t have the history of racial attacks that colored Tuck’s past, it was his idea to use the patio umbrella pole in the attack.
Turner, Tuck, the victim and two other teens were partying at a house in Spring, drinking and taking cocaine and Xanax.
Twelve-year-old Danielle Sons, who was at the party at her house, told the other boys that the victim had tried to kiss her, prompting the attack.
Tuck shouted racial slurs and “white power” as he and Turner kicked the then 17-year-old, cut him with a knife, sodomized him with a plastic pipe and poured bleach on him in an assault that lasted up to five hours.
The victim was left bleeding in the backyard until dawn, when Sons and her brother, Gus, finally woke their mother, who slept through it.
During Turner’s trial, jurors saw a videotaped statement by Turner in which he admitted to being the first one to grab the umbrella pole and joking about using it to sodomize the victim.
Provides a sort of odd counter perspective to countries where men get off on parole after 5 years for raping a child.
Even I did a double take when I read about this sentence, though.
Crazed Rabbit
Sasaki Kojiro
12-12-2006, 20:32
Tuck shouted racial slurs and “white power” as he and Turner kicked the then 17-year-old, cut him with a knife, sodomized him with a plastic pipe and poured bleach on him in an assault that lasted up to five hours.
The victim was left bleeding in the backyard until dawn, when Sons and her brother, Gus, finally woke their mother, who slept through it.
During Turner’s trial, jurors saw a videotaped statement by Turner in which he admitted to being the first one to grab the umbrella pole and joking about using it to sodomize the victim.
90 years seems about right to me.
yesdachi
12-12-2006, 20:41
I’d forget to wet the sponge.
Id hate to be those jurors....
Pannonian
12-12-2006, 21:22
Id hate to be those jurors....
I'd love to be the judge handing out the sentence though.
sentance seems a bit high to me, but it was a particularly violent attack, so he can't really complain :2thumbsup:
Big King Sanctaphrax
12-12-2006, 21:50
The jury took about five hours over two days to reach the sentence of 90 years.
The jury decided his sentence?
Prince of the Poodles
12-12-2006, 21:50
Provides a sort of odd counter perspective to countries where men get off on parole after 5 years for raping a child.
USA = 1
UK = 0
(In this instance)
The victim was left bleeding in the backyard until dawn, when Sons and her brother, Gus, finally woke their mother, who slept through it.
I think I see the root of the problem here... :inquisitive:
Reenk Roink
12-12-2006, 21:58
Life is prison is about right. That or an "eye for an eye". If the victim had died, he should have been executed.
Sjakihata
12-12-2006, 22:04
That should be maximum 2-4 years in prison. What good does it make to rob an individual for his entire active adult life for one action? Completely baffles me.
I think I see the root of the problem here...
im not sure i do - we all need to sleep?
That should be maximum 2-4 years in prison. What good does it make to rob an individual for his entire active adult life for one action? Completely baffles me.
I think i agree, although maybe more than 2-4 because it was particularly vioent + racially motivated,
--> prison is not for punishment...:2thumbsup:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-12-2006, 22:12
That should be maximum 2-4 years in prison. What good does it make to rob an individual for his entire active adult life for one action? Completely baffles me.
Well, he tortured him for five hours, so it wasn't a moment of rage. He joked about it afterwards so remorse wouldn't stop him. And it was racially motivated so he has plenty of people to choose from to do it again. If he's in prison he won't.
:balloon2:
King Henry V
12-12-2006, 22:13
Owing to the complete failure of rehabilitation programmes in most cases, yes, prison is for punishment and protection of the public.
That should be maximum 2-4 years in prison. What good does it make to rob an individual for his entire active adult life for one action? Completely baffles me.
If such an incident ever happened to you, I would like to see you say that the sentence is unfair...
Big King Sanctaphrax
12-12-2006, 22:14
That should be maximum 2-4 years in prison. What good does it make to rob an individual for his entire active adult life for one action? Completely baffles me.
I'm all for re-habilitation, but I'm pretty sure that anyone who sodomizes someone with a garden umbrella is pretty violent, and might just pose a danger to others if he was released so soon.
Owing to the complete failure of rehabilitation programmes in most cases, yes, prison is for punishment and protection of the public.
I agree that protection is very important, and in the case of definate (especially pre-meditated) murders and rape i would normally agree to a life sentance etc. however re-habilitation has to be equally important, its can be made more effective, and should be.
Punishment is pointless, because it serves no purpose, protection and rehabilitation do... :2thumbsup:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-12-2006, 22:25
Punishment is deterrent. I don't know why people deny this.
im not sure i do - we all need to sleep?
Turner, Tuck, the victim and two other teens were partying at a house in Spring, drinking and taking cocaine and Xanax.
Twelve-year-old Danielle Sons, who was at the party at her house, told the other boys that the victim had tried to kiss her, prompting the attack.
So the mother was present at the house, with her 12-year old daughter, and there was a party at the same house with booze, coke, and Xanax. You seriously don't see what the problem is? Whatever happened to parental responsibility? The mother deserves at least 5 years for letting this happen in the first place.
Provides a sort of odd counter perspective to countries where men get off on parole after 5 years for raping a child.
Welcome to Texas.
He deserve's every moment he gets in jail. The crime was dispicable, and that article's even assuming he actually kissed her. Both the kid who was attacked and the younger girl denied that.
The poor kid nearly died, he was in the hospital for months. They didn't just sodomize him with a pole. They kicked the pole in, it made it past his colon and liver. The bleach was also poored into his rectum after he was sodomized, an attempt to "clean up". After all that he joked about it with his friends, and left him for dead.
Whats sad is, there wasnt one person involved with this. There was a group of 4 that all participated in this. I do hope they all recieve similiar sentences.
The kid who was torchered has severe life long damage to many lower internal organs. No this sentence is still to light, life without parole. Screw rehabilitation for these criminals.
Papewaio
12-12-2006, 22:44
I don't agree with the death sentence. But I have no problems with long sentences for heinous crimes... at least if you get the verdict wrong you can release him from jail.
Also as the world is overpopulated why give a fig if the worst of the worst are locked away because they don't 'play well with others'. Its not like we are down to the last 400 of us and need everyone to continue the species. Common DNA is not enough for a person to be a person, blueprints do not a house make.
I would like to see the 12 year old put into protective custody and the parent have the book thrown at her for not providing proper supervision, safe place etc etc.
the Black Prince
12-12-2006, 23:12
given his age, the UK has a rather nice advantage over US sentencing here....
Detentiob at Her Majesty's pleasure... in other words, detained until we see fit to release you, however long that might be. indeterminate sentences can be fun.
but the UK wouldn't be handing out non custodial sentences for this crime, its racially aggravated, a sustained attack, heavy use of violence, against a minor, in the presense of minors.... in the UK... but no death...
hmmm 16 year minimum term with no maximum, probably.
given his age, the UK has a rather nice advantage over US sentencing here....
Detentiob at Her Majesty's pleasure... in other words, detained until we see fit to release you, however long that might be. indeterminate sentences can be fun.
but the UK wouldn't be handing out non custodial sentences for this crime, its racially aggravated, a sustained attack, heavy use of violence, against a minor, in the presense of minors.... in the UK... but no death...
hmmm 16 year minimum term with no maximum, probably.
Hmmm I now have a fond love for a UK law.
Only problem is the kid is still living on borrowed time. Could still very well die becuase of this rape and brutal attack.
KukriKhan
12-12-2006, 23:19
Which brings up an interesting question. What might such an offense garner as punishment in other countries? Holland? Germany? Mexico? Indonesia? Morrocco? Poland?
Ser Clegane
12-12-2006, 23:33
Germany?
5 years max would be my guess (due to his age)
Watchman
12-12-2006, 23:39
Punishment is deterrent. I don't know why people deny this.'Cause it doesn't work, at least by its lonesome. You do know what Medieval law was like, right ? The alarming regularity with which its assorted corporal punishements were meted out ought to tell a bit about just how effective mere fear of harsh punishements is at keeping people from doing bad things...
Besides, we don't have very harsh sentences over here (Murder One nets you round fourteen years, the functional maximum sentence, tops by itself) yet our rate of serious crimes is fairly low.
I don't incidentally have any idea how our legal system would actually deal with this case. I strongly suspect the fellows would get put through the procedures to determine if the suspect is of sufficiently sound mind to be held legally responsible for his actions (those who are determined not to be incidentally get indefinite closed section at the nuthouse until the shrinks think they're better...) though.
Prince of the Poodles
12-13-2006, 00:18
The alarming regularity with which its assorted corporal punishements were meted out ought to tell a bit about just how effective mere fear of harsh punishements is at keeping people from doing bad things...
But do we know the number of crimes that would have been committed had such harsh punishments not been given?
Simply because some people arent detered, does not mean harsh punishments don't deter others.
Goofball
12-13-2006, 01:24
given his age, the UK has a rather nice advantage over US sentencing here....
Detentiob at Her Majesty's pleasure... in other words, detained until we see fit to release you, however long that might be. indeterminate sentences can be fun.
We have something close to that in Canada. If the Crown is successful in having a judge declare a convict to be a "Dangerous Offender" then he/she can be held until such time as they can prove that they no longer fit this category. It's very hard for the Crown to have this label slapped on somebody (and rightly so), but once it's on there they are pretty much staying in jail until they die.
As far as the sentence in this case goes, I think it's too short. I would have liked to see 300 years, eligible for parole in 100 years, because it's actually conceivable that this punk might live to the age of 117.
Imprisonment is a deterrent they cry, as another offender is thrown into jail!
Crazed Rabbit
12-13-2006, 01:46
Violent crime is on the decrease in the USA, and it seems we have the fullest jails. Coincidence?
CR
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-13-2006, 02:04
I believe the mother should also get some sort of punishment, as it was her house and she neglected her duty to those under her jurisdiction.
90 years seems about right to me.
It's hilariously preposterous to me. He'll be (un)lucky to live to 107 years of age anyway, and what makes anyone think that he'll be likely to bash another latino after, oh say, 50 years, when he'll be just old enough to do nothing but be a potential victim all day?
rory_20_uk
12-13-2006, 03:08
I imagine that the judge has thought of the time he wishes this creature to serve.
Half can be taken off for good behaviour, and some more might go with rehabilitation. Hence 90 means he's gonig to spend most of his formative life in the best place for him.
~:smoking:
As a side note, the kid who sodomized could still very well die from his wounds. If he does then this 90 year sentence is out the window. He will very likely have the attempted murder thrown out and retryed on Murder 1 with a very quick execution.
Not quick. They drag death sentences over years and years. Im all for the death sentence though, why feed the ****** with taxpayer money?
EDIT : dont want another message from mithrandir.
Not quick. They drag death sentences over years and years. Im all for the death sentence though, why feed the ****** with taxpayer money?
EDIT : dont want another message from mithrandir.
Crime was committed in the Great State of Texas. There were more then 3 eye witnesses (kinda why his life sentence trial was so incredibly fast.). He gets moved to the front of the line, quick and hopefully excrutiatingly painful.
But only if the kid die's.
Samurai Waki
12-13-2006, 03:51
sometimes I wish the use of the Guillatine was a more easily accessible use of execution. You do this. and this is what happens to you. Serves to remind the scum whose in charge.
Speaking of which my Step-Cousin was charged with accessory to murder. Hope he gets put in the pokey for life. No remorse, not even for family.:whip:
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
12-13-2006, 03:54
90 years is a hell of a good punishment. When you Torute someone like that for that amount of time.... Utterly Makes me Sick..
Strike For The South
12-13-2006, 06:27
I agree with the sentence
Watchman
12-13-2006, 12:31
But do we know the number of crimes that would have been committed had such harsh punishments not been given?
Simply because some people arent detered, does not mean harsh punishments don't deter others.What we do know is that most Medieval authorities weren't very good at catching criminals and actually upholding the letter of the law. The ones they did catch were then punished that much more severely. And what can be deduced from surviving sources (parish records, official jurisprudence...) suggests serious violent crime was extremely common - "killing at the drop of the hat" is actually a rather literal figure of speech. A very common would-be deterrent for this was the threat of reprisals from the victim's family and associates (which, obviously, only works if your equivalents are weaker), but then this is no more than primitive vendetta law.
Punishements started getting milder over the time, particularly with the Enlightement and after the French Revolution. It's a little complicated and I'd rather not start exploring the topic here. Law enforcement got considerably better with the advent of increasingly competently run territorial states and professional bureaucracies however, meaning that criminals were increasingly likely to end up before the courts for their deeds. And it was really this that led to a virtual collapse in serious crime rates a century or two back, not the exact nature of the punishements. IIRC a study shows the British rates of serious crimes started really going down only after they abandoned their old and very draconian legislation which, as a contemporary put it, "hanged men like onions" in some cases for offences as minor as stealing a hat...
doc_bean
12-13-2006, 12:31
If he did it in Belgium he would have been out when he turned 18, most likely. Equally likely, he wouldn't even have to sit in a rehabilitation center (or whatever they call their youth prisons these days) because they're too full.
I'd say 10 years or so would have been a reasonable sentence, though I doubt very much this person can even be rehabilitated. 10 years of gang rapings by Latino prison gangs should make him think twice before doing something like this again though.
I can't say I feel sorry for him.
I wonder what he would have gotten if the victim wasn't hispanic. Doesn't sound like a great loss to society but it's way out of proportion, activist judge?
doc_bean
12-13-2006, 12:54
I wonder what he would have gotten if the victim wasn't hispanic. Doesn't sound like a great loss to society but it's way out of proportion, activist judge?
Well, hate crimes are normally given tougher sentences. I think it's the 'rape+bleach = fun with torture !' part that did it though.
I realise that it isn't a very nice thing to do, but the guy is 17, and it isn't like he murdered someone. It's just an extremily harsh penalty. Don't feel sorry for him mind you, but it's a bit hypocritical to give him 90 years, that is not a verdict, that's activism.
doc_bean
12-13-2006, 13:14
I realise that it isn't a very nice thing to do, but the guy is 17, and it isn't like he murdered someone. It's just an extremily harsh penalty. Don't feel sorry for him mind you, but it's a bit hypocritical to give him 90 years, that is not a verdict, that's activism.
I'd prefer a swift kill to a 5 hour torture session that would leave me fighting for my life for months and mutilated and damaged for the rest of my life.
Even if the guy make sit out alive, and most of his internal organs remain mostly undamaged he'll probably still have to wear diapers for the rest of his life.
A totally sick crime, but 90 years is ridiculous. There are killers over here that get a lot less than that. About 25 years would be ideal for such a crime. If the victim had died then I could understand a life sentence. The family sound a bit rough as well, letting that go on right under their noses. :inquisitive:
It's a difficult one though, personally, if it was me, I'd execute the scum on the spot. Such people are a waste of fresh air and contribute nothing to society.
I'd prefer a swift kill to a 5 hour torture session that would leave me fighting for my life for months and mutilated and damaged for the rest of my life.
Even if the guy make sit out alive, and most of his internal organs remain mostly undamaged he'll probably still have to wear diapers for the rest of his life.
I am not trying to downplay the event. It's a very sick thing to do, but a little bit of consistancy would be nice, excesses like this makes it can of hard to take the law serious, or to feel represented by it.
Which brings up an interesting question. What might such an offense garner as punishment in other countries? Holland? Germany? Mexico? Indonesia? Morrocco? Poland?
Here in Holland probably the maximum of 12 years in jail for assault because it was an extremily cruel crime + TBS (that means mandatory treatment, it's in theory a way to lock someone up for the rest of his life)
doc_bean
12-13-2006, 13:26
I am not trying to downplay the event. It's a very sick thing to do, but a little bit of consistancy would be nice, excesses like this makes it can of hard to take the law serious, or to feel represented by it.
Since when do you take the law serious ? :laugh4:
It's a joke around these parts, you're usually the first to admit that.
Reenk Roink
12-13-2006, 13:33
Not quick. They drag death sentences over years and years. Im all for the death sentence though, why feed the ****** with taxpayer money?
EDIT : dont want another message from mithrandir.
There ya have it! Proof that punishment does deter... :laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-13-2006, 13:38
There ya have it! Proof that punishment does deter... :laugh4:
lol! :laugh4:
King Henry V
12-13-2006, 13:44
'Cause it doesn't work, at least by its lonesome. You do know what Medieval law was like, right ? The alarming regularity with which its assorted corporal punishements were meted out ought to tell a bit about just how effective mere fear of harsh punishements is at keeping people from doing bad things...
I find it very hard to believe that extremely harsh sentences, coupled with an efficient police force and judiciary system, have no deterrent value.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-13-2006, 13:50
What we do know is that most Medieval authorities weren't very good at catching criminals and actually upholding the letter of the law. The ones they did catch were then punished that much more severely. And what can be deduced from surviving sources (parish records, official jurisprudence...) suggests serious violent crime was extremely common - "killing at the drop of the hat" is actually a rather literal figure of speech. A very common would-be deterrent for this was the threat of reprisals from the victim's family and associates (which, obviously, only works if your equivalents are weaker), but then this is no more than primitive vendetta law.
Punishements started getting milder over the time, particularly with the Enlightement and after the French Revolution. It's a little complicated and I'd rather not start exploring the topic here. Law enforcement got considerably better with the advent of increasingly competently run territorial states and professional bureaucracies however, meaning that criminals were increasingly likely to end up before the courts for their deeds. And it was really this that led to a virtual collapse in serious crime rates a century or two back, not the exact nature of the punishements. IIRC a study shows the British rates of serious crimes started really going down only after they abandoned their old and very draconian legislation which, as a contemporary put it, "hanged men like onions" in some cases for offences as minor as stealing a hat...
So when they had an ineffective police force and harsh punishments there was lots of crime.
When they got an effective police force with softer punishments there was less crime.
It seems to me it's a function of how effective the police are. Also, there were more people desperately poor in the middle ages I believe. People are always going to worry more about being caught than about being punished, but they only worry about being caught in the first place because it involves punishment. No one says "oh no I better not kill this person or I'm going to be rehabilitated".
doc_bean
12-13-2006, 14:02
Sjees people, this is pure economics/statistics
expected punishment=chance of getting caught * expected punishment when caught
crime happens if expected gain > expected punishment
now the second part is pretty much 'known' (exceptions like this case not withstanding ) the first part is much more subject to risk. Most people tend to be risk averse, so they'll 'overestimate' the chance of getting caught, so if you increase your police force, people will react stronger to that than if you increase your sentences. However, there is a limit in much improvement you can get when only taking into account one of these variables. If you would only get a one day sentence for murder, then a lot more murders would happen, even if 100% of the murderers got caught.
Actually, this whole thing is horribly simplified (like most economics *cough*) but at least it's better than just saying one of these variables determines crime rate.
macsen rufus
12-13-2006, 14:03
Utterly sickening crime, I don't really disagree with the 90 years at all.
Regarding deterrence, I agree with sasaki that it's the likelihood of being caught rather than the nature of the punishment that has most effect. Most criminals think they're too clever to be caught, so don't examine the punishments closely. Who cares what the sentence is if they're never going to face it?
Hosakawa Tito
12-13-2006, 16:19
Punishment might not deter some but it certainly provides a degree of justice and retribution for the victim. A life sentence is better over execution, imo, because once he's dead he's no longer suffering, as far as we can be certain anyway. I imagine he will be of interest to Latin gangs in the prison population....
Sjakihata
12-13-2006, 16:49
I imagine he will be of interest to Latin gangs in the prison population....
Two wrongs doesnt make a right, a classical logical fallacy.
Kralizec
12-13-2006, 17:02
As Fragony mentioned, we Dutch have the so-called TBS system- literally the acronym means "being put at the state's disposal", or something to that effect.
Generally you'll get a hefty prison sentence, and after serving it out you'll be transferred to a TBS clinic- it's an additional measure for mentally distorted patients, who can't expected to be rehabilitated after their prison sentence.
The patients condition is reevaluated every 2 years (I think), with no maximum durance. In the near future clinics will be expanded to handle about 200 so-called "longstay" patients- a euphenism for people who probably will never be "cured" and must be held till they expire. I'm not sure how many longstay patients there are at this moment.
We also have lifelong (contrary to popular belief for real, not just for 20 years like in Germany) prison sentences (that by definition don't involve psychiatric treatment like with TBS), but that amount really pales compared to those 200. Since WW2 only 32 lifelong sentences have been issued.
Hosakawa Tito
12-13-2006, 17:05
To suffer the same fate as one's victim may not seem right to others that have not been targeted or victims of said abuse, however I'm not sure I would have such a saintly view of forgiveness if it was I or a loved one. I just find it to be quite ironic and judiciously acceptable at the possibility that the hunter may become the hunted. I am no saint, but I am a realist.
We also have lifelong (contrary to popular belief for real, not just for 20 years like in Germany)
We do? This is really the first time I hear about this, not just some old thing they forgot to cancel? Really surprised here.
(and that comes with a story)
In England there was this marine guy that wanted to have his daily amount of booze, since he had the right to have one glass of rum every day, as was said in a law from 1702. In court he was arrested, because he wasn't wearing his sabre, which officers of the marine were ought to do since 1560 :laugh4: :laugh4:
Judges with a sense of humour, can you believe tyhat.
Samurai Waki
12-13-2006, 17:18
under Vlad Tepes (The Impaler) Wallachia had one of the lowest crime rates of any country in history... just proof that you REALLY REALLY REALLY don't want to be impaled. :smash:
Kralizec
12-13-2006, 17:30
We do?
Yup. It's a pretty rare sentence though as I mentioned. The maximum temporary sentence is 20 years, wich is probably at the source of the myth.
This is really the first time I hear about this, not just some old thing they forgot to cancel? Really surprised here.
(and that comes with a story)
In England there was this marine guy that wanted to have his daily amount of booze, since he had the right to have one glass of rum every day, as was said in a law from 1702. In court he was arrested, because he wasn't wearing his sabre, which officers of the marine were ought to do since 1560 :laugh4: :laugh4:
Judges with a sense of humour, can you believe tyhat.
I read a variant of that story. A student (for a military academy) asked for beer and pie while taking one of his exams, a centuries old decree gave him this right. After coming to the conclusion that he was right, he was given a soda and a hamburger wich the student accepted as a substitute.
Later he was charged for not wearing a sabre at the time of the exam, wich was legally required according to the same law :beam:
Probably an urban legend, anyway that sort of thing can't really happen over here because Anglo-Saxon common law is very different from most other law systems including ours. Civilized people like us work with codified books that contain all legislation that is currently in effect :smash:
Two wrongs doesnt make a right, a classical logical fallacy.
From a Nietzschean point of view, this statement is hilarious.
I wonder what he would have gotten if the victim wasn't hispanic. Doesn't sound like a great loss to society but it's way out of proportion, activist judge?
Part of the reason for the 90 years should be related to the fact that he was a racist. It shows, and he reafirmed it that he had little remorse and thought the victim was less then human.
Also they raped sodomized and poured clorine down him. The burns are mentioned, but the kid had no external burns, they were all internal 2nd and 3rd degree burns to his lower lying orgains.
90 years is a perfect sentence, God Bless Texas.
Strike For The South
12-14-2006, 05:43
Although fragony brings up a good point what if roles had been reversed?
This is not a case of assault, this is a) torture b) rape c) attempted murder d) drug possession and e) drug consumption
90 years sounds like a magnificent sentence, hell I want him strung up. Forget the race issue, this guy will probably be out after the thirty year mark. The poor boy will be living with this his whole life. (now there is a sentence, imprisonment until no one else is suffering).
Our prisons are full, so the deterrent must be working!
Our prisons are full, so the deterrent must be working!
Kill 'em all!!
:laugh4:
Disgusting act and an equally disgusting sentence. If we had these kinds of sentencing over here we would have a prison population 10 times larger than we do currently and a society on its arse. You do not solve the clearly significant psychological problems of a 17 year old by locking him up and throwing away the key.
rory_20_uk
12-15-2006, 03:04
People can do "evil" things without having "clear" psycological problems. And with all due respect, you aren't trained to make that call, even if you had the correct acmount of evidence - which you don't.
Assuming that you'd section him if it did turn out to be a psyche problem, what do you advise if it's not?
Of course it is the state, the schooling, and basically society in general apart from this poor lamb...
~:smoking:
If he has noticeable problems or not the solution is the same and it isn't merely locking him up for the rest fo his life. How can locking anyone up who does anything illegal, for significantly more time than present, solve anything? Deterrence has been proven throughout its existence as a theory not to work, yet this is it gone mad.
Better services before people commit an illegal act and better services after it is the answer.
If he has noticeable problems or not the solution is the same and it isn't merely locking him up for the rest fo his life. How can locking anyone up who does anything illegal, for significantly more time than present, solve anything? Deterrence has been proven throughout its existence as a theory not to work, yet this is it gone mad.
Locking him up seems to fit the bill for his act.
Better services before people commit an illegal act and better services after it is the answer.
Racism doesn't work that way.
rory_20_uk
12-15-2006, 03:39
Redleg, it's Jag's religion. Any event is only evidence that there wasn't enough care, and that with more even psycopaths would not offend.
Deterrence has been shown to work. Crimininals (bar the zealots) are good at weighing up benefits vs. Risk and likely punishment. Only those with nothing to loose or an inability to weigh gain against risk and punishment are going to commit crimes with a high chance of hetting caught and a severe punishment.
~:smoking:
Redleg, it's Jag's religion. Any event is only evidence that there wasn't enough care, and that with more even psycopaths would not offend.
Yes indeed - he just confirmed it in another thread about rehabilitation of criminals.
Deterrence has been shown to work. Crimininals (bar the zealots) are good at weighing up benefits vs. Risk and likely punishment. Only those with nothing to loose or an inability to weigh gain against risk and punishment are going to commit crimes with a high chance of hetting caught and a severe punishment.
~:smoking:
Indeed - I was tempted to ask him to provide evidence on his emotional appeal about deterrence does not work. But decided against it, since we have had that discussion before, and it was lacking in evidence that time also.
Redleg - why is the guy racist? That is the question and of course it works in the same way.
Rory - Religion? Don't get me started ~;)
The problem is that criminals are not good at weighing up cost / risk vs benefits. Do you know the proportion of criminals in our system which are on drugs? Or from poor areas, often unemployed? That does not even take into account those with psychological problems and significant other problems... You would love to paint it as black and white and like so many things it really isn't.
Redleg - why is the guy racist? That is the question and of course it works in the same way.
Read up on the issue there Jag and you will discover it for yourself. Give you a hint though normally when one screams "white power" that is an sign toward one's beliefs.
And Jag removing racism requires work far beyond the providing of services. Removing racism from society goes beyond just providing simple services to those who commit crimes of race.
It takes generations of effort by all - not just the government. In other words it takes individual, family, and community effort - stuff far beyond the control of the government. The government can not remove racism from knuckleheads who wish to be racist. (It can attempt to do so by throwing them in jail - but that only provides a central location for them to gather.)
Redleg - why is the guy racist? That is the question and of course it works in the same way.
Read the article. The sicko admit's to having sodomized, raped, torchered him because he was a dirty wetback when it appeared that he could have looked at his sister. Not to mention the numerous witnesses who quote them as screaming "white power" and many other racial slur's.
Kicking an umbrella up someones bum, and then shoving a pipe in and pouring chlorine down it, then letting him lay unconcious in your backyard for 5 hours is not a scream of an uncared for child. It's the sign of a homicidal maniac.
You seem to forget about the child who had 2nd and 3rd degree burns to his colon, small and large intestines, kidneys, liver, rectum, prostate and most other low laying organs. The homicidal maniac is punished not to help reform him, but as a consequence for his actions. He has done something beyond most people's capabilities of understanding, he is a danger to everyone around him, he showed no remorse. In fact he gloated about doing this. He is a racist who see's right to cleanse the world of the "wetback question". He's incapable of understanding that killing a human being is wrong, 90's years in a concrete cubicle is fiting.
As for racism, locking up criminal's who have committed racist acts has been one of the most effective means of solving the problem. During the 40's 50's 60's these people wouldn't even face a jurry let alone a jail sentence. Now they face life in prison. Kinda funny a racial based crime is barely heard about these days, relation?.........:yes:
Crazed Rabbit
12-15-2006, 06:36
How can locking anyone up who does anything illegal, for significantly more time than present, solve anything? Deterrence has been proven throughout its existence as a theory not to work, yet this is it gone mad.
It certainly solves the problem of them committing crimes.
Have you any evidence deterence doesn't work? That criminals can't rightly judge cost to risk benefits? Your assertations show a misunderstanding of the human character, and until you provide some proof to back up your wild claims your argument has no foundation.
Redleg - why is the guy racist?
Perhaps you should take a quick peek at the article before continuing on this line.
People can do "evil" things without having "clear" psycological problems. And with all due respect, you aren't trained to make that call, even if you had the correct acmount of evidence - which you don't.
You're right that our friendly socialist seems to have more faith than facts in his beliefs.
CR
Ser Clegane
12-15-2006, 08:50
Redleg - why is the guy racist?
Perhaps you should take a quick peek at the article before continuing on this line.
I think that JAG is quite aware that the guy is racist - his question rather is, why did he become racist, implying that it might be worthwhile to address the root of the racism.
doc_bean
12-15-2006, 10:41
I think that JAG is quite aware that the guy is racist - his question rather is, why did he become racist, implying that it might be worthwhile to address the root of the racism.
I know plenty of higher educated well off people who are racist....
I'm still stickiong to my formula:
expected reward of crime > expected chance of getting caught * expected punishment
then you have crime. Having morals makes the reward seem less valuable (or the punishment is higher since you'll get a high chance of being 'punished' by your conscience, if you put it on the other side of the equation).
Why did this crime occur ? Did he feel he wouldn't get caught ? ossibly, he was on drugs, did he feel he wouldn't get Ppunished ? Possibly, he was a minor. What was his reward ? The joy of killing an torturing ? Possibly, he seemes like a sadistic bastard. Making him seem tough and cool in front of his friends ? Possibly, he didn't start it (I think) but took the torture to a new level.
Now, looking at waht I just wrote, how could we 'help' him ? Surely if he's a sick sadistic bastard (which is highly likely) then there probably isn't a sure way. Psychology is all nice and dandy but how much proof do they have that they can 'cure' people like this ?
JAG, you're living in an ideal world where people are all moral creatures. This is far from the reality I witness every day.
Ser Clegane
12-15-2006, 10:57
I know plenty of higher educated well off people who are racist....
No doubt - and these might even be more of a problem.
My statement was not necessarily in support of JAG's idea, but primarily to avoid any further discussions based on misunderstandings of what he meant ~:)
I would agree that you always should try to understand why such violence happened (BTW, based on the information I have I cannot even tell to which extent such an assessment took place) - the question if rehabilitation is possible or meaningful is another issue.
While rehabilitation is (IMHO) desirable, I would not agree that it can be achieved in any case. The possibility of rehabilitation certainly has to be weiged up against the safety of society.
First of all, prisons are not there to help poor phsyco-charlie-attempted-murderer-rapist-sodomite-druguser-wacko; they are there to keep society safe from people like him! Of course it is a pretty dumb idea as it just drains money from taxepayers, and they ussually let the criminals out in a few years anyway... A much better solution would be the death penalty - you would never have to worry about them again.
Secondly, you have to ask yourself, do these people belong in society? That is like forcing an abusive husband go back to his wife after a little 'therapy'. Or forcing kids to go back to an abusive mother! You can't force dangerous wackos on society!
There is obviously something wrong with this guy that therapy just won't fix. And do you know the reoffend rate of people released after therapy? 60%!! (for the same or similar crime, over 70% for an crime!)
Of course giving someone a higher sentence because you believe the attack was race motivated is complete bull! Talk about racism! A crime is a crime, and should be ounished as such. People can't be punished for thinking other races are inferior; they should, however, be punished for abusing someone of another race (as in this case), regardless of motive. (esp. when you think of all the cases where black men kill rape and mutilate white and hispanic men and women shouting things like "cracker" and "spic", and those are not considered race motivated.
The whole idea is stupid, a crime is a crime.
That guy should be put to death for what he did - not to punish him for being rascist, but to protect society from him!
doc_bean
12-15-2006, 13:57
The whole idea is stupid, a crime is a crime.
So I guess you are in favor of executing everyone who has ever illegally downloaded an mp3 ?
Spetulhu
12-15-2006, 14:07
And do you know the reoffend rate of people released after therapy? 60%!! (for the same or similar crime, over 70% for an crime!)
Some prisons manage a much lower rate. There was a California prison with a dive school for prisoners, and the program might be back soon. Eligible convicts get to learn something useful and there's no room for racism or drugs under the water. Recidivism rate stayed between 6 and 12 percent for each of the 33 years the program worked.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_B_dive02.67774d.html
First of all, prisons are not there to help poor phsyco-charlie-attempted-murderer-rapist-sodomite-druguser-wacko; they are there to keep society safe from people like him!
I couldn't agree more.
Of course it is a pretty dumb idea as it just drains money from taxepayers, and they ussually let the criminals out in a few years anyway... A much better solution would be the death penalty - you would never have to worry about them again.
Well you'd have to worry about those people that are wrongly convicted and executed, because unfortunately the average justice system tends to be far less than perfect.
Secondly, you have to ask yourself, do these people belong in society? That is like forcing an abusive husband go back to his wife after a little 'therapy'. Or forcing kids to go back to an abusive mother! You can't force dangerous wackos on society!
I happen to believe that they don't belong in society, but they in themselves are a symptom of an underlying problem not the cause of it.
There is obviously something wrong with this guy that therapy just won't fix. And do you know the reoffend rate of people released after therapy? 60%!! (for the same or similar crime, over 70% for an crime!)
Of course giving someone a higher sentence because you believe the attack was race motivated is complete bull! Talk about racism! A crime is a crime, and should be ounished as such. People can't be punished for thinking other races are inferior; they should, however, be punished for abusing someone of another race (as in this case), regardless of motive. (esp. when you think of all the cases where black men kill rape and mutilate white and hispanic men and women shouting things like "cracker" and "spic", and those are not considered race motivated.
The whole idea is stupid, a crime is a crime.
I also disagree with racially specific laws. Such laws actually promote inequality, cause resentment, and increse the racial divide. Integration and acceptance is the key, not mickey mouse laws. If someone goes and knifes someone to death, who cares if it's racially motivated or not. It's a murder and they should be punished for it, and more importantly locked away to prevent them doing the same again to someone else.
That guy should be put to death for what he did - not to punish him for being rascist, but to protect society from him!
A sick crime, but the death penalty is disproportionate, and has never been shown to provide a real deterrant for this kind of crime anyway. Locking him up protects the public, the deterrent issue is another one. How do you deter someone from doing something like that? Do these people even think about getting caught or prison before they act? I doubt it. Is it really a deterrant, punishment or rehabilition that's needed or do we need to take a long hard look at how heartless, violent and selfish society as a whole has now become. We need to look at the root causes of what makes people act as violently and pitilessly as that. Whether it be poverty, poor education, bad government, drugs, influences such as violent movies and games as part of the culture etc.
Kralizec
12-15-2006, 14:49
I also disagree with racially specific laws. Such laws actually promote inequality, cause resentment, and increse the racial divide. Integration and acceptance is the key, not mickey mouse laws. If someone goes and knifes someone to death, who cares if it's racially motivated or not. It's a murder and they should be punished for it, and more importantly locked away to prevent them doing the same again to someone else.
There was a South Park episode once where Cartman throws a rock at a kid. The kid was black, and for that alone it was branded a hate crime. Upon sentencing him to juvinile detention, the judge remarked:
"I'm making an example out of you. Next time you pick on another kid, better make damn sure he's the same colour as you"
:laugh4:
A killers motive is, and should always be of influence on the weight of the punishment. I have a lot more sympathy for a women who kills her abusive husband then I do for someone who peforms a contract assasination, or a KKK member who brutally slaughters a black man. Some motives are more heinous then others.
However because there's usually a myriad of factors involved, catagorally punishing so-called "hate crimes" with no exceptions is a flawed way of serving "justice".
A sick crime, but the death penalty is disproportionate, and has never been shown to provide a real deterrant for this kind of crime anyway. Locking him up protects the public, the deterrent issue is another one. How do you deter someone from doing something like that? Do these people even think about getting caught or prison before they act? I doubt it. Is it really a deterrant, punishment or rehabilition that's needed or do we need to take a long hard look at how heartless, violent and selfish society as a whole has now become. We need to look at the root causes of what makes people act as violently and pitilessly as that. Whether it be poverty, poor education, bad government, drugs, influences such as violent movies and games as part of the culture etc.
Agreed on all points. About the bolded part, I've never heard or read someone making a good case for increasing punishments to provide more deterrence- data almost always points to that being ineffective. The chance of getting caught is far more important.
A killers motive is, and should always be of influence on the weight of the punishment. I have a lot more sympathy for a women who kills her abusive husband then I do for someone who peforms a contract assasination, or a KKK member who brutally slaughters a black man. Some motives are more heinous then others.
Well there are many cases where a person of the same race brutally murders someone else. Both are the same race, so should the 'punishment' be somehow lessened? The argument that "you killed him because he was black/white/yellow/red/whatever" to me is redundant. The problem with this type of law is that it gets so easily exploited and isn't taken seriously by anyone apart from the PC lunatics that invented it in the first place. It also more often than not finds in the favour of the ethnic minority so doesn't benefit society as a whole (inequality). Someone could easily kill someone else because they hold the opposite policital views, because they're the opposite gender, support the wrong football team or because they just don't like their face. Are these people footballists? facists? Genderists? etc. Society as a whole has gone racism mad, and it's very damaging. I am all for racial equality and there is a simple way to achieve this, treat all humans equally. Yes we have racist bigots, and always will, but do we need to have these sorts of laws that only serve gain support for parties such as the BNP? Challenging the old ideas that we have to register someones race when we first meet them is a start. When I see e.g. a Chinese man in the street I shouldn't be thinking "oh look it's an "ethnic minority, the government says that I have to treat them equally. I must not discriminate against them". What complete rubbish. I treat them equally anyway.
screwtype
12-18-2006, 08:28
Funny thing how you can't legally drink until you're 21 in America, presumably because you're deemed not mature enough to make a decision about it, but they can throw you in jail for life when you're no more than 16 or 17 years old - perhaps even younger in some states.
screwtype
12-18-2006, 08:45
So I guess you are in favor of executing everyone who has ever illegally downloaded an mp3 ?
:laugh4:
Funny thing how you can't legally drink until you're 21 in America, presumably because you're deemed not mature enough to make a decision about it, but they can throw you in jail for life when you're no more than 16 or 17 years old - perhaps even younger in some states.
You're not allowed to drink so that you don't make decisions that warrant jail time. The law is made to protect the individual and society as a whole from anything the individual may do. There are laws, and punishments if you break those laws. If it weren't for the punishments, everyone would do whatever they want. Laws are meant to govern society - it is what makes us different from animals. The laws however, are useless with out the punishments.
It doesn't matter what age you are - if you kill someone in cold blood, or rape them, you know you are doing wrong and should be punished for it.
And doc_bean, I said murderers and rapists, not thiefs. You see, in our messed up justice system, you can steal a letter from the post office and be put in prison FOREVER, no chance of ever getting out till you die, but you can murder, torture and rape people and just be put in prison for a few years with more people to torture and rape, just to be let out when they think that YOUR mental trauma is over, and YOU'VE suffered enough.
screwtype
12-18-2006, 17:22
The law is made to protect the individual and society as a whole from anything the individual may do. There are laws, and punishments if you break those laws. If it weren't for the punishments, everyone would do whatever they want. Laws are meant to govern society - it is what makes us different from animals. The laws however, are useless with out the punishments.
Thankyou for that incredibly useful information.
You're not allowed to drink so that you don't make decisions that warrant jail time.
If you are to be regarded as an adult under the criminal statutes at 16 or 17, why should you not be regarded as an adult in every other respect?
It doesn't matter what age you are - if you kill someone in cold blood, or rape them, you know you are doing wrong and should be punished for it.
So a six year old is every bit as responsible for his behaviour as a 46 year old? You really believe that?
So a six year old is every bit as responsible for his behaviour as a 46 year old? You really believe that?
If a six year old committed a cold blooded murder, why should he not be held responsible for his actions? (ie your taking an extreme examble of his statement - where he clearly stated two main concepts - cold blood and rape.
What you should be asking, is a six year old able to understand the consequences of their actions? If the six year old committs murder but does not understand the nature of his act, should they be held to the same standard of the 46 year old who does understand the consequences of their action? The answer is self-evident by the nature of the act and the actions before and after by the individual.
We now have a situation in the UK, and probably elsewhere, where under age teenagers commit crimes with a false sense of immunity. "I'm under age so I'm not going to get a real jail sentence and it's not my fault it's society's and my parents', or my broken home or the fact that my father was an alcoholic or my mother was a junkie" etc etc etc ad nauseum. This is because the PC crowd are continually portraying the asbo yobs as some kind of poor little victims of society that need rehabilitation, and not as criminals that actually ruin peoples' lives. The yobs know this all too well and take full advantage. Any who think otherwise are just naive. These same yobs can abuse their school teachers driving them into alternative careers, and get away with it. They can accuse them of sexual and physical abuse because they know that paedophile mania swept Britain will take it seriously. They can also abuse, attack and insult people in the streets, and even their own parents, and get away with it, because if anyone so much as says a word to them in defence they can find themselves on the receiving end of allegations, abuse and violence. The adult will always be in the wrong, the asbo brat will get off lightly.
The path towards maturity and responsibility involves being held accountable for your own actions. These young thugs should be responsible for crimes they commit from the day they are born, as should their parents until the child is 18.
Responsibility for correct parenting needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the parent and taken away from the nanny state. Until this happens you can expect more of the same.
Goofball
12-20-2006, 00:37
We now have a situation in the UK, and probably elsewhere, where under age teenagers commit crimes with a false sense of immunity. "I'm under age so I'm not going to get a real jail sentence and it's not my fault it's society's and my parents', or my broken home or the fact that my father was an alcoholic or my mother was a junkie" etc etc etc ad nauseum. This is because the PC crowd are continually portraying the asbo yobs as some kind of poor little victims of society that need rehabilitation, and not as criminals that actually ruin peoples' lives.
Is it not possible that they are both?
rory_20_uk
12-20-2006, 07:22
Fair point.
The cause for jeuvanile offenders is of course multifactorial, and in some form or another society has always had them; Oliver Twist for example.
Unlike the times when Oliver Twist is set, schooling is now universal, and free. There is a welfare state, child benefit for all parents, and in London there's now free transport...
And still there are teenagers acting the same way as ever. And underage drinking etc etc.
How much effort can be spent on rehabilitation? When children are expelled, another school is found. ASBOs are now a way to show notioriety, as what happens when they are broken? Little, if anything.
In london free bus and underground passes for the under 16. What has happened? Levels of vandalism has increased on public transport.
Non-governmental bodies are opting for the other way of tackling this problem. In Manchester (I think) a large area of the city centre was purchased for shopping. The internal areas are to be "policed" by private security who need no evidence to evict people from the property. Other places are instigating a high pitched noise that only the young can hear so they keep out of earshot.
That the government appears powerless to do anything that might work (lest some youngster's human rights are infringed) others are forced to put in place far more Draconian measures.
~:smoking:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.