Boy rapes 4 girls

[ComradeBadger]

Just remember Frenzy - arguing by analagy is a very weak form of arguement, as it doesn't hold up terribly well.

Do you think it compares to bullying?

I'd say it was far worse than bullying, but somwhat comparable, yes.

 

[Kangy]

I agree with you; what this boy has done is absolutely abhorrent and my sympathy for these girls is boundless. Plus, four years is not a long enough sentence, but in an odd way, I can see why.
It's important to find out why this has happened; what's caused this boy to have this mentality in the first place? Saying "Well, it has, and we'll lock him up for ages and that's that." won't really solve anything. This guy clearly has some deep-seeded social issues that won't be solved by just punishment; one of the points of prison is also supposed to be rehabilitation, as well as punishment, and it's a bad idea to just assume he's beyond that.
If we don't understand what caused him to behave in such an awful way, he'll only be worse when's he's released. He'll have little-to-no concept of the real world, which is not going to be good for him, nor for society.

Thank you Chi. I'm fed up with the way everyone thinks in terms of crime. It's always what you can do to punish it afterwards, and never what can be done to stop it in the first place, or prevent motives from ever being a problem.

Secondly, he's 15. A 15 year old who is raping small girls. And you want to lock him away forever? How about see what the hell is wrong with him, and maybe try and sort him out mentally before you consider just locking the door and throwing the key away.

 

[Enflorence]

wow, that's just sick... Truly this guy should be punished in some way and not a lite term.

 

[D€vIL²]

I think rapists, should be raped by a big black guy... in the ASS. ^_^

 

[OvA]

I think rapists, should be raped by a big black guy... in the ASS. ^_^

And afterwards we'll burn a cross. RACIST

 

[Llama]

Thank you Chi. I'm fed up with the way everyone thinks in terms of crime. It's always what you can do to punish it afterwards, and never what can be done to stop it in the first place, or prevent motives from ever being a problem.

Secondly, he's 15. A 15 year old who is raping small girls. And you want to lock him away forever? How about see what the hell is wrong with him, and maybe try and sort him out mentally before you consider just locking the door and throwing the key away.

Um, no. Who gives a **** whats wrong with him? If hes already ****ed up badly enough do something like this, how can you hope to repair his screwed up little mind? Plus, he's already done the damage.
Im all for trying to stop this sorta thing from happenening but when it DOES happen, why cant people actually accept that its happened and act upon it?

 

[Kangy]

Um, no. Who gives a **** whats wrong with him? If hes already ****ed up badly enough do something like this, how can you hope to repair his screwed up little mind? Plus, he's already done the damage.
Im all for trying to stop this sorta thing from happenening but when it DOES happen, why cant people actually accept that its happened and act upon it?

I give a **** what's wrong with him. Maybe if we find out what's wrong with him, perhaps the next time this would have happened, it won't, because the signs can be caught earlier enough, or we can understand what's going wrong in society well enough to stop it.

I realise the damage is already done, but to be honest, if you react with complete numbness and fury to any criminal once the damage is done, why don't you just call for their public hanging? After all, it's done with, it's not like it makes any difference. Right?

 

[15357]

Whats wrong in society is that little ****s like him do not suffer enough punishment. His problem is insanity, and to quote a ancient saying: "The club is the only medicine for madness".

 

[Sulkdodds]

Whats wrong in society is that little ****s like him do not suffer enough punishment.

I hope you realise that sentence makes no sense on a very fundamental level.

 

[15357]

I do now....

Wait, no I don't....

 

[AzzMan]

Have him fight UFC fighter to the death to prove his worth. If he wins, he goes free into society. If not, survival of the fittest FTW

 

[Yuri]

No matter what society does right or wrong, there will always be rapists, always be murderers, and always be people who do sick, screwed up things.

Perhaps finding the cause of it and fixing things will reduce this number, but it will never, ever be cured.


This kid shouldn't get a free pass towards Go and $200 because he's a minor. Of course he should be psychoanalyzed, and most certainly given plenty of help until he may be fit to enter society once again. But four years? Four years for the consecutive rape of four people... and not just four people, but four extremely young, innocent girls. The kid should have been aware of his actions, he should have known they were wrong, and he should be responsible for them. Being a crazy piece of shit doesn't get you a free pass out of the punishment you deserve.

 

[Llama]

I give a **** what's wrong with him. Maybe if we find out what's wrong with him, perhaps the next time this would have happened, it won't, because the signs can be caught earlier enough, or we can understand what's going wrong in society well enough to stop it.

I realise the damage is already done, but to be honest, if you react with complete numbness and fury to any criminal once the damage is done, why don't you just call for their public hanging? After all, it's done with, it's not like it makes any difference. Right?

For child rapists, yes i'd rather see them die than continue to live.

You can never totally predict things like this, and its the reason I object so strongly. Society will always have horrible things like this happen because people have no respect for each other.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Society will always have horrible things like this happen because people have no respect for each other.

That's a pretty lazy attitude to take (not to mention irresponsible). Crime should be MINIMISED, and the only way to do that is to either
A) Go total police-state (debatable if this actually works)
B) Address the key causes of crime and/or make your society better.

 

[Llama]

Society DOESN'T work, you can try what you want. Humans cannot interact with so many people and still think of them as people, so you end up not symathising with them, and thats how crimes can occur so easily.

Lazy attitude? I'm not trying to defend what these people do, im simply stating why its impossible to prevent it. Doesnt mean I dont think you shouldnt try reducing crime, it just annoys me that everyone seems to think about how crime should simply be reduced and not care about what happens after the crime itself.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Society doesn't work so **** it? Yes, like I said, lazy and irresponsible.

it just annoys me that everyone seems to think about how crime should simply be reduced and not care about what happens after the crime itself.

No, nobody says that. That's what politicians who can't be arsed or are unwilling to actually tackle society's problems (in favour of just saying '****it, MORE PUNISHMENT!') say about their opponents to defend themselves. Look at the stats and you'll find out that deterrence is the one weakest principle of punishment. Even when criminals plan their crimes, they don't expect to be court, so while you're removing the murderer or rapist or whatever for society, and you're getting revenge, you're not stopping anyone else from repeating their crimes.

When looking to stop a disease, you don't just try to develop a cure. You try to make sure nobody ever gets it in the first place.

I think you'll find that people advocating tackling the causes of crime were responding to your '**** it, who cares?' sentiment rather than advocating their way in favour of harsh punishments. Personally, I don't think 4 years is enough. But niether is just harsh punishment.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Have him fight UFC fighter to the death to prove his worth. If he wins, he goes free into society. If not, survival of the fittest FTW

Ew. Fighting does'nt make someone right, or wrong.

 

[madog]

This is a case in which human desires have truly shown their desrtuctive capabilities. If he had cut out sexual feelings or had been at least able to control them, none of this would happen. You now see why these feelings need to be rooted out, correct?

 

[15357]

That's a pretty lazy attitude to take (not to mention irresponsible). Crime should be MINIMISED, and the only way to do that is to either
A) Go total police-state (debatable if this actually works)
B) Address the key causes of crime and/or make your society better.

A) works. It has been known to work in history. However, its effectivness is greatly helped by war or some other thing that brings out emotions in people.

B) Key cause of crime: money. Cannot be solved without going total communism, which has been known to fail.

This is a case in which human desires have truly shown their desrtuctive capabilities. If he had cut out sexual feelings or had been at least able to control them, none of this would happen. You now see why these feelings need to be rooted out, correct?

I somewhat agree, but then the world would be depopulated because nobody would breed.

 

[AzzMan]

Ew. Fighting does'nt make someone right, or wrong.

It would be DAMN entertaining though

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It would be DAMN entertaining though

I don't think it would right. Not only is the act just as morally reprehensible if not more so then this kid 'raping' those four girls, but look what it justifies. Mans inhumanity to other people of its species.

How, if you ran a society like this, could you argue its beneficial to punish people allegedly guilty of crimes when the persons accused nethire learn from death, or learn to respect the lesson your attempting to teach others?

With this inplace, I can hardly think of a justice system worth standing by or believing in, because with or without proof someone accused of something morally reprehensible could be thrown into your little arena's and killed without trial.

Not only is this unfair, but lust for bloodshed. That in my mind, makes you just as morally reprehensible in this case as that boy who 'raped' those four girls.

What would make your system of punishment right, and his system of 'punishment' wrong? Perhaps you have'nt properly understood the circumstances to know that rehabilitating this individuals and setting them on the right path, benefits society in the long run. It benefits them aswell, as it second chances them on a road to intellectual freedom.

Of those victims, I do feel sorry for them, but much like the bright hope rehabilitation would provide to such a fellow who commited such crimes, they're would also be types of rehabilitation that these girls could participate in that would equally be as rewarding.


The burden of proof, you may discard it now good sir. What would be entertaining is how a society based on your idea's of crime and punishment would collaspe.

I do not agree with 'death giving' to people who done things very differently from us. Difference needs to be understood, categorized, and properly adapted to or shared. If this cannot be done, how much longer will it be before society falls back into the lust for blood colleseums and slaves for that matter?

But enough with begging questions, I truthfully believe such things are revolting. I would encourage you to review your opinions, as they are not logically nor morally sound.

 

[gick]

Well said

 

[AzzMan]

So go out and kill a whole bunch of people you despise, go get "rehabilitated", and come back out with a squeaky clean new start on life? When you start your own society, sign me up!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Psst: Kerberos - I think he might be taking the piss.

A) works. It has been known to work in history.

Er, no, it doesn't and no it hasn't. Show me a totalitarian police state where crime among the people has been reduced to minimal levels and I'll show you a pink elephant tapdancing on the head of a pin. There are three problems: one, totalitarian police states make everything a crime, so there's actually more crime. Two, totalitarian police states oppress people so hard they are more likely to turn to crime (especially since totalitarian means economic control, so they will turn to a black market unless there are no other countries in the world). Three, totalitarian police states arguably transfer much crime into the ranks of the elite. This is failing to mention the other huge thing, which is how morally objectionable it is.

B) Key cause of crime: money. Cannot be solved without going total communism, which has been known to fail.

No. Key cause of crime: poverty. Now, let's not get into a discussion about how totalitarian police states and/or communist republics invariably create poverty by concentrating wealth and power into the upper echelons of society (the fact is, they don't solve poverty because the people at the top want poverty). This is not to mention that true communism (if it's even possible) is pretty unlike the Soviet Union and/or China. However, there are other ways to solve poverty. Like progressive/awesome social policy.

This is a case in which human desires have truly shown their desrtuctive capabilities. If he had cut out sexual feelings or had been at least able to control them, none of this would happen. You now see why these feelings need to be rooted out, correct?

You're either a comedy genius or the single most annoying person on this forum. :thumbs:

 

[Llama]

Society doesn't work so **** it? Yes, like I said, lazy and irresponsible.

But completly true.
'Nuff said.

Much as i'd like to think like you, I cant. I hate people like *insert name of child rapist* to the point of wanting them all dead. I dont want to "**** society" but I dont see the point of a soiety that gives a criminal like this four years

 

[Sulkdodds]

In that case, there will always be crimes. So why bother even punishing them?

KngHenry will always come back. Why bother banning him?
Trees will always be cut down. Why bother trying to conserve them?
There will always be wars. Why bother trying to stop them?
There will always be stupids who ignore birth control - why bother with it at all?
The earth's going into the sun in a bit...so why bother with human civilisation?
Ancient ruins and evidence of ancient cultures will always decay, so why bother preserving them?
Computers will always break down, so why bother trying to build them to crash less?
The oil crash is going to **** us all up, so why bother trying to find alternative energy sources?

Lazy and irresponsible and stupid.
Please don't become a politician or a law enforcement officer, unless you happen to change your mind about this.

 

[Llama]

Lets say there will always be...5 people a year that kill people. This is the minimum amount of criminals you could get after prevention measures have been put in place.

So, if the goverment lets them free, murder numbers:
Year 1: 5
Year 2: 10
Year 3: 15
and so on. I'm not saying you let them free, and im not saying that everyone who offends will re-offend, but less harsh punishments means the minimum crime rate will increase, albeit it probably a tiny amount

Now, lets say the goverment deals with these people to make sure they never see humans again (EG: Jail) Because you have society that doesnt work, you will always have the minimum amount of people that brake the year.

Murder Rates:
Year 1: 5 (All people locked away for life)
Year 2: 5 (New people, all locked away for life)
Year 3: 5 (And so on...)

 

[Sulkdodds]

Oooh, witty barb! No wait, it isn't, because your entire post hinges on criticising me for believing serious criminals should go free in favour of preventative social policy. Oh wait. I didn't say/indicate I believed that at all.

 

[15357]

Psst: Kerberos - I think he might be taking the piss.

Er, no, it doesn't and no it hasn't. Show me a totalitarian police state where crime among the people has been reduced to minimal levels and I'll show you a pink elephant tapdancing on the head of a pin.

Nazi Germany, breif period of time (like 10 years) in S. Korea's history of military rule, with ID cards and govermental curfew.

There are three problems: one, totalitarian police states make everything a crime, so there's actually more crime. Two, totalitarian police states oppress people so hard they are more likely to turn to crime (especially since totalitarian means economic control, so they will turn to a black market unless there are no other countries in the world). Three, totalitarian police states arguably transfer much crime into the ranks of the elite. This is failing to mention the other huge thing, which is how morally objectionable it is.

Yes, that is a valid argument I'd guess. But morally objectionable?

And with your logic, total anarchy would have no crime, because there won't be any laws (or lawkeepers for that matter).

No. Key cause of crime: poverty.
...
This is not to mention that true communism (if it's even possible) is pretty unlike the Soviet Union and/or China. However, there are other ways to solve poverty. Like progressive/awesome social policy.

But that would have people leeching off the system and not contributing to society.

I'm in favor of real acts (aka physical) of prevention methods such as more patrols and cameras. Systems always have faults in them.

 

[Llama]

Oooh, witty barb! No wait, it isn't, because your entire post hinges on criticising me for believing serious criminals should go free in favour of preventative social policy. Oh wait. I didn't say/indicate I believed that at all.

Read my post. I actually explicitlly said im not suggesting you think in that way.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Where was that? First you used a hypothetical example, based on "[my] prevention measures" where murderers went free (which I didn't advocate) - you claim you're 'not saying...let them all free' but your example assumes that.

And then you said:

"Im sure you're pleased with that".

And with your logic, total anarchy would have no crime, because there won't be any laws (or lawkeepers for that matter).

Correct. It would probably, however, have injustice.

But that would have people leeching off the system and not contributing to society.

How the hell'd you figure that? I didn't even mention what would constitute such policies! Because I'm not an expert on how to prevent crime!

Nazi Germany, breif period of time (like 10 years) in S. Korea's history of military rule, with ID cards and govermental curfew.

1. There was crime in nazi Germany. Some of it was government-sponsored.
2. If there's been 'minimal' crime in South Korea I'll eat a (chocolate) hat.

 

[Llama]

Yep, which was part of a seperate statement. The first part of my post wasnt meant to jab at you, although the "im sure you're please with that" was (And im sorry about that )

 

[15357]

Correct. It would probably, however, have injustice.

<3

How the hell'd you figure that?

Lets say that there is a system that takes some 10% of tax to the 'extreme poor' classes of the nation. They are fed and given better standards of living through this. However, since it would have to be based on income (like so many nations today), there will always be people that will not work and just live on the nation's taxes, exploiting it because they are too lazy to work (or can't find a job, but that doesn't matter here). They are using up the taxes that could be put to a better use (like Defense, Law and order, or Education, Healthcare, ect.).

Summary: It might make people lose their will to work, because they would earn less and would have to actually work instead of goverment welfare.

1. There was crime in nazi Germany. Some of it was government-sponsored.
2. If there's been 'minimal' crime in South Korea I'll eat a (chocolate) hat.

1. In which corresponded with the laws..... which makes it not a crime....
2. Good Point. There always has been student riots and people beating up police. But still, the theives and mafia type crime gangs were sent for education, and paraded on the streets by the military. Way less crime.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Fair enough.
The point I'm trying to make is that preventative social policy and just punishment are not mutually exclusive, and that to have the latter without the former is really, really stupid and it doesn't work.
For the record, I'm not sold on rehabilitation either, since statistics show something like 65 of criminals released re-offend anyway.

Numbers: I'm going to note that anarchy might (maybe?), actually, develop to be awesome. It's just that there's only one way to find out.
Also, social policy that prevents crime doesn't necessarily involve the welfare state.
That said, a system should be such that it can adaquately support people mooching off it.

 

[Llama]

The only reason i was talking like that is from my (Probably jaded, due to my area of residence) perspective, crime is relatively non existant.

How about more measures on prevention coupled with harsher punishments?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, fact is, punishments are probably harsh enough - generally speaking. You take this '4 year' verdict as an indication that our punishments need to be harsher, but actually it's an indication of inconsistency. He's also been put 'on licence' for another 5 years which is, I assume an Attendence Centre Order or something. ie, tabs will be kept.

Certainly, it seems a very odd punishment, when the rest of the UK law system is, on the whole, becoming harsher. I don't think 4 years is enough but then I haven't really thought about it, and I'm not a judge. But sentences tend to vary sometimes from judge to judge. Paedophilia, especially, some judges seem to not mind so much (quite suspicious really). So yes, there are flaws in our justice system. Big ones. But whether these flaws include punishment not being harsh enough is debatable.

 

[kirovman]

The crime commited was a very reprehensible act.

In any case, justice shouldn't be served based on an emotional act of revenge, it should be a logical act, based on safety to society, retribution, rehabilitation and deterence (although in the case of deterence, it can seem like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted).

Prevention is certainly better than cure, wherever possible.

As Sulk pointed out, the justice system in this country seems to be rather arbitrary with respect to penalties. It seems that your sentance depends on which judge you get. Surely there should be some more rigid guidelines to adhere to? I don't think the fact that he is 15 should automatically give him more leniancy.
Think, if he was 3 years older, he'd be tried as an adult.

Another factor they take into consideration is prison overcrowding - it's simply impossible to sentance every offender to life imprisonment.

 

[Nat Turner]

Lets say there will always be...5 people a year that kill people. This is the minimum amount of criminals you could get after prevention measures have been put in place.

So, if the goverment lets them free, murder numbers:
Year 1: 5
Year 2: 10
Year 3: 15
and so on. I'm not saying you let them free, and im not saying that everyone who offends will re-offend, but less harsh punishments means the minimum crime rate will increase, albeit it probably a tiny amount

Now, lets say the goverment deals with these people to make sure they never see humans again (EG: Jail) Because you have society that doesnt work, you will always have the minimum amount of people that brake the year.

Murder Rates:
Year 1: 5 (All people locked away for life)
Year 2: 5 (New people, all locked away for life)
Year 3: 5 (And so on...)

Murders are acceptable as a cost of freedom. The breakdown of major industries and corporations would be good too, as it would cause more ensuing anarchy and deaths. The Earth is much too populated as it is, and we will destroy ourselves completely if we continue on in our totalitarian and environment-ravaging fashion.

 

[Yuri]

Please stop making shock-posts, Turner. Its really not funny, nor interesting.

 

[Nat Turner]

Please stop making shock-posts, Turner. Its really not funny, nor interesting.

Your posts are equally shocking because you support the status quo of tax-slavery and monopolization of first world governments.