It's causing some debate.
August 15, 2002 6:33 PM   Subscribe

It's causing some debate. That's a fair bit or porridge (for the Brits) Then again in the US would he have "fried"??
posted by johnny7 (15 comments total)
 
I still fail to see why someone like this shouldn't be boiled alive (through repeated dippings) and fed to pigs.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:45 PM on August 15, 2002


y6y6y6 - One of the main rationalizations for not doing that kind of thing to even the most vile of criminals is that there is always a small chance that the wrong person was convicted.

I seriously doubt he would have 'fried' in the US. The requirement for the death penalty in most states is murder, usually with factors that make it especially bad (hate crime, lying in wait for the victim, torture, that sort of thing.) I don't know if any states still execute rapists and haven't heard of it happening within recent times.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:01 PM on August 15, 2002


Punishment seeks many goals, among them specific deterrence (deter the criminal from doing it again), general deterrence (deter other potential criminals from doing it), prevention (prevent him from doing it again) and revenge. In this case, I believe prevention and revenge lead to his harsh sentence. He committed heinous crimes at a sensitive time for Australia and showed zero remorse after the fact. The judge sought revenge for his despicable act, and to keep him away from society so it could not happen again. I am not sure the judge was wrong. This guy is lucky he didn't commit his crimes in Texas where they execute small children for talking back to their parents, or just about.
posted by caddis at 7:11 PM on August 15, 2002


He would not have been executed, but he most certainly would have gotten a life sentence, (Probably with parole eligibility in abut 25 years, which he would be unlikely to be granted.) What I found more disturbing were the sentencing guidelines in general; 15 to 30 years for murder?
We have drug offenders doing longer stints than that, (which is, of course, completely ridiculous.)

However, in any country, murder and rape should punished accordingly. Stiff penalties for violent/sex offenders are designed to set an example to potential offenders, although I'm not really sure that it works. Regardless, 15 years in prison isn't much of a deterrent, or a punishment

By the same token, I feel that sentencing guidelines for non-violent offenders should be designed to rehabilitate, and that the two should not be put in the same facilities.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just a jaded product of the American system. I mean, we do hand out some of the harshest penalties in the "free" world; maybe were out of step......Not!!

I'm riding the fence on the death penalty, (and this barbed wire is killing me) but 15 to 30 years for murder/rape is not acceptable
posted by buz46 at 8:06 PM on August 15, 2002


"there is always a small chance that the wrong person was convicted."

Oh. Yes. Of course. So we water down justice because we have no faith in our justice system. I see. Makes total sense.

Ummm...... Why do we put him in jail then? We sort of split the difference? "We are 70% sure he's guilty. So let's give him 70% of the penalty."

But we're sure he did it in this case. Right? We know for a fact he lead a pack of men that raped our sisters and daughters? Right? Can we kill him now?
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:11 PM on August 15, 2002


The last rape execution in the USA was in 1964. Under 1000 documented rape executions over 164 years, with most in the 19th century. (Many in the 20th century, though the numbers were smaller, were of young black men.)
posted by dhartung at 10:56 PM on August 15, 2002


Well, y6y6y6, if you think that's watering down the justice system, how about we stock it back up?

Understanding that in (AFAIK) all US states either killing someone directly, or indirectly is illegal, even in the case of assisted suicide; what makes the killing an unwilling participant in the name of the government a non-crime?

Is it because the state ordered the executioner to do it?

If so, is the executioner so blind to his own justice system that he is unable to say "No. If the law specifically states I cannot kill a man who legally asks to be killed, or kill a man who does not wish to die, I, through a thorough and competent understanding of the law, see that there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the law. The fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the law is that if I am to kill in the name of the government, I am allowing the decision of my continued existence to be placed not in the hands of myself, but rather in the hands of my government. In effect, the government controls wether I live or die, and this is wrong, since when the government controls my continued existence, they in effect control anything I can or cannot do. Therefore, in the name of freedom, I cannot support such a law, and I will not kill a man in the name of the government."

Catch my drift?

Just because the US government hasn't killed in the name of a petty law lately doesn't mean they can't or haven't.

Of course, if you can't swallow the above, there's always the tried and tested "Killing someone in revenge brings you down to their level" argument.
posted by shepd at 12:04 AM on August 16, 2002


55 years in an ozzie nick. it'll do.
posted by quarsan at 12:28 AM on August 16, 2002


We know for a fact he lead a pack of men that raped our sisters and daughters?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here y6y6y6, but it's that kind of attitude that maintains the stigma of rape. As long as women are seen as somebody's sister or daughter whose defilement somehow affects them, then rape will always be a weapon of humiliation. And who do you think you're talking to when you use the word "our"? There are quite a few female Mefis.

From the article:

Justice Finnane said. "The ultimate degradation of a woman is rape."

Really? Worse than torture? Worse than being killed? Why is she degraded as opposed to being traumatised?
posted by Summer at 2:29 AM on August 16, 2002


Summer: perfectly stated.

I was raped as a child and the thing that haunted me the most was the loss of my virginity! I let the loss of a little piece of membrane make me feel like a second-class person. Of course in some places in the world today that would make me a candidate for an honor killing.

It is an act of violence. The person raped is not "degraded" or made in any way less of a person than s/he was before.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:14 AM on August 16, 2002


Will people please stop pretending rape and murder are in anyway comparable. Rape is a misdemeanor compared to murder.

And as far as prison as a deterrent is concerned, do people really suppose potential criminals research the number of years they would serve and then deiced whether it's worth it? If a criminal is not deterred by the thought of ten years incarceration, then the possibility of twenty, forty, or even a hundred will have just as little affect.
posted by MarkC at 3:00 PM on August 16, 2002


Summer:

Women can have sisters and daughters too, but I see where your coming from.

MarcC:

you say you think rape is a relative misdemeanor?
Talk to me after you've been gang raped and have stitches in your asshole, I bet you will change your tune, (to soprano.)
posted by buz46 at 3:14 PM on August 16, 2002


They should just do a Bobbit....that'll take care of him!
posted by amberglow at 3:36 PM on August 16, 2002


Understanding that in (AFAIK) all US states either killing someone directly, or indirectly is illegal, even in the case of assisted suicide; what makes the killing an unwilling participant in the name of the government a non-crime?

It's also illegal to carry someone away and hold them against their will (kidnapping). What makes the putting of people in prison in the name of the government a non-crime?
posted by jaek at 3:51 PM on August 16, 2002


One commentator put forward the worrying notion that this may add an incentive to make sure the victim doesn't live to tell the tale.
posted by johnny7 at 6:01 PM on August 16, 2002


« Older Demograhics weighed.   |   Does invading Iraq require more than declaring... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments