Tenerife Killer - Suitable punishment?

Festus

Festus wrote: »

Already have. see this discussion

Interesting thread. Thanks for the link.

Dufftronic

{Snip!}

Attack the post not the poster.

And read the Charter, particularly the bit about cursing.

Festus

Asry wrote: »

LOL Festus you're silly :P Of course I didn't mean chop him up. Just observation and stuff, the way medical teams do with every patient in a hospital.

Neither did I :P. If the purposes are clinical or medical research informed consent, or proxy consent is required.

hinault

Donatello wrote: »

I reject your manipulative redefinition of terms and refuse to engage further with you if you persist.

mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

If the state attaches the penalty to a crime of execution, it is lawful, & the Church does not absolutely forbid recourse to capital punishment.

?????????????
I would like to see some details of where the RCC support capital punishment.

The State can be and often is wrong. In many instances.
The Birmingham 6 would have been sentenced to death if capital punishment
was still on the statute books.

Dufftronic

thebullkf wrote: »

methinks you need to chill out duffman, read the charter, calling someone a lunatic is not the way to support whatever arguement it is you have;)

yeah lunatic was probably a bit harsh, the comment was sort of meant tongue in cheek but i suppose that's the problem with written word.

Donatello

hinault wrote: »

?????????????
I would like to see some details of where the RCC support capital punishment.

The State can be and often is wrong. In many instances.
The Birmingham 6 would have been sentenced to death if capital punishment
was still on the statute books.

You might begin by reading my post here, as well as the articles I've linked to.

The Catechism entry is here:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

Note that the third section of that paragraph from the Catechism is the opinion of Pope John Paul II and is not binding on Catholics as explained here.

If you read what I've given in this post, along with the post I linked to, and the articles linked from there, that will be a good primer for you.

MrPudding

Donatello wrote: »

Note the use of the word 'lawful'. If the state attaches that penalty to the most serious crimes, then it is lawful. The Church might even support it in principal if the criteria are met that would justify it from the Church's perspective.

Donatello wrote: »

Those who are executed by the state are by definition not innocent, hence it is not murder. Murder is killing of the innocent. Murder is unlawful. This is what you have to work with. Stop wriggling.

OK, I have not read the entire thread, got to about 80 posts and I need to go to bed. I just wanted to raise a couple of points. Forgive me if I am repeating anyone.

First of all, premeditation is not required for murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being (born) where the perpetrator intended to cause death or really serious harm. Premeditation can be seen as an indicator of intent, but is not required in and of itself for the killing to be murder.

Secondly. Unless Ireland removes itself from the EU the state cannot legally execute anyone. The death penalty is banned in Europe.

Thirdly. There is no requirement for the person murdered to be innocent. The guilt or otherwise of the victim is not relevant to the crime.

Fourthly. Anyone that advocates the execution of the mentally ill for a crime they committed when not in control of their own mind is a despicable individual.

We, as a civilisation, have spent thousands of years getting to where we are now. Thankfully, in these more enlightened days, and in the more enlightened countries of our planet, we realise that the criminal law should not be used against certain people in certain circumstances. This is one of those occasions.

MrR

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Biblical argument for CP is not that it is more economical than life imprisonment - though it certainly is, if we cut out the endless appeals.

Just wow.

Festus wrote: »

Excorcism comes to mind.

Words fail me.

MrP

Donatello

Police spokeswoman Piedad Lozar told the BBC the Bulgarian man was arrested in January following an alleged assault in which he was said to have punched a man in the mouth and knocked his teeth out.

[...]

Police on the island have said Mr Deyanov had been arrested on two previous occasions - for criminal damage to property, and causing bodily injury.

[...]

Local officials have been analysing CCTV footage of the attack which shows a man walking into the supermarket - which sells Chinese food and tourist souvenirs.

Witnesses said the man attacked the woman without saying a word.

Local councillor Manuel Reveron said: "The man entered the shop and then cut this woman's neck and took the head in his hand outside."

Some people are just given over to evil, vindictiveness, unforgiveness, and rage. We used to call that 'sin'. Now it is all nicely explained away using psychology, so there is no free will, no personal responsibility, just a lot of sympathy for the killer.

I'm still trying to find the resource I promised from the psychologist about the truth that all violent psychopaths know, deep down, that what they do is wicked.

Here's a couple pages from his website which are relevant:

The psychology of anger.

Forgiveness, psychology, and mental health.

Morbert

Donatello wrote: »

Some people are just given over to evil, vindictiveness, unforgiveness, and rage. We used to call that 'sin'. Now it is all nicely explained away using psychology, so there is no free will, no personal responsibility, just a lot of sympathy for the killer.

Yeah! Let's kill him!!!

MrPudding

Donatello wrote: »

What's your stance on abortion MrPudding?

Anyone that advocates the killing of the innocent unborn in its mother's womb is a despicable reprobate.

The difference between the innocent unborn and those due to be executed is that the criminal has had a trial, whereas the innocent unborn has not.

This is not another abortion debate. One persons view on abortion does not have any impact on the right or wrong of executing mentally ill people.

Donatello wrote: »

Some people are just given over to evil, vindictiveness, unforgiveness, and rage. We used to call that 'sin'. Now it is all nicely explained away using psychology, so there is no free will, no personal responsibility, just a lot of sympathy for the killer.

no Donatello. Some people are sick and can't control what they do. They are simply not aware of the quality of their actions.

Donatello wrote: »

I'm still trying to find the resource I promised from the psychologist about the truth that all violent psychopaths know, deep down, that what they do is wicked.

Are you now saying the this guy that beheaded that poor woman is a psychopath? Apparently he was on a mission from god... You do know that not all mentally ill people are psychopaths don't you?

MrP

MrPudding

Oh, and I haven't voted in the poll as of yet. Could you add a new option please? Something along the lines of:

"I would wait until we have a little bit more information about the killer, his state of mind and the mental problems that he has. Once armed with this information I would make an informed decision based on fact, rather than hysterical knee jerk reactions, taking into account all the facts including, but not limited to, the ongoing risk the the killer poses."

I would go for that.

MrP

georgieporgy

MrPudding wrote: »

no Donatello. Some people are sick and can't control what they do. They are simply not aware of the quality of their actions.MrP

I'm not disagreeing with the above, but would ask why this doesn't apply to drink driving. You can be quite a good chap, meet up with some friends for a drink or two. Before you know it you are sloshed out of your mind and of course because of your impaired judgement you think you are just fine. You get in your car and kill someone.

innocent and in need of help or menace to society?

homer911

MrPudding wrote: »

Oh, and I haven't voted in the poll as of yet. Could you add a new option please? Something along the lines of:

"I would wait until we have a little bit more information about the killer, his state of mind and the mental problems that he has. Once armed with this information I would make an informed decision based on fact, rather than hysterical knee jerk reactions, taking into account all the facts including, but not limited to, the ongoing risk the the killer poses."

I would go for that.

MrP

= "I dont know" - my thoughts exactly and what I voted for

alois

georgieporgy wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with the above, but would ask why this doesn't apply to drink driving. You can be quite a good chap, meet up with some friends for a drink or two. Before you know it you are sloshed out of your mind and of course because of your impaired judgement you think you are just fine. You get in your car and kill someone.

innocent and in need of help or menace to society?

I suppose with drink driving you put yourself into that state of mind. A conscious decision was made to drink.

MrPudding

georgieporgy wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with the above, but would ask why this doesn't apply to drink driving. You can be quite a good chap, meet up with some friends for a drink or two. Before you know it you are sloshed out of your mind and of course because of your impaired judgement you think you are just fine. You get in your car and kill someone.

innocent and in need of help or menace to society?

Being drunk is not an excuse. Drink driving is a crime of strict liability, you do it and you are guilty. Murder, and a lot of other crimes, is different. Two thing are required, the illegal act and the guilty mind. There is a general principle that if you did not know the quality of your action then you would not ne guilty.

Your example is probably not the best as drink driving, even when you kill someone, is very different from murder.

It might be better to compare someone who kills whilst sick with someone who kills whilst drunk... The law treats them differently, and I reckon it probably should.

MrP

MrP

MrPudding

homer911 wrote: »

= "I dont know" - my thoughts exactly and what I voted for

Or. I could have picked "I don't know."

MrP

Dudess

Donatello wrote: »

Some people are just given over to evil, vindictiveness, unforgiveness, and rage. We used to call that 'sin'. Now it is all nicely explained away using psychology, so there is no free will, no personal responsibility, just a lot of sympathy for the killer.

Can you give an example of people sympathising with killers? Because I'm ****ed if I know of an example. Nobody likes killers hon.
It might not suit you in your fire and brimstone view of the world, but psychology doesn't "nicely explain it away" - it actually addresses the root cause, which I'd have thought is beneficial to the greater society. It's not making a statement that these poor murderers don't know what they are doing - much as you like to say it is, it's an attempt to understand where such acts come from in order to prevent them happening again. It doesn't take responsibility off them either - nobody will say Ian Brady wasn't responsible for what he did. They may say he was insane, which he was - that's just a fact, but they're not saying that in order to take blame away from him.
It doesn't matter whether you "used" to call it sin or whatever - that doesn't suddenly cancel out years of psychological study.

Fanny Cradock

Donatello wrote: »

What's your stance on abortion MrPudding?

Anyone that advocates the killing of the innocent unborn in its mother's womb is a despicable reprobate.

The difference between the innocent unborn and those due to be executed is that the criminal has had a trial, whereas the innocent unborn has not.

Again, this thread is NOT about abortion. Any subsequent posts mentioning abortion will get deleted. Given that this thread has little to do with Christianity it is already on borrowed time. So everybody please behave.

Asry

Festus wrote: »

or proxy consent is required.

Oh I was figuring there'd probably be proxy consent Hopefully the poor man has a family or someone who cares enough.

Asry

Dudess wrote: »

Can you give an example of people sympathising with killers? Because I'm ****ed if I know of an example. Nobody likes killers hon..

There are those people who are fixated on serial killers. [not that I might be one /cough]. But just to clarify my earlier defence of the man, I don't really sympathise, it's just that I feel this issue has been treated with a far too black and white view of the world by some of the posters here.

Dudess wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether you "used" to call it sin or whatever - that doesn't suddenly cancel out years of psychological study.

hear hear.

Fanny Cradock

Dudess wrote: »

Can you give an example of people sympathising with killers? Because I'm ****ed if I know of an example. Nobody likes killers hon.

Perhaps this is slightly off topic, but serial killers such as Stalin (does it really matter if they did it by proxy?) certainly had followers that were utterly devoted to him.

irishh_bob

old hippy wrote: »

I had no idea this was a religious thread. Attitudes like yours remind me why I have no truck with religion.

I hope you are not representative of all Christians.

Maybe you'd be in favour of rounding up all the mentally ill and locking them away from society, just in case?

you will be pleased to hear hippy that the powers that be in this country , when it comes to the issue of incarcerating those who are not the full schilling , are of the same idealogical persuasion as yourself , the system ( nowadays ) is completley dominated by PC wooly liberal do - gooders who believe no one should ever be locked up , as a result , the only people are permanently incarecerated against thier will are those who committed serious crimes and even those people have been sent there by way of a criminal prosecution , its impossible to get someone committed against thier will by way of a psychiatricst in 2011 , i know this because i have a cousin who has made life hell for his immediete family for 15 years and who has terrified many of his neighbours yet every time his mom has tried to have him sent to the big house , the ruling psychiatricst in the local mental hospital has refused him entry , the liberal media woul have us believe that every single family of the severley mentally unwell ( like the nut in tenerife ) want thier relative released , this is a completley broad brush representation , thier are many familys up and down the country who suffer terribley beit in terms of having to live in fear or from constant humiliation by way of thier unwell relatives public behaviour , time was in this country that people were sent to the big house for little more than mildly eccentric behaviour , then around a decade ago , the liberals completley took over and the pendelum has completley and utterly swung the other way , in order for someone to be incarcerated for the rest of thier life , a mentally unwell person would litterally have to commit a crime similar to our friend from bulgaria , of course when an arguement like mine is put forward , the liberals resort to the sneaky and underhanded tactic of accusing people of wanting to lock up mary who is suffering from post natal depression or jim who is feeling down about having lost his job , the words disgression and common sense are quickly disgarded as a way of shutting down debate

btw , im not advocatin the death penalty for the fruitcake who brutally murdred that woman in spain , the crime here was letting this nut out of hospital , theese kind of people are ticking time bombs and in nearly all circumstances show signs of potential violent actions through years of bizare behaviour , unfortunatley the liberals who run theese institutions have little regard of the wellbeing of the broader public, the rights of the crazy individual trump all other considerations and anyone who rejects this view is an unenlightended , intollerant , backward reactionary , theese smug ivory tower liberals who love to pontificate to others on the rights of the bulgarian national are the worst kind of elitist intelectual snobs

Fanny Cradock

Paragraphs are always appreciated

prinz

I am going to offer a case on the news now as I think it might give more of an insight into where Donatello is coming from, I am aware it's not exactly on topic and fully appreciate and understand if Fanny decides to delete it.

A man who admitted “grooming” his daughter, who he subjected to a series of terrifying rapes, has been jailed for 12 years.The 42-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting and raping the girl on dates between 1998 and 2007.

The accused is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence for repeatedly raping two teenage girls in the Midlands while they were babysitting one night. When that punishment ends, he will serve another 12-year term for raping and sexually assaulting his daughter from when she was eight years old.

The sentence was imposed today by Mr Justice Paul Carney who found the 42-year-old has a propensity to rape children and young girls despite the finding of a psychiatric report that he is at low risk of reoffending.

The court heard the man was himself sexually abused as a child.
In garda interviews, he admitted grooming his daughter. She aborted his child in the UK as her father had told her the baby “would come out like an alien...all deformed and disfigured”.In her victim impact statement to the court, she said: "I hope he rots in prison."

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/i-hope-he-rots-in-jail-daughter-as-rapist-father-is-jailed-505236.html#ixzz1Mc2nOKm1

Here we have a man who, as per the article has raped and sexually assaulted three girls. Who the judge acknowledges has a propensity to rape and abuse youngsters. Who admitted grooming his own daughter for subsequent rape and abuse.

Given this information I would seriously question the psychiatric report cited, the need for such a report - I can only assume it was introduced as an attempted mitigating factor, and the independence of those who carried out this report.

I think what Donatello is trying to discuss is whether there is a need for psychiatric evaluation in all cases, including the case above. Not everyne who commits a crime has a mental health issue and it seems in a lot of court cases these days an almost automatic argument to present to the court on behalf of the defendant, along with the abused as a child, alcoholic deceased mother etc.

As it is I find 8 years per victim in the above case ludicrously low, for the life sentence he has imposed on each girl.

There are people out there who can fool psychiatrists, and have done in the past. Just as psychiatry has been abused to keep people under lock and key, it IMO has been abused to keep people out of prison and out of the punishment they may rightly deserve.

thebullkf

prinz wrote: »

I am going to offer a case on the news now as I think it might give more of an insight into where Donatello is coming from, I am aware it's not exactly on topic and fully appreciate and understand if Fanny decides to delete it.

Here we have a man who, as per the article has raped and sexually assaulted three girls. Who the judge acknowledges has a propensity to rape and abuse youngsters. Who admitted grooming his own daughter for subsequent rape and abuse.

Given this information I would seriously question the psychiatric report cited, the need for such a report - I can only assume it was introduced as an attempted mitigating factor, and the independence of those who carried out this report.

I think what Donatello is trying to discuss is whether there is a need for psychiatric evaluation in all cases, including the case above. Not everyne who commits a crime has a mental health issue and it seems in a lot of court cases these days an almost automatic argument to present to the court on behalf of the defendant, along with the abused as a child, alcoholic deceased mother etc.

As it is I find 8 years per victim in the above case ludicrously low, for the life sentence he has imposed on each girl.

There are people out there who can fool psychiatrists, and have done in the past. Just as psychiatry has been abused to keep people under lock and key, it IMO has been abused to keep people out of prison and out of the punishment they may rightly deserve.

i actually asked on that thread if people believed he should get the death penalty for his actions....

Jesus Wept

Forgiveness?

JimiTime

The-Rigger wrote: »

Forgiveness?

What do you mean? You mean like, just say, 'you are free to go' to every murderer on the rampage? Or when you throw out that word, do you still want them locked up? If you still want them locked up, then you should assess your use of 'forgiveness'.

Donatello

MrPudding wrote: »

no Donatello. Some people are sick and can't control what they do. They are simply not aware of the quality of their actions.

Are you now saying the this guy that beheaded that poor woman is a psychopath? Apparently he was on a mission from god... You do know that not all mentally ill people are psychopaths don't you?

MrP

Yes I am. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, sounds like a duck, then chances are, it's a duck.

irishh_bob wrote: »

you will be pleased to hear hippy that the powers that be in this country , when it comes to the issue of incarcerating those who are not the full schilling , are of the same idealogical persuasion as yourself , the system ( nowadays ) is completley dominated by PC wooly liberal do - gooders who believe no one should ever be locked up , as a result , the only people are permanently incarecerated against thier will are those who committed serious crimes and even those people have been sent there by way of a criminal prosecution , its impossible to get someone committed against thier will by way of a psychiatricst in 2011 , i know this because i have a cousin who has made life hell for his immediete family for 15 years and who has terrified many of his neighbours yet every time his mom has tried to have him sent to the big house , the ruling psychiatricst in the local mental hospital has refused him entry , the liberal media woul have us believe that every single family of the severley mentally unwell ( like the nut in tenerife ) want thier relative released , this is a completley broad brush representation , thier are many familys up and down the country who suffer terribley beit in terms of having to live in fear or from constant humiliation by way of thier unwell relatives public behaviour , time was in this country that people were sent to the big house for little more than mildly eccentric behaviour , then around a decade ago , the liberals completley took over and the pendelum has completley and utterly swung the other way , in order for someone to be incarcerated for the rest of thier life , a mentally unwell person would litterally have to commit a crime similar to our friend from bulgaria , of course when an arguement like mine is put forward , the liberals resort to the sneaky and underhanded tactic of accusing people of wanting to lock up mary who is suffering from post natal depression or jim who is feeling down about having lost his job , the words disgression and common sense are quickly disgarded as a way of shutting down debate

btw , im not advocatin the death penalty for the fruitcake who brutally murdred that woman in spain , the crime here was letting this nut out of hospital , theese kind of people are ticking time bombs and in nearly all circumstances show signs of potential violent actions through years of bizare behaviour , unfortunatley the liberals who run theese institutions have little regard of the wellbeing of the broader public, the rights of the crazy individual trump all other considerations and anyone who rejects this view is an unenlightended , intollerant , backward reactionary , theese smug ivory tower liberals who love to pontificate to others on the rights of the bulgarian national are the worst kind of elitist intelectual snobs

You make a lot of good points. I made the point myself about the 'poor oul sexual abusing priests' in the Church. These sick men wreaked the lives of the innocent. The same oul woolly liberals who now defend this Bulgarian psychopath (as being a poor victim, troubled childhood, nobody loved him etc...) are the same ones who kick the Church the hardest for the way the bishops handled the abusers - giving them treatment and sending them on their way to abuse again. They kick the hell out of the Church, yet it was their woolly liberal psychiatric advice that was followed by the bishops! The hypocrist is staggering.

The-Rigger wrote: »

Forgiveness?

Justice too. If you're going to bring God into it, let's look at all His aspects. Don't forget too that justice requires reparation. The man's death through execution could serve as reparation for his wicked crime.

Let's not forget that psychopaths are can be extremely manipulative, charming, intelligent and will let nothing get in the way of their objectives.

And I wish people would stop trying to make out that I'm suggesting mental ill people should be executed. Most mentally ill people are not psychopaths, let alone violent psychopaths.

prinz wrote: »

I am going to offer a case on the news now as I think it might give more of an insight into where Donatello is coming from, I am aware it's not exactly on topic and fully appreciate and understand if Fanny decides to delete it.

Here we have a man who, as per the article has raped and sexually assaulted three girls. Who the judge acknowledges has a propensity to rape and abuse youngsters. Who admitted grooming his own daughter for subsequent rape and abuse.

Given this information I would seriously question the psychiatric report cited, the need for such a report - I can only assume it was introduced as an attempted mitigating factor, and the independence of those who carried out this report.

I think what Donatello is trying to discuss is whether there is a need for psychiatric evaluation in all cases, including the case above. Not everyne who commits a crime has a mental health issue and it seems in a lot of court cases these days an almost automatic argument to present to the court on behalf of the defendant, along with the abused as a child, alcoholic deceased mother etc.

As it is I find 8 years per victim in the above case ludicrously low, for the life sentence he has imposed on each girl.

There are people out there who can fool psychiatrists, and have done in the past. Just as psychiatry has been abused to keep people under lock and key, it IMO has been abused to keep people out of prison and out of the punishment they may rightly deserve.

I agree. Psychology has been used to keep wicked individudals out of jail so they can offend again. They can say the right things to the psychiatrists and fool them with their cunning.

prinz

The-Rigger wrote: »

Forgiveness?

Expansion? You seem to throw that out there as if forgiveness precludes punishment. It doesn't.