Everwood Melting Pot (OT3) #7: Cultural Exchange
 

Here's something:

I am shocked he only got 28 years for killing Flores. The spec is he could get out in as little as 6 years. He still hasn't been punished for killing Holloway so I guess if the US can nail him for extortion, he will be in jail hopefully for the rest of his pathetic life.

Thanks for the new thread, Michelle!


Oh..I hope they extradite that mutation!! He needs to pay a lot more than 28 years or less!! Here is one time when the death penalty sounds really really good. :mad:

Honestly, I am anti-death penalty about 90% of the time. He is in the 10%.

They said he's scared to come to the US because he heard our prison system is tough and he won't be all cushy like he is in his cell in Peru with internet access, drugs galore, etc. You would think opposite. You would think South American prisons are bad but according to what people have said in South America, in some cases they're like a clean, cheaper hotel room. :mad: Apparently that is how he lives, too. He gets a lot of things he shouldn't get. Yes, let him come here, we will not allow ANY of that here, evil criminal.

I'm against death penalty too, but it's not that I'm human friendly :D. I mean it's not because I care too much about the killed people - they are obviously in most times heavy criminals that killed/hurt a lot of people. I don't care at all about them.

I'm against death penalty, because this is the easiest way out. If someone committed a crime, they should pay for it. They should be in jail, they should see what is it, so that they pay for what they did. Of course it won't be easy, but most of those people had choice and they decided to kill and hurt innocent people.

People should know that if you commit crime, you go to jail for long time - this way they would be stimulated to not do crimes. If we kill the criminals, we would be free of cruel persons (in most cases), but they would be happy actually since they didn't suffer like their victims did.

In religion they might say that only God should judge, but in our society we have jury and judges and if there are enough proofs that someone is guilty, they should be thrown in jail to have time to reconsider why they did what they did and have all the time in the world to 'enjoy' it.

I understand what you're saying, Koni. Yes, Jail could be a more severe punishment than death. I am in favor of the death penalty in this case in order to remove this guy from society. Society is better off without him. I know I'm playing God here...but that's how I feel.
How do you think jails should be? Do you believe they should be humane? What kind of jail experience do you think this guy (Joran van der Sloot ) should experience?

I entirely agree with you. I find the death penalty the easy way out too. Spending life in prison is suffering. Most inmates on death row live in a peaceful solitary confinement until their death date so they are protected and get exercise time, time outdoors, etc. This all takes place while we pay for them to be in this special section of the prison and they aren't scheduled to die for years and years.

You put them in prison for life and they are in the general population of the prison where fellow inmates are not so nice ( ;) ) and they have to rot away behind bars day after day, remembering what they did and why they are there. Doesn't matter if they feel remorse or not, they are suffering big time under these conditions.

Thus, I am for life in prison and anti-death penalty the vast majority of the time.

There are special circumstances where I consider the death penalty:

1) The family of the victim/s strongly request it.
2) The crime took endless deaths. Like 911.
3) The criminal shows absolutely zero remorse and is causing more pain to the victim's loves ones being around.
4) The crime is against a child, an unthinkable crime that is so beyond comprehension as it enters the realm of evilness in its truest form.

^ But having said that, I am still very much against the death penalty as a rule. Being Catholic, I just don't know if I could be on a jury and vote to take a life. I just don't know if I could... but I guess if any of the above 4 took place, I could consider it...

Well either way we pay taxes for them to be in jail :), but I don't see why they should have the easy way out with the death penalty.

What should be jails? I personally think that there should be different jails for the different crimes. Clearly places for killers is not the place for some more minor crime like small theft.

It's actually cool to see all those killers in one place - everyone having their own group of supporters, everyone being afraid that someone might hurt them. I doubt that the guards care too much about the serial killers, so this must be like jungle. And not that anyone of them would find the epiphany how their victims felt - nope I don't believe in this. It's like telling me that they shot someone 18 times by accident. But living in constant fair of your life is a good punishment.

Of course here goes the question about the serial killers with mental problems and issues. Currently we're being human and they are being treated and we pay for this treatment. The questions why remains however, because no one expects from those people to be normal and not kill again. And with medication I doubt that they are in the worse facilities, which means that are actually living not that bad life.

You know which are the people I'm feeling sorry for? The guards' families. Usually working in jail is a job that could change you and make you crueler than you are and that might show in your relationship with your family and especially kids (yes sadly I know such case). Unfortunately jails are necessity, because there will always be people who needs someone else to control them, so that they don't do anything illegal.

The issue of sanity versus insanity is always something that is deeply debated. As a psychologist, myself, this interests me. I believe there are some criminals who are literally insane and with the right help, could be rehabilitated and able to interact and contribute to society again. However, it all depends on the nature of the crime, and many other factors. Just because insanity is proven or exists doesn't mean being out in society again is a good option. It depends on many factors. Of course there is a debate whether the insane should be in prison or a mental institution. I do believe there are many prison inmates who are better off in a mental institution. Each case is different. Jeffrey Dahmer, the Wisconsin serial killer who was ultimately murdered in prison, I truly believe was mentally insane and even remorseful for his killings. I studied him extensively and he did a number of specials even and one with his father where he said he was glad he got caught because he knew he would keep doing it. He was deeply sorry for what he did and while I think he had no right being out in society ever again (he even said as much, he wouldn't trust himself) I wish he would have gotten more therapy while in prison. I don't downplay anything he did, which was horrendous and beyond comprehension. But Dahmer versus Bundy as far as WHY they committed those evil acts is all about night and day differences.

Now I'm babbling and totally off topic so shutting up. lol

Koni, I do believe that serial killers belong in different kinds of jail. Yes, constant fear for their life is a good thing...jail should not be like a luxury hotel...these prisoners should suffer a little. I just hate having my tax money pay for their room and board!

Michelle, I wish I could be sure that certain criminals who are insane can be rehabilitated. Somehow, I don't think I would want any criminal who has been declared insane to come back out in society. I know that sounds unfair and intolerant, but I can't believe that someone who would do something so horrific could ever be totally normal again.

Yes, that's what I mean about it depending on the crime and circumstance. Serial killers or other very harsh crimes, no way. Even if I think Dahmer could have benefited from therapy, of course he would never have been fit to go back into society. He even said as much, he never wanted out since he was scared he'd do it again. But a wife who was emotionally and physically abused her entire life that snaps and kills her husband, I think a case could be made.

Michelle, I'm not totally familiar with all factors that could make someone killer, but I do believe that some of the serial killers didn't become such like that. I think that they had some mental problems and a little push from friends/family (not that they told them to do it, but with the treatment they gave them they pushed them in that direction).

I don't think that you just wake up some day and kill someone - there is always a reason, always. The mobs would kill for money, the thief might kill for money, the serial killers kill because of some superior reason (like thinking that the victim deserves this). Not that I justify their actions, but I do believe that no one kills just for fun, there is something that makes them doing and I'm a bit fascinated in the different reasons that might come up during investigation and criminal's character study.

I agree with you, Betty - we do pay taxes so that they could be in prison. Unfortunately however I don't think that killing them will lower the crime rates. It's actually higher with every year and I think that part of this is the human instability. I'm not talking about insanity, but there are more and more young criminals who just snap out because someone didn't treat them they way they wanted. Sometimes even the family can't understand those young persons (that are actually their kids) and they took it out to strangers. I'm not saying that the killers shouldn't be punished, but we should look in ourselves and realize that we still live by a lot of stereotypes and laws that are inapplicable for everyone in our society. We are still to intolerable towards everyone that is different.

Koni, somehow I missed your response from a while ago! Sorry about that! Yes, no one is born and just randomly becomes a serial killer. There are many factors involved that contribute to the pathetic cause. Yes, in general, with any killer, there is always a reason (of course, a twisted reason) behind it.

Remember that Ohio shooting at the high school my cousins went to, I attended a dance at, even played sports for years there?

My home state of Ohio does have the death penalty. I am glad the death penalty is not enforced though with anyone under the age of 18. Thus, even if this kid committed a horrendous crime, he is still just a juvenile legally so I like that Ohio is not allowing the death penalty in this case. He is already going to be tried as an adult so I assume his punishment is going to be severe. I also hope he already has gotten some psychological help while he awaits trial.

This is an interesting discussion, but I don't have time right now to devote to it, or I'd jump in, because I'm apparently in almost total disagreement with the three of you about the death penalty.

Alan, somehow, I don't believe that you are in total disagreement with me. :look:

Definitely want to hear your thoughts. I especially want to know what you think of the Ohio case and if you think he should be charged with the death penalty at 17?

Yes, under certain circumstances I am pro-death penalty which is odd for a liberal like myself. But yes, I am generally anti-death penalty but not completely. Not 100%. I thought Charles Manson should have fried. I believe if the crime is so horrendous and it causes intense suffering, and especially if it is against a child, I am totally pro death penalty.