Killer Planned To Eat 10-Year Old Girl
 

This a**hole lived about 15 minutes from my father... They got the Amber alert on this girl last Wednesday. The police were led astray by the testimony of a group of 10 year olds while the killer was hacking this girl up in the same apartment complex she went missing in.

I hope the girl was dead long before anything started really awful. They said she was hit three times by a wooden cutting board. I pray that's what killed her.

TMI ALERT: In local news, the body was found in pieces, with the head mostly decapitated, raped, bludgeoned, etc. He told cops, "go search the place, I chopped her up, she's in there" He also said that he watched Spongebob with her before telling her he was going to kill her. She said she was sorry and told him she wouldn't tell anyone if he let her go. The 'motive' from the CNN article is pretty close to what had actually transpired.

I wish they'd let her dad have about 24 hours alone with this vile bastard. He's now on the edge of insanity, heavily sedated as his daughter was his whole life.

Holy fucking shit. This is the most disturbing thing I've ever read in current news. It's appalling that somebody would even think about doing this to a little girl or anybody for that matter.

I would put out my opinion on what should be the punishment, but no punishment on earth is equal to the actions that have been executed in this crime.

Florida still uses the electric chair for the death penalty don't they? Nothing peaceful like lethal injection... If this guy is sane enough to stand trial, and is found guilty... the chair is really too good for him...

I really find it distasteful though, that so much detail was given to the media and printed. It's going to be tough for this guy to get a fair trial now...

Don't think of it as human. Anything that could do that has disassociated itself far from humanity.

I was discussing a different topic with my sister and brought up that stoning should be brought back as a method of execution.

This just strengthens my stand.

At least him confessing should make it a little quicker to the guerney then otherwise, hopefully.

This man obviously suffers from a very rare kind of disorder: anthropophagal paraphilia. This man is not well, and obviosuly should be under the supervision of psychologists for the rest of his life. To execute the insane (using the term 'insane' loosely) is obviously wrong, and to imprison someone this disturbed would be VERY dangerous to other prisoners. This man is the reason there are asylums for the criminally insane.

Leaving the man aside for the moment, I can't imagine the pain of discovering a friend or loved one had been a victim of such a cruel and unnatural death. I occasionally worry that someone I know will be involved in a car accedent or maybe have cancer, but to be suffocated, raped, and then plans were made to ingest her? It's disgusting and unsettling in a way that I've n ever even considered in my worst nightmares. My thoughts and prayers are with the family and other loved ones of that poor girl. I can't begin to imagine their sorrow and shock.

Point of Information: Ole Sparky was done away with in the late 90's. Lethal injection is now the method of choice.

The article indicates she was suffocated after being beaten with the cutting board, and that's what killed her:

Cause of death is very important, scientifically. They can tell what killed someone, and in this case it appears to have been the suffocation.

I find it odd that the newspaper sensationalized it as much as they did, making a point of saying the body was naked when found cut up. Of course it was naked- how would a pair of shorts or a shirt stay on the body when the limbs are removed? That was just a ploy at the heart, and totally unnecessary.

willravel: I agree with you to a point, but this disorder is not something from which one can be rehabilitated. If he'd spend the rest of his life in an asylum, I say forget the tax dollars it would take and end his life now. Hospitals for the mentally ill like this guy would go to, are tremendously expensive to operate. I don't see the point in keeping around such a dangerous individual.

I agree with you about the sensationalizing, but it's the way news operates now.

I'm sure most people know I am completly agains the death penalty, but this case didn't even make me think of that. You can't give the death penalty to children, mentally disabled or disturbed, or the terminally ill. We're better than that. This man is not simply a bad man, he is a sick man who functions in a different way than you or I. Because of that, he should not be treated like you or I.

I should also say that there is no disorder with a 100% failure rate of treatment. To state as fact that this man cannot be rehabilitated beyond a reasonable doubt is incorrect. Even if there were a 1/100,000 chance of rehabilitating this man, we should try. Even if he couldn't be healed, it's possible that in studying his disorders doctors could diagnose peopel with similar disorders with a greater efficency (which could save the next victim). I'd hate to miss the chance to save a life from torture simply out of a vendetta. Does he deserve to be punished? Almost certianally. Was what he did absolutely sickening? Absolutely. Would there be a reasonable risk of it happening again if he were in an institution for the criminally insane? No.

Now that's news!

I'm not interested in celebrities cheating on eachother.
I'm not interested in politicians testifying in perjury cases.
I'm not interested in NASCAR.

But this... this is news worthy.

I wonder what constitute as "just wasn't acting right". Other than that, I agree its one fucked up crime.

A society that can afford a space programme and foreign wars can afford to lock the dangerously insane away.

I personally feel that if it's wrong for a person to kill a person, it should be considered MORE wrong for the state (acting in dispassionate timely ways) to kill a person.

The problem with saying that we should execute the dangerously insane is that there will always be borderline cases. This case seems clear-cut, but how far do you take it? If we start by killing this man, how long is it before people are being killed because a little girl went missing, and they were the local "oddball". It happened in the past, after all.

Also, if we decide to kill the criminally insane, some prosecutors will be trying to argue that defendants are insane and incurable in order to get the death penalty for crimes that might not otherwise "deserve" it.

Tough call.

There are times when it would be nice to be able to have lynch mobs. THIS man, is clearly guilty of premeditated crime. Anyone who commits a premeditated murder has some mental issues so insanity should not be a protection against the death penalty.

This reinforces in my mind that I'm not being overly protective by not allowing my daughter to go to anyone elses house (even to other kids houses on my block) unless I know the parents and know that the parents are home.

My daughter is very friendly to strangers and that bothers me because she's not wary enough to protect herself should she need to. Though I have seen her use her fists before so perhaps instinct would kick in and she would fight back. This story is scary for anyone and especially a parent to hear. For that father's sake I hope the trial is swift and deadly as a long drawn out trial that ends in no retribution will be pure torture for that poor man.

I'm curious how one can be certain this guy is suffering from a mental illness and not just be a mean bastard that enjoys killing and cutting up a little girl. What is the determining factor in whether a murderer is mentally ill or just a cold blooded and ruthless killer?

Here Here!

This guy will get it one way or another. If he doesn't get a death sentance he'll most likely be beaten to death in jail. If by some fluke he does get namby-pambied by the justice system and sentanced to an insane asylum someone will assasinate him. Fuck compassion and remove this shit from the face of the earth. He has lost the right to being human. If he wants to act like an animal thats how he will be treated.

ps. this happened in OK, not FL. Oklahoma uses lethal injection, but authorizes electricution if lethal injection is found unconstitutional and firing squad if both lethal injection and electrocution are found unconstitutional. I vote for a few big guys wearing boots and a lead pipe.

Their lawyer. Insane is a legal term, not a medical one.

I'm still in a bit of shock over this whole thing, but I would like to note, dispassionately and unemotionally, that I do not understand why it is even remotely a point to preserve the life of someone (anyone, really) who has so little regard for life themself.

This is an unusual case, he is clearly guilty. I cannot fathom any reason why the state should shell out the bucks to lock away and protect this person, and even pretend to try to rehabilitate them. He is a predator and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

You really think he did this just because he's a "mean bastard"? And what makes you think that a cold blooded killer isn't a sociopath or psychopath? Do you have a PCL-R or DSM?

I avoided taking a stance on this issue intentionally and instead asked a fair question. As for PCL-R or DSM; I have no idea what either are, which would tie into me asking my original question in the first place.

My gut reaction as a parent is that he should be put down like a rabid dog. The story upset me pretty badly - why so much detail leaked to the press before the trial? I usually do not advocate for the death penalty, but am probably too upset to form an un-emotional opinion on this one. The most important point (IMHO) being that at least they caught the guy before he picked up someone else AND that he never be allowed the opportunity to do it again. :eek:

Holy crap -- I think the creepiest part was the chief's response:

“Regarding a potential motive, this appears to have been part of a plan to kidnap a person, rape them, torture them, kill them, cut off their head, drain the body of blood, rape the corpse, eat the corpse, then dispose of the organs and bones,” the police chief said.

That's pretty brutal for a description to a news reporter, especially considering how speculative it is. Nonetheless, holy hell..

Isn't the PCL-R a type of check-list they have for suspected sociopaths and/or psychopaths? It's kind of like the checklist they give us for new foster placements - you rate the child's behavior on a scale for each of about 70 questions and they determine if there's reason for diagnosis and further testing. I don't know if that's actually how they diagnose a psychosis or not. (Which I assume is what the DSM is for - I can't recall what the acronym stands for but I know it's a reference guide about mental illnesses.) Either way, does it really matter? Yes, something in the guy's head has to be off chemically for him to have experienced the desire to act the way he did in the first place. Apparently he'd been obsessing about it for some time. Freud would have a field day. But I think legally they have to prove he was incapable of knowing right from wrong. If they decide he lost his ability to know that what he was doing was wrong (which seems obvious to me that he did NOT because he went to lengths to hide his crime) then he's legally insane. I'm no expert, but that's my understanding. I'd welcome correction if I'm wrong, though.

Misunderstood, apologies.

PCL-R = Hare Psychopathy Tests
DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mendal Disorders

My thought is that anyone who engages in anthropophagal paraphilia (sexually motivated cannibalism) is probalby pretty messed up. I would have to speak to him to be sure, but I'd bet the farm he's basically nuts.

You'd have to talk to him? To be sure? I'll go out on a limb here and say that there is not a shadow of a doubt that he's nuts. No remotely sane person does what he did. No one.
The question remains...should he be deprived of the balance of his life? In this case...I'd probably lean toward a yes vote. The only reason, and I do mean the only reason to keep providing him with nourishment is, as you've already pointed out...research. I only hope there is a lot of painful hole poking, of one fashion or another, in whatever studies are conducted upon him.

That....

Or we could just kill him. Who cares if someone is 'insane' or not. You can argue that most violent people have some disorder making them violent. I don't care, flush them, lest they hurt anyone else.

So even in a locked room, in a white jacket, with no exposure to anyone or anything, this man is dangerous enough for us to kill him? Sounds like a vendetta to me.

His vicious visitation shows he is violently vicious. My suggestion to vanquish him allows for no valorous vacancy of the asylum. There he will stay vanquished without the possibility of vindication.

In all seriousness, how can anyone consider executing the criminally insane? The opportunity alone of using him to treat future cases has got to be worth sparing his life. I dispise what he did. It was an abomination and truely the definition of evil, but killing him would be wrong.

I wasn't watching the headline news lately and now my friends probably think I'm crazy. We were talking about sushi, my pet eels, and my tendency to eat eels when I go out for sushi. And then my wife started teasing me about eating my pets, to which I responded that yeah, I'd eat my pets, but that my eels were too expensive. And she said that'd be like eating our kids. To which I replied that I would eat our kid if one ever died. Get my money's worth kinda joke. My friend laughed and actually started to think about my point that after investing 10Ks of money, might as well do something...

hmm, I didn't realize how close my words were to this story, yeesh!

Are you saying that because he's different, we should give him *different* punishments?

You don't think he's dangerous enough for us to kill him? :confused:

Isn't causing harm in such a way danger enough for any of us, and he.. was extremely wicked in thought with what he planned to do (or did) to that girl.

At least he didn't get a chance to do everything he was planning on doing--she might not have ever been found in that case.

And of course, this sicko has a blog:

http://futureworldruler.blogspot.com/

And a Wish List at Amazon, which has, amongst other things, a book about cannibalism.

He had a MySpace, too, but when I checked yesterday, it was "undergoing maintenance."

This page has links to his cached myspace, yahoo page, blog, etc...

What? He seems to live a perfectly normal life.

It totally baffles me. He is sick. But somehow, I feel that he should not be exempt from death penalty just because he is different in sanity.

I don't see the death penalty's goal as being one of protecting society from people who are this dangerous. I see it as a PENALTY. A Punishment. He inflicted a cruel death on another innocent human being. Then proceeded to desecrate her body. His intention was to hide what he did and thus never give her loved ones closure. He deserves a death as miserable as he inflicted but the least we can do is to end his life. He serves no beneficial purpose in maintaining his life. He will drain money from the system that could be used to rehabilitate USEFUL members of society. He will drain rescources that could be used to help others who are truely needy. He will still have some contact with Dr's and personel who care for him and keep him confined. This ongoing human contact poses a small danger even still that he could/would harm another person if he get the chance. His actions result in nullifying any rightful claim that he ever held on life. The fact that he hid his actions simply shows that he KNEW there would be repercusions for what he'd done.

I think any money spent on keeping him locked up is worth it not to have to execute someone. Again it's not a question of danger, if you lock him up for life he won't really have much of a chance of doing something like this again. I think it boils down to what raenna was saying. Either you execute someone as punishment (and maybe to save some money) or you are opposed to such measures and believe someone who committed such a crime should be locked up.
Also I agree with BOR that someone who did such a thing must be insane. But that's not the reason I don't think he should be executed. I am opposed to the death penalty no matter what the crime is. Revenge for society's sake seems rather superfluous to me. I can see why the victim's family would call for the death penalty but I don't think it should be used.

aKula : Do you really think someone who has comitted such a wicked act is worth to be kept around, being monitored in an asylum? And what do we plan to achieve with monitoring him?

Even if he does have a chance to recover for the better,
Would you have it in yourself to let him free?

Where's Jack Ruby when you need him?

Would you sentence a kid with down syndrome or mental retardation to death? How about a minor?
Already answered this one:
He couldn't possibly constitute a future threat to society unless the law assumes prison breaks. If he can't get out, he's obviously not going to kill again. So assuming that, why sentence him to death? Simple. He's bad and needs to die. Remember when I said "vendetta"? Blood for blood. Sounds like vengence to me, and this man is in the hands of the justice system now, not the vengence system.
What do we plan to acheive? I don't mean to sound condecending, but have you ever worked in an asylum? Do you hold a degree in psychology, psychotherapy, or psychiatry? Do you have any experience in dealing with mental illness such as this man has?
Again, this reasoning screams vengence. So even if, after years of intense therepy, this man regains his sanity, we shouldn't even consider letting him free?

Underwood does not have down syndrome, nor is he retarded, nor is he a minor.


And it is a death penalty. like raeanna said, its a penalty for a reason. Thats the law in OK. The penalty for capital murder is death.

No. I can't even believe people are even considering not killing him.

Underwood is insane. How is killing someone who is insane any different than killing someone who is mentally disabled? Bear in mind that the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the ban on cruel unusual punishment to execute death row inmates who have mental retardation.
Actually, it's first-degree murder in conjunction with a finding of at least 1 of 8 statutorily defined aggravating circumstances.
Why?

Same planet, different worlds.

In my world, you kill someones child, cut up that child, and try to eat them, you die. You don't get therapy, I don't care what your motivation was, I don't care if some PhD student wants to make you her rehabilitation case for her disertation, your life is over. No second chance.

I'll just direct you back to Ustwo's post. Up there ^

The creepiest part is reading the blog; it sounds like some run-of-the-mill angsty American man.. not a corpse fucking skin eating crazed cannibal.

On the death penalty; I'd support it. I'd also support keeping him alive so that pyschologists and psyciatrists can do research on him to help determine what CAUSED the mental illness and what it entails. In my mind it's a better option to learn from him and hopefully avoid it happening AGAIN then to just flat out kill him..

I'm not a PhD student, but I do know that there is no such thing as 'incurable'.

He is mentally ill; he didn't even have a first chance. He was born into a situation where some combination of biological and enviornmental factors created an individual who cannot function in society. I'll say it again: he didn't even have a first chance, let alone a second chance.

His father molseted him, or he was born with problems in his brain chemistry, or (insert horrible situation that can create a man who does things like this)....let's kill him!! That'll teach him!

In THIS case it seems clear cut. But you can't make laws for ALL cases simply to satisfy the easy cases.

My moral dilemma is that I can see that is someone committed some brutal horrific crime that the world might well be a better place if they were dead, and that committing such a crime from your own free will might earn this ultimate sanction.

HOWEVER....

The human justice system is capable of error. It is capable of innocent mistakes, and amenable to corruption and evidence tampering.

Therefore I am left feeling that whatever my thoughts on a totally clear-cut case of an "evil" man who does a despicable thing, I have to remain against any sanction that is capable of being corrupted by human failing and collusion.

I realise that this will have certain people call me a silly liberal, but at least I can be comfortable that nobody will ever be able to put innocent blood on my hands.

I've been bitten for my conservative views before on the tfp, and willtravel may rip me a new one and that's ok, but sometimes you just have to cull the herd. I agree that this man may be a very sick puppy, but for for those of us that live here, this is just an hour or so away from me, things that attack our children need to be put down. raeanna74 has a good point. I guess it is a punishment, but it also gets a deadly viper from out of our midst.

As we see more and more disturbed members of our society manifest this kind of disregard for life do we just continue to warehouse them? I know I'm cold but we can only live with so much of this behavior. Attack me if you please, I don't intend to respond. When I was younger I shared the liberal view. The older I get and the more I see I lean toward defending the young, helpless, and defensless.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguements today in a case that straddles this issue.

Apparently a younger guy (17) in Arizona went off the deep end, and his parents tried to get him committed but couldn't because he wasn't deemed a threat to himself or others. He was convinced that his family were all aliens (the 3rd Encounter kind, not the illegal immigrant kind). A few months later he stole the family truck and drove it around and around one block with loud music blaring. Someone called the cops, and one officer responded. There was a gunfight and the officer was killed. There's no debate as to who did it, but the guy was pretty clearly not all there.

The court found him guilty, but the defense wanted him found guilty but insane so he could get the help he needed. Unfortunately, the court said that he may have been insane immediately before and immediately after killing the officer but not doing since he knew he was doing wrong because he later ran from the cops.

Here's the story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060419/...tus_insanity_2

Personally, I think that this particular set of circumstances is right on that fine line.

There's always an excuse. For whomever for whatever crime. So, will, where do you draw the line? When do you advocate someone take responsibility for their actions?

If some hero vigilante would just blow this guys head off next time he makes any kind of appearance we'd save a lot of time, trouble, money, and distress of the family.

I concede that we could learn from him. But frankly, we can learn plenty from the morphology of his brain.

If it's a chemical imbalance, we will most likely not be able to fix it permanently and thus, get rid of him. I am a proponent of ridding the world of danger. I might feel slightly differently if the penitentiary system were not glutted with stupid shit like drug possession. But we can't and shouldn't afford to house someone who will never be able to be a contributing member of society. (Can you imagine the lawsuit if they parolled him, he was "cured", and he killed someone else? So he'll never be parolled, never be rehabilitated, and thus is a waste.)

I do understand where everyone is coming from. Yes, I'd probably feel safer letting my daughter walk to school someday if we put this man to death. The problem is that my feeling of comfort in thinking aobut removing this man from life isn't founded in logic, it's founded in an emotional response. I KNOW that if he were put into a secure asylum he would not pose any realistic threat to anyone. If he poses no threat, the what is the function of killing him? To punish him? As a father, all I can say on that is the reason one punishes is to teach a lesson. You can't learn a lesson if you're dead (unless you believe in reincarnation). Who knows, having this man in an asylum for the rest of his life could be slow torture.

It's easy to call this man a viper, as he did prey on a defenceless little girl in an evil way, but let's not forget that he was once a little boy. The man is still human. He is just not well.

Oh, and it's Willravel. :thumbsup:
Putting someone in an asylum isn't necessarily warehousing them. It is putting them in an environment where learned individuals can study them and attempt to treat them. Imagine a prison meets a laboratory meets a hospital.

Just fyi, I don't want to attack anyone. I'm only here to discuss.
When they are not clearly insane, then they can take 100% responsibility for their actions. This man is clearly insane, so he cannot be heald totally responsible for his actions.

And when I deal with the death penalty, I WILL always have an excuse. Logic.
And that vigilante, being of sound mind, would be convicted of premeditated murder and probably get the death penalty.

Than's quite a solution.

This really bothers me. Yes, I agree that most people would not consider him sane since he did something most sane people would never think of doing. However, I guess you then have to ask what is sane? I may be wrong, but don't most people have a few classifiable psychological conditions that are considered minor? Also, how do you know he has an unfortunate past? Then, I also have to ask; if someone has an unfortunate past, does that then give them a free pass to commit atrocities? I don't think so. He knew right from wrong. He went 26 years without commiting any serious crimes. He did not stand out. IMO that means that he should be able to take responsibility for his own actions. I'll have to say I'm in the camp that thinks he deserves to be punished. I think he deserves death.

What is sane? Well I am using insane in a general sense to mean that he has extreemly serious antisocial personality disorder, narcissism, OCD, dissasociative disorder...etc.; someone who beacause of their disorder(s) is a danger to themselves or people around them and who require treatment from professionals.

Does someone have a free pass to kill if they have had biological or environmental factors that caused them to have disoders? That has to be a case by case basis. Luckely, we have a case by case judicial system, so it's fair to judge them as such. I am not suggesting to give this man a free pass. I am only suggesting that killing him is wrong. Only the sith deal in absolutes.

It's alright to think he should be punished without wanting to KILL him, just so you know.

Sorry about the name thing willravel. And I didn't mean to imply that you were a rabid attacker. I just figure that a lot of folks probably won't agree with me.

I worry most about folks like this being judged as "sane" later in life, then we find out that they are not after it is too late.

Just my old $0.02

The problem is that "sane" is a legal definition, not a medical one. Doctors can't and don't catagorize people as sane or insane. It's left up to the courts to decide.

In my opinion, there are clearcut cases where someone committed an act under duress of their own making, i.e. John Hinkley, Jr. shooting Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. There's a homeless guy here in Chicago who was profiled in a series of stories in the Tribune because he went around punching random women in the face when he was off his medication because he thought they were attacking him with their minds. Clearly both of these individuals have issues that force them into behaviors that they wouldn't otherwise exhibit with the intervention of drugs, therapy or both.

From personal experience, I know that there are some people who can recover from debilitating mental illnesses and become productive members of society. Crimes committed by the truely mentally ill should not be punished so much as treated aggressively, IMO, and treatment/monitoring should be maintained longterm. The homeless guy that I mentioned doesn't need to go to jail where he's only going to be sicker when he's released and maybe kills someone. He needs to be treated.

We live in the same world.

They will treat this guy just like they did jeffrey dahmer, and they should. put him behind bars. He won't last out the year.

I can't really disagree in this particular case. This guy planned the whole thing, knew it was wrong and did it anyway. However, Dahmer was sentenced to a psychiatric facility with treatment, not to prison. Granted, he was in with other mentally ill criminals, but the point was that he was not in prison. Did you realize that when you posted?

Just to clarify my position (and because I don't want to have to look at any more grocery store claims about old ladies slipping on grapes and getting $100,000 for it), people that are clearly NOT in touch with reality when they commit a crime (hearing voices, think they're being persecuted by strangers, think someone's the anti-christ, afraid that people are going to take their guns - just kidding about that one dksuddeth :D ) should be treated differently than common criminals.

The sith agrees with The_Jazz. BTW willravel, I was completely aware that "It's alright to think he should be punished without wanting to KILL him". Just so you know. I was merely stating that in my personal opinion that the punishment that he deserves is the death penalty. Perhaps it was poorly stated in my sentence construction.

No, I did not realize that. Thank you for the info.

hmmm, someone's at my door. be right back. :eek:

:lol:

I think this is a greater problem than the death penalty. Those that are mentally disturbed are left to roam and harrass their families at times simply because they are not YET a danger. I've heard other stories like this where someone was ignored because they had not harmed anyone yet. But I don't doubt that the family couldn't have told you that his behavior was frightening. Someone who is unstable like this should be committed so that their problem could be dealt with. If they are 'curable' and able to return to a normal life then there's no reason why they can't be released. At least this could prevent crimes like this loopy Arizona fellow. Not that it would have helped the little girl as far as we know but it would have helped the cop

I knew when I read the article that there would be some people defending this guy on insanity or mentally disabledness. Give me a fucking break. All politics and toned down opinions aside, anyone that can cut up a little girl, rape her, cut her fucking head off, and then brag about it deserves to die. I don't care if you have a little something wrong in the head. I don't care if you can go get some therapy and then be mellow for the rest of your life. If you do something like that, you don't deserve to live. You KILLED a girl, therefore you're giving up your own right to live. She did nothing to warrant her own death and the killer did. I hope something extremely horrific, disgusting, and truly scarring happens to this guy, something that would make most people vomit in shock. What a fucked up human being.

I knew when I read this artucle that there would be some people wanting to kill this obviously mentally ill person. Give me a fucking break. All politics and vigiliantism aside, anyone who clearly has substantial mental problems to the point that he would kidnap, kill, rape, beat, and cut up a little girl clearly needs help. I don't care if you can simply brush the worth of a man's life aside to settle some misguided sense of vengence, he deserves to live. He is insane, and clearly isn't responsible for his own actions. I hope something inspiring, wonderful, amazing and joyful happens in the life of each and every person who posted to kill this guy, so that maybe we can try to have perspective and respect for the value of life. This is a man who clearly needs help.

:thumbsup:

Therapy? Help? No way. This guy deserves to have the same thing done to him. Is it really worth spending the time and effort on someone to "treat" them when they may just "snap" again and kill another little girl like this? Nope. Waste the motherfucker. Cut his dick off and make him eat it.

I appreciate the cleverness, but I just don't get how anyone can see this with the mental disability view. Someone in the thread has already mentioned when we stopped punishing killers and started giving them free doctor visits. When will killers pay for what they did? Is it OK to kill in the US as long as you weren't entirely sane when you did it? Where is the line between a killer who deserves punishment and a killer who deserves to be treated as "mental victim?"

I suspect that's for medical professionals to decide. I may not have my doctorate in psych yet, but I can guess as to the mental state of the horrible man who committed this crime. He's nuts. I don't mean like cheating husband kills cheating wife kind of nuts, I mean praying to a bedpost and eating concrete because your deoderant told you to do it nuts. What this man did could not be done by a sane man.

It's never okay to kill, and I am not suggesting that this man ever be free again, but to kill an insane individual for doing something insane doesn't makes sense to me. Punish him, of course. Kill him? No way.

I am fine with the 'agree to disagree' thing in this case. It's not like we're on the jury. If we were, then we'd have to come to some sort of an agreement.

This case is chilling and the man an absolute monster, but killing him would be a waste. His death does nothing but satiate our bloodlust, but treating him could actually contribute valuable knowledge that could prevent future cases like this. I don't think this man should be coddled and I don't think he should ever be freed, but I would hate to see us lose out on the potential to learn something of great importance just to fufill our need for vengeance.

Just so you don't feel like the trumpeteer against Caeser's army (yes I just made that metaphor up), Will.. I agree.

[B]this is a sickening crime against humanity, it still shocks me to hear something like this even with all the crime in the world, lets all keep her father and family in our prayers............they will need them.

I appreciate it. And I like that metephor. :thumbsup:

He may be a mental case, but I feel that he is an abomination, and that we should kill him in a quick and efficient way- .22 through the eye would work.... in any event, He is never going to be better, and I do not feel any obligation to be "Better" or "Progressive" and try to make him better.... and for the record, should I or any of my loved ones do something this heinous, then put me down- Should a loved one do such a thing, then I would gladly put them down.....
This man is a FAILURE- and should have no more time or resources wasted on him...

What if an 8 year old kid shot a man? Would you put a .22 to his head an pull the trigger? What if a man with severe down syndrome hit a man until he died? Maybe we should just give you a gun and let you go wild.
Is this your professional opinion? Or are you assuming that your opinion based on reading one article tells you so much about this mans condition that you are qualified to make such a statement?

What if you're wrong? What if we kill a good man who is stuck in a shell of mentall illness?

As long as he never sees the rest of humanity again, I don't care if he goes to prison or a psych facility. But he should never, ever be allowed back into society. Whether we kill him, or nature runs its course in due time, he needs to die in a facility. If you want to prod him and study his mind until he finally passes, so be it. Use the knowledge you gain to treat those who aren't totally bat-shit-crazy, and can be saved.

This is not a person. It's a bag of useless meat with a fucked up brain. There's no bringing a person into "functioning member of society" status after THIS. This was not random, it was not reactionary, it was not opportunistic- meaning he didn't just suddenly bludgeon someone, he didn't get "scared" or "confused" and act out violently, and he didn't have a momentary lapse of "oh there's a girl, I think i'll kill her and rape her corpse". It was planned out, detailed, prepared for, and executed in a precise fashion. The body was maintained post-mortum for the purpose of further use, in a receptacle designed to prevent odor or other indications of a decomposing body from being discovered.

I don't care how fucked up a person's brain is- he indicates the knowledge of right from wrong by storing the body to prevent detection, he lied to police to cover his actions at the checkpoint, and when the police arrived and got to the tub, he admitted to his crime...

It's method, though there's madness in it. Regardless of motivation- whether it's neurological imbalance, or actual desire- he willfully carried out these acts. There is no place in any society for a person such as this.

ARGH

It sucks to live on the other side of the world from you guys

I sleep and wake up, and there's so many new posts, they're so hard to keep track.
Time zones suck. The earth has to spin faster :(

---after reading, had this to say---

Fine, I feel now that we should lock him up, have the experts study what is wrong, what causes it, and what not. It *would* be *better* than killing him.

But we shall never let him walk among his fellow men, for he is a danger, regardless if he should be sane in the future or not.

You know, capital trials aren't exactly cheap, either. I'm told that they're usually more expensive than a life sentence, although this guy's trial may be a slam dunk. Still, his execution won't be the great money saver you are hoping it will be...

You mean, like the two kids who took a 2 year old, beat him up, poured paint in his eyes, then tied him onto train tracks and watched him get cut in half while he was still alive? They were released on their 18th (it might have been 16, I don't quite remember) and are, as far as I know, living ordinary lives right now without fear of assassins...
Mind you, they were put under a witness protection program when they were released, but still...

But really, what is the value of a penalty? Of punishment? I mean, lets not beat around the bush, here. You're talking about death as revenge but, when you think about it, how does that benefit society? What do we gain out of his death? What would you gain?

But until these people pose an actual danger, what you're talking about is commiting them because... you don't like them. Really, insanity is like pedaphilia in that neither of them is illegal. There are plenty of insane people out there who have hurt no one. Should we lock you up before you hurt someone? I assume you haven't hurt anyone, yet...

Because I couldn't stomach executing someone. Whenever I see the facilities they use I just see how awful the whole thing is. That, together with other reasons (possibility of mistakes etc) others have posted, is the reason I'm againts the death penalty. Now maybe this guy is a special case, a "monster", but I don't see the need for executing such special cases instead of life time imprisonment.

Edit: I just saw your post above, but I think my points are still valid.

I'm not saying lock them up in jail or anything like that. I'm saying to make sure these people face their inner demons. Some people who are truely insane are not going to cooperate with therapy but they need it all the more because they won't go to a counselor. They need to be forced to face reality before they become a real danger. IF you commit them then you give the Dr's to really analyse if they are a true threat or just a little harmlessly loony.


As for death being a penalty. I don't see it as a way of correction. That's different. I see this as a deterrant. If a person knows that killing another person will result in their own death as a penalty then the likelyhood that they will go through with murder might be lower. The fact that you are eliminating a threat to society is a side benefit. Prison is not near enough deterrant for some people.

I don't think you can deter people from being crazy.

Looking at some of the killer's archived entries gives you a pretty good insight into how messed up he is:

*shudder*

Justjess I think you won the thread :thumbsup:

That's exactly why I think the death penalty does have a place in our penal system.

Huh? I'm sorry, I don't get the connection between my ascertion that capitol punishment not being a good deterrent and your conclusion that the death penalty works. I figure that if it doesn't work as a deterrant (which statiscitcs show it doesn't), then the only reason for killing these people is vengence. That makes it state sponsored murder, and that makes it inexcusable.

Now that I think about it, we should stick with the news story here. I don't want to threadjack. I kinda touched on the death penalty in this thread.

Why oh why did I have to read this before going to bed? Gah.

I'm kind of torn between letting him rot in jail and execution... prolly the latter, among legal methods. Best option... being what someone else mentioned, let the girl's dad have a few hours with him.

Grrr, just makes me sick.