Nutter who killed the baby.

[flip-flop]

As a rule I disagree with the death penalty, but in this particular instance, try as I might, I just can't see a reason for keeping him alive - he is evil personified and has no redeeming features whatsoever.

What is the point in wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds keeping him alive?

[El D]

Sorry Pippa, just to clarify, are you saying that this woman was mistaken in believing the man was not evil? She was too dumb to realise he was a monster? I assume then that intelligence is the guideline for identifying evil?

I also note that you use probably and a question mark.

I hope I am enlightening some as to the rather boorishly cathartic yet misguided actions that drive this thread.

[flashpig]

Thank god the muslims are going to get in power. They'd execute him.

[flip-flop]

El D - your final paragraph above: was your tongue firmly wedged into the side of your cheek? Or are you just simply arrogant?

Genuine query.

[Pippa68]

Well I would have to say that a grain of common sense would be required in order to actually look at this guys past & think 'hmmmm, wonder if it's a good idea to pro create with this person?'

I am not talking academic intelligence, I am talking about basic thinking. The mother knew what he had done in the past (fact) & continued to live with him. I would consider this not only low intelligence, but stupidity as well.

What excuse would you give a woman who allows her child to be abused & eventually murdered?

[gammaray]

Did anyone see the football?

[gedk]

I am not some kind of bloodthirsty barbarian or a cavewoman. I am a 35 year old woman with a baby son. Maybe that is why I feel so strongly about these sort of cases, I look at my son and know that I would die for him so I simply cannot comprehend how the "man" in the case that flip-flops original question referred to could systematically torture and eventually kill his own son. To my mind he is not a human being and therefore does not deserve the same rights or privilages as the rest of us. Flip-flop got it spot on - if this man were a dog and had attacked a baby then he would have been destroyed as it would be viewed that his temperament was flawed and that he was a danger to others. My point is that this view should still apply.

I have noticed on this and other threads that turn into debates on the reintroduction of capital punishment that those who are against it seem to assume the high moral ground and somehow imply that those who are in favour are crazy psychotics and that their opinions should be disregarded as the rantings of baying bloodthirsty lunatics. I am as entitled to voice my opinion on this thread as anybody else. I do not agree with the opinions of Hal or El D or Undercovers but I would not cast aspertions on your character as I do not know you. I am not a child abuser or murderer and to liken me to one because of my opinion on this matter is quite frankly disgusting.

I am sure if flip flops question were put to the general public then the majority of people would agree with him and me - there is no reason on earth that this man should be kept alive. His punishment for his crimes should be for him to lose his right to live.

[lightoftruth]

A good system for such murder cases would be one jury to decide guilty or innocent and another to decide if death would be for the greater good.

and "stinkerbell" i couldn't agree with you more.

As for all who are claiming that executioners are no better than psycho's their is one thing you should know, pleasure and retribution are very diffrent things. If i killed some child murderer i would simply kill him and that would be that. i would get any pleasure from the act i would just know that he was dead

[flip-flop]

gedk - I have to say I thought that was a brilliant answer: I'm also 35 and have a 2 year old daughter who is the absolute centre of my universe, and therefore it just simply beggars belief that a parent, or anybody for that matter, could torture a defenceless child - so much so that it almost makes me, a 16 stone flanker, want to weep.

Now the El d's and Undercovers of the world will equate that weakness as making me subjective on the subject - quite possibly so - but I've tried to be as objective as I possibly can, and still I just simply can't see the point in keeping him alive.

I too have noticed that certain people on this site feel they have the moral high ground on subjects such as this - if that makes them feel superior (it certainly makes appear arrogant), then great, good for them I say, however the fact of the matter is that it does not make them morally better than you or I, as much as they think it might, it just means they have a different opinion (if anything, some of the comments made by some of these people would suggest to me that possibly it is we who are morally supierior!!!).

[hal]

Its not hard to take the high moral ground when people call for the torture and burning alive of other human beings (or dumb animals for that matter). You said it, not me.

[hal]

And just to be very clear - I am not taking the high moral ground in relation to capital punishment. I don't support it, but do recognise that there is a legitimate debate to be had. I have no problem with people who support capital punishement. My problem is with people who make the following comments (all from this thread):

'chuck him in a pit, douse em with petrol, throw in a match' 'let the scum suffer like nothing on earth' 'I would like to see them suffer horrendous pain and abuse' 'the fire pit sounds suitable' 'beat the cack out of the monster'

I do feel morally superior to anyone who really would like to see these outcomes.

[gedk]

Flip-flop - thank you for your post. Personally I believe that parents view these cases in a much different light than non-parents. As you say you view your child as the centre of your universe and therefore cannot comprehend how anyone could torture and kill any child never mind their own. Those that do don't deserve to live.

Hal - we have differing opinions which is fair enough, however I don't much care for the condecending tone of your posts. Obviously the other people who's comments you have quoted can speak for themselves but I can assure you that you are certainly not "morally superior" to me and have no grounds whatsoever on which to feel so. If you want to "have a problem" with anyone can I suggest you "have a problem" with people that abuse, torture and kill little children.

Just out of curiosity, may I ask do you have any children and if you do what would you like to see happen to someone who (god forbid) hurt them in anyway?

[hal]

gedk - I am afraid you do not seem to understand me. I have nowhere shown any sympathy with criminals or murderers - they should feel the full force of the law. My point at all times has been that to treat the criminal in the same way as they treated their victim (ie kill them in a vile and inhuman manner) is an immoral response to their crime. For a society to act in that way de-humanises us all. Your question asking me if I would be happy to see my children injured or killed is peurile in the extreme and I won't dignify it with an answer.

[hal]

gedk - I now need to sincerely apologise to you - I misread your question. I am a father and if my child had been killed in this manner I would be too distresses to think rationally. Objectively I would want them dealt with properly within the law. Subjectively I would have a different view. However, my point is that we should never let that subjective, emotional response be the basis for our criminal justice system.

Once again apologies for my hasty and ill-considered response.

[flip-flop]

I'm certainly not advocating treating this animal the way he treated his child - as I've said before, I'm all for a quick humane dispatching to remove him from the gene pool.

I cannot see how this is remotely immoral - and it certainly does not de-humanise me.

If anything, and if this utter animal has even the remotest sense of remorse and guilt, then perhaps we are acting in a humanitarian manner by dispatching him quickly and painlessly to rid him of his demons.

Surely this is the kind thing to do isn't it? Because let's face it, whilst society at large may not advocate torture, he will be tortured by his fellow inmates - a friend of mine works as a prison officer and they do turn their backs now and again particularly for pieces of crud this like this bloke.

So, apologists, isn't this the humane thing to do?????

[hal]

This debate has become circular. I am not going to post again on the subject.

[undercovers]

apologists flip-flop? could you please explain what you mean by applying this term here...

[gedk]

Hal - no problem, it's easy to misread a question or comment. The subject is a very emotive one and provokes strong opinions one way or the other, I accept that my fire pit was a tad OTT, but I still believe that the man in question should lose his life for what he did.

Thank you for your apology, you are a gent.

[hal]

gedk - lets agree to differ. Its a hugely emotive issue and there is nothing wrong with strong feelings o:)

[ceecee15]

I say a life for a life. What chance did that poor baby have?

[joko]

hal - you quote me in one of your posts as saying "see them suffer horrendous pain and abuse" as though this was an extreme and disgusting thing to say - but i then went on to explain that i meant at the hands of the prison system and other inmates - isn't that the point of prison? to make them suffer for their crimes?

to put my quote out of context with people who want him flayed alive is a bit unfair - okay my idea of horrendous pain and abuse was on a completely different level to some of the other posters, but i meant years and years of suffering, not 5 minutes extreme violence.

to kill him would be "putting him out his misery" as they say, but isn't misery what we want for him?