Another extreme Death Penalty case

[Pangloss]

This is one of those cases that's so abhorrent that it really makes you wonder. I've always been opposed to the death penalty, but if I were on this jury I'd probably ask to pull the lever on ol' sparky myself. A Florida father, incensed by an argument with his estranged wife, took actions so extreme that they just boggle the mind. The state is going to ask for the death penalty in this case.

 

The couple was on its way home from the hospital where the baby had been treated for diarrhea. The couple argued, and the baby woke up screaming. The father picked up the baby out of its car seat and threw him head first out the window. The baby landed face-first in the dirt.

 

But that wasn't enough. He got out of the car, picked the baby up by the leg, and slammed him down on the hood so hard that it dented the metal. Then he tossed him back into the car, shoved his wife out, and took off. He drove to a nearby canal where he threw the baby into the water. He drove back to the mother, still standing by the side of the road, and told her "Better find your baby before the aligators do."

 

Police found "Charles, Jr.", who just a week before had uttered his first word, "Dad", floating face-down in the canal 20 minutes later.

 

Some of these details are available in a story here:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pbaby28apr28,0,970694.story?page=2&track=mostemailedlink&coll=sfla-dolphins-front

[5614]

Kill him slowly and painfully.

[ecoli]

oh my god, I actually felt ill from reading that description. Somebody should've went to anger management classes years ago.

[5614]

I think that man thing is a bit beyond anger management.

[Sisyphus]

So did he seem like just a normal guy before then?

[ydoaPs]

words cannot describe the torture this man should endure, but i'm sure AP will give it a good effort.

[Pangloss]

So did he seem like just a normal guy before then?

 

No. I know the article I linked above didn't have much info, but as you might imagine it's been all over the local news. As I understand it, the mother had a court injunction preventing contact based on a history of angry confrontations. It's unclear why he was with her, but a reasonable guess might be that she needed him to help her take the baby to the hospital. I imagine that's a decision she'd like to have back.

[doG]

I'd turn him over to the local death row population as a toy to play with and discard as they please. I'm certain they'll know as well as anyone how to make him feel like that baby did before it died....

[ydoaPs]

Shove bamboo-shoots up his finger nails as well as his man-shoot. Etch in his skin with a worn scalpel dipped in platypus venom. Afterwards, put him in an enclosure with dozens of pissed tarantula hawks (arizona wasps more painful than bullet ants). Slow burning napalm to remove digit, one at a time, between other tortures. Hang from cieling by hair. Torture his mommy-dearest in front of him. Burn his extensive porn collection in front of him. Inject with temporary pychosis inducing drugs. Grind salt in his wounds. Put him on the edge of a wooden wheel and spin it, whenever he passes, whack him with a wooden bat. Get him horny, then start hacking at genitals a cheese-grater. From this point, we starve him, getting most of his nutrients from an IV drip. We can keep him alive for years that way, and all the while, we repeat everything that can be repeated multiple times. Throughout this time, we also slowly burn away small portions of his limbs until only charred stump's are left. Eventually, stage a fake rescue. He get's healthy hiding out in the wood (fake-nurse cares for him, as he has no limbs) His mental state should render him incapable of realizing how weird it is he has a nurse tending him in the woods until his mental and physical health stabilizes. Finally, we recapture him, and infect him with Ebola zaire.Torture him for two weeks till the virus starts to show. Then, as he dies for the next few weeks, we keep him alive and lucid as long as possible. In the very end, before he loses his clarity, we make a horny, sex-starved pig violate his sexuality. When the pig has had his way with him, we Tazer him to death (a baby can survive a tazer jolt, so this may take a while). Oh, yeah, and the entire time, from start to finish (except for recuperation period) we play a never-ending hamsterdance version of "It's a Small World After All". Torturing his mommy might be morally extreme. Leave that out

that should do nicely.

[padren]

The only reason I'd have for wanting him hurt would be emotional, and has nothing to do with punishment, seperating him from general society, etc, so on principle I have to buck up and say life in prison.

 

Some principles, such as that one should not kill a defenesless human being who poses no risks, are more important than an emotional reaction to the horrible acts that human being did.

 

We don't "not kill them" for their benefit, just like we don't uphold the Geneva conventions for the benefit of our enemies.

 

Those are things we do for ourselves, so we can keep being the people we like to be.

[ydoaPs]

The only reason I'd have for wanting him hurt would be emotional' date=' and has nothing to do with punishment, seperating him from general society, etc, so on principle I have to buck up and say life in prison.

 

Some principles, such as that one should not kill a defenesless human being who poses no risks, are more important than an emotional reaction to the horrible acts that human being did. [/quote']he poses no risk?

 

 

We don't "not kill them" for their benefit, just like we don't uphold the Geneva conventions for the benefit of our enemies.

iirc, the geneva conventions don't govern what countries can do to their own prisoners.

 

gah, think of the tax money spent to keep bastards like this alive for the rest of their lives.

[silkworm]

He lost it. It appears this was a pretty normal guy that just flipped out. This could happen to any one of us. What he did is horrible, but the death penalty here serves no one. He should get some serious jail time and intense psychiatrc treatment.

 

If he does anything like it again though, goodnight Mr. Tyson. I'll be happy to do it myself.

[AzurePhoenix]

He lost it. It appears this was a pretty normal guy that just flipped out. This could happen to any one of us. What he did is horrible' date=' but the death penalty here serves no one. He should get some serious jail time and intense psychiatrc treatment.

 

If he does anything like it again though, goodnight Mr. Tyson. I'll be happy to do it myself.[/quote'] I'd like to know why he lost it before making that judgement call, and just how "lost" he was during it. And the alligator comment sounded pretty lucid to me.

 

I wouldn't say he was acceptably "normal" in the sense of mental stability anyway; he had a history of anger, and as for violence, the article jsut states he'd never been aggressive towards his wife specifically, rather than in general.

[padren]

he poses no risk?

 

When you have a man in custody' date=' and you control where he eats, what he eats, where he sleeps, where he can walk, who he can associate with, if anyone...you pretty much can say he poses no risk.

 

Is he going to overpower armed guards?

Can you think of any condition where a living human being is more impotent and subject to the control of others?

 

iirc, the geneva conventions don't govern what countries can do to their own prisoners.

I wasn't talking about the conventions as they apply to their own justice system (as they don't), I am saying we apply those conventions to our enemies (which I stated), even the ones we consider monsters who don't respect the conventions themselves. The reason we still treat them humanely is not for their benefit but for our own, so we do not become even a little like them.

 

 

 

gah' date=' think of the tax money spent to keep bastards like this alive for the rest of their lives.[/quote']

 

There are many ways to seek monatary advantages by sacrificing principles.

 

 

 

Side note:

I think his crime is "less horrible" than someone that calmly plots and arranges their child's death for insurance money.

 

His crime is simply more dramatic.

[AzurePhoenix]

When you have a man in custody' date=' and you control where he eats, what he eats, where he sleeps, where he can walk, who he can associate with, if anyone...you pretty much can say he poses no risk.

 

Is he going to overpower armed guards?

Can you think of any condition where a living human being is more impotent and subject to the control of others?[/quote'] I seem to remember a recent situation in which prisoners in custody took over a tower of their prison holding two guards hsotage in one of the longest prison standoffs in US history, including a female guard who they kept even after they released the man for some unfathomable reason. No risk my ass.

 

The reason we still treat them humanely is not for their benefit but for our own, so we do not become even a little like them.

I'd say there's a notable difference between over-sensitive and humane.

 

]I think his crime is "less horrible" than someone that calmly plots and arranges their child's death for insurance money.

I think the opposite. At worst, the plotting father-killer simply shows he has no love for his child, which is terrible in its own-right, but not on par with the monstrous brutality of someone who kills their child in a simple and meaningless fit of temper.

[insane_alien]

he should be forcefed his own genitalia and eyeballs then dipped in vinegar(or some other suitible acid that will cause pain but not kill) then after we leave him lying bleeding in the middle of some desert for a few days we remove his legs with sandpaper and use drugs and blood transfusions to keep him alive and awake. once his legs are gone (should take a week or two per leg) then his arms. then and only then do we pluck every single hair on his body and be sure to remove a bit of flesh with every hair. after this we roll him in salt.and rub it in real good. after this we attach electrodes all over his bodyto deliver a non-lethal but excruciating current to his nerve endings. while this is happening we induce a constant psychadelic trip(the bad kind) and get midgets to beat him sticks. this shall continue for a year. the things psyche should be suitably destroyed by now. If it is possible we bring him round until he is as aware of whats going on as possible and give him hundereds and thousands of cigarette burns over what remains of his body then to finish him off we slowly insert redhot pokers into his brain through his ears.

 

Also somesort of highpitched noises in the background the whole time.

[Tetrahedrite]

I'm disgusted by the act, but equally so by the reaction of a large number of posters here. In my opinion (and it is just that), many of you are bordering on sick, seemingly condoning the most horrible form of torture. Thirst for bloody retribution is just as bad as the crime itself. It's harsh, but thats the way I see it.

[padren]

I seem to remember a recent situation in which prisoners in custody took over a tower of their prison holding two guards hsotage in one of the longest prison standoffs in US history' date=' including a female guard who they kept even after they released the man for some unfathomable reason. No risk my ass.

[/quote']

If we can't control inmates its our own fault, if we are that weak its by choice (funding, training, laziness etc).

 

Its also worth noting that when prisoners are able to revolt and take hostages, its because we decided to go more lax on them than we had to.

 

The moment you have a prisoner in a cell, guarded by people with guns, the only way they are a threat is if you give them the opportunity to be one.

 

I'd say there's a notable difference between over-sensitive and humane.

Of course' date=' I definately agree. The issue is where the line between the two terms lay. I don't think abolishing capital punishment or adhering to the geneva conventions constitutes being over-sensitive, imho.

 

I think the opposite. At worst, the plotting father-killer simply shows he has no love for his child, which is terrible in its own-right, but not on par with the monstrous brutality of someone who kills their child in a simple and meaningless fit of temper.

 

Iirc, premeditated crimes are considered worse than spontanious ones legally. I could agree the for-profit killer is less dangerous (he has to think he'll get away with it, he has to have something to gain to consider it, etc) to society but that is not what punishment is measured on.

 

My reasons for feeling the profit killer to be worse, are that the killer has a long amount of time in which to consider their actions, considers how to get away with it, considers the value of the benefit for them while completely disregarding the death of their own child, and enacts a step by step plan to execute it without a hint of feeling guilt.

 

The other fellow is far more dramatic and brutal, but his crime is spontanious, runs completely against his own capacity for reason. If he was thinking criminally, he would have tried to think of a way to get away with it, perhaps waiting for an opportunity that wouldn't lead the cops to him, or, having just thrown the child out the window...killing the mother and dumping the car and their bodies somewhere and claim a carjacking or something. (the article doesn't mention other witnesses until the mother is looking around the water).

 

I agree he is guilty of a horrible crime and needs to be in prison, but considering the guy didn't even try to run, and gave no thought to his own inevitable imprisonment, I can't see how its on par with a premeditated murder.

 

Could you go into more detail explaining your position, I do want to understand your point of view.

[bascule]

he should be forcefed his own genitalia and eyeballs then dipped in vinegar(or some other suitible acid that will cause pain but not kill) then after we leave him lying bleeding in the middle of some desert for a few days we remove his legs with sandpaper and use drugs and blood transfusions to keep him alive and awake. once his legs are gone (should take a week or two per leg) then his arms. then and only then do we pluck every single hair on his body and be sure to remove a bit of flesh with every hair. after this we roll him in salt.and rub it in real good. after this we attach electrodes all over his bodyto deliver a non-lethal but excruciating current to his nerve endings. while this is happening we induce a constant psychadelic trip(the bad kind) and get midgets to beat him sticks. this shall continue for a year. the things psyche should be suitably destroyed by now. If it is possible we bring him round until he is as aware of whats going on as possible and give him hundereds and thousands of cigarette burns over what remains of his body then to finish him off we slowly insert redhot pokers into his brain through his ears.

 

Also somesort of highpitched noises in the background the whole time.

 

You're supposed to leave him alive with his ears intact so that the shriek of every child who cries "Dear god, what is that thing?!!!" is his to cherish in his perfect ears.

 

C'mon, haven't you ever seen the Princess Bride?

[ecoli]

You're supposed to leave him alive with his ears intact so that the shriek of every child who cries "Dear god' date=' what is that thing?!!!" is his to cherish in his perfect ears.

 

C'mon, haven't you ever seen the Princess Bride?[/quote']

 

Great movie... and perhaps the greatest bluff in any movie.

[Jim]

Great movie... and perhaps the greatest bluff in any movie.

 

To the pain!

 

Seriously, though, the point I keep beating on is that most don't want to torture, many do not want the death penalty (even of the Monty Python, Meaning of Life type), but, I suspect, we'd all want to punish even if the punishment did not fulfill a deterrence or rehabilitation interest.

 

Justice - deterrence - rehabilitation = retribution.