Father Executes 15 Year Old Son

[quote]meangenes wrote:
X2, finally a man with some sense.

Let me reiterate.

Punishment is not a deterrent to crime.

Deterence

According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies, 88% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Lacock, 2009)

Consistent with previous years, the 2008 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate. The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, again had the lowest murder rate.

The death penalty costs more than life imprisonment.

Fiscal Facts

The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005)

In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration. (Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).

In Maryland, an average death penalty case resulting in a death sentence costs approximately $3 million. The eventual costs to Maryland taxpayers for cases pursued 1978-1999 will be $186 million. Five executions have resulted. (Urban Institute 2008).

The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).

Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).

In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf[/quote]

Nice to see a bit of research to back up your points. I seem to remember the whole problem with the death penalty as a deterrent argument is that generally when people commit a crime they’re either not thinking of the consequences or think they won’t get caught (or both).

Also in my opinion, as soon as even one innocent person is executed the whole system breaks down. It’s tragic enough for someone to be wrongly imprisoned but at least if new evidence comes to light you can release them. It’s kinda hard to un-execute someone however.

My other issue with the fathers actions is that I believe the only time you can make an argument for taking another persons life is to prevent them harming another. If he caught his son in the act and thought the only way he could stop him was to shoot him that would be one thing (though still a bit of a stretch), but finding out after the fact makes his actions unacceptable in my view.

I will admit I am not a father (as far as I’m aware!) but even if I was I don’t think that would give me the right to kill someone who abused my children. I would probably want to, but the thing about being old enough to be held responsible for your actions is that you are also expected to be able to control your urges.

[quote]Rekkitanko wrote:
pzehtoeur wrote:
Rekkitanko wrote:
I’ll refrain from giving my opinion over the incident but here is a thought.

Everbody is always arguing that, if anyone ever touched their kid, they’ll go Hannibal on their ass, well, if the turth is indeed being told here, nobody seems to be on the side of the father. The aunt is freaked out, the family finds this unacceptable. Yet I am sure that if a stranger molested their kid, it would be all different. What aggravates me is that those people are to simple to even grasp this concept.

Then County Prosecutor says: “No individual has the right to exact the death penalty on another, no matter how reprehensible the behavior. That is why we have laws,” … oh right is that why, I dono, death penalty is still around.

So yeah for all of you who say he is a sick fuck, what would you do if someone molested your mother, daughter, wife?

That’s a good point but you have to realize that was his son. He basically murdered his child while “protecting” another (assuming the story is true).

Let’s quickly examine what family bond is without getting all technical and nitpicky.
1/ Biological: you share a higher quantity of genes with this individual than any other person on the planet. 2/ Emotional: a long history of experiences with this person has built strong memories from which emotions arise. 3/ Belonging: that person is related to you is part of >your< life.

Number one really isn’t of much concern. The reason one wouldn’t want to kill their own son is because of the emotional bond and belongingness factor.

So we are left with two reasons for not killing a person. Now, emotions are as fragile as glass, one day you love your wife the next day she leaves you for another man, gets the kids, the house and you are left giving her half of your salary so she can suck this other guy’s dick and go on holidays to Hawaii. This would be enough for any person to hate another individual. Once hate has been introduced in the equation, killing becomes real easy.

Belongingness. Your wife never really was yours to begin with, your son on the other hand couldn’t be without your existence, this makes him YOUR son, the same way buying a car makes it YOURS (like I said let’s not get all nitpicky, obviously those are not the best analogies, but in this context it should suffice). You wouldn’t crash your car, unless you are a douche from Texas driving a luxury car, but imagine you’ve been fired from work, you pop your hood to get a baseball bat and smash it to pieces just to get the anger out of your system. And as it is yours you can decide what ever you want to do with it.

So, you are left with no reason to not kill him, except “political correctness” and ethicality and a right sense of retribution which basically comes to the same thing. This is in fact the only reason you don’t kill some random guy who sucker punched you at a bar and grabbed your gf’s goodies.

But quite francly if you eliminate emotions it becomes really easy, it might not make it ethical, which is not to say that it isn’t intrinsically the right thing to do.

Let’s go a step further, how would you feel if the son rapped your wife, daughter 5 years later. Would you then want to kill him, would you think he was badly brought up, indirectly blaming the parents, meaning that the father owned up by killing him.

Just a thought.

He may get less than life if his lawyer is any good. An exceptionnal lawyer might even get him walking a free man.[/quote]

You kind of scare me a little…

Now instead of getting a gun, he should’ve got a belt and beat the kid down, man must be crazy thinking it’s okay to kill someone for that. What’s gonna be worse for the girl, getting molested. possibly having issues with that shit for life, or having all those issues and your half brother killed by your father who is now serving life in prison.

Father was a tool.

Due to how vague the article is, I don’t think anyone in here can really make a decision on what should or shouldn’t have been done to punish the child. If you look at the situation in a black-and-white fashion, I don’t think murdering his son was justified. The son tells his mom he touched his half-sister inappropriately, and the father just kills him? The kid felt guilty about what he did, which means that he knew it was wrong. Like others have said, this indicates that he very well may have been helped. The father clearly didn’t love his son. I’m not a parent, but true love is unconditional. Had he killed his son out of love, if that’s even possible, it would have been one thing, but he killed him with no emotion whatsoever.

If you start making up hypothetical situations, I still don’t think the murder was justified. The father was obviously very strict and didn’t take any shit from his kids. When a kid is never shown mercy, it fucks him up mentally and emotionally. Like someone already said, he could have touched her in the bathroom when helping her out somehow. It could have been nothing whatsoever, but he felt guilty about it because of his father’s no-bullshit policies. This happens to kids. I agree that he’s a little too old for these types of mentalities, but considering the obvious household he grew up in, he could have been mentally immature. All-in-all, this situation isn’t really something that anyone could comment on, because no one knows what happened.

It’s a good thing that judges and juries tend to be a little more rational, because if half of you had a say in this, he would be a free man. Taking the law into your own hands is a sticky situation, but for something like this, it just shouldn’t have been done. When something blatantly happens in front of you, taking the law into your own hands is one thing, but when you don’t know all the details of a situation, it’s something else entirely.

Detroiter here, representing. Sorry for coming in late to the convo, but does anyone know the state of the justice system here in Detroit? EVERYONE gets minimum sentences or gets paroled because there is such a budget deficit that the government can’t afford to incarerate all the prisoners as long as they should be. The result is that people get out way sooner than they should. And we all know about sex offenders right? How most rapes are done by people who have previously raped? IE, the prevalence of repeated offenders?

If that’s so, if there was a good chance that the son would be given a minimum sentence OR paroled early–and that sex offenders often strike again–doesn’t it at least make the fathers actions SOMEWHAT more just? I mean, if everyone responded with the attitude of the father(pedophilia = death), cases of pedophilia would sure decrease.

BTW, she was 3. Can you imagine the psychological trauma that’s going to be with her for her entire life?

[quote]meangenes wrote:
Rekkitanko wrote:

A 15 year old does not have the mental capacity to understand the repercussions of his actions. [/quote]

I completely disagree. I teach HS and Everything we are taught in the Education system says that students are not fully able to stop their outbursts but they do have a functioning thought process. From everything I have learned and experienced, I think students at the age of 15 have a firm moral standard they uphold to. I have seen “bad” kids do good things and I have seen “good” kids do stupid things. But in my experience the kids who would cheat steal and generally fuck over another human being do so into their adulthood. I have not seen any kids who were genuinely “bad” hurt others for no reasons, picked on those weaker for any reason, just in general showed “evil” behavior turn “good”. But hey your right maybe someone who does these things can turn “good”. I guess I would rather just end this shit before it goes farther. I will admit that I do not have all the info. But if someone raped my child or even my cousin I would kill them. Not saying I would choose it, But if I was in the court room I would jump the turnstyle and kill them with my bare hands if necessary.

[quote]on edge wrote:
Otep wrote:
on edge wrote:
We don’t even know what the boy did. I have a hunch it wasn’t all that bad. He was 15, probably pretty low IQ, intensely curious about girls and his little sister is running around naked. What he did that was so “reprehensible” might have been interpreted by more cultured, relaxed and tolerant people as just a little exploration.

What the fuck?

My interpretation of this post is that you’re presenting the sexual molestation of a toddler by a 15 year-old as ‘a little exploration’ by a cultured, relaxed, tolerant people.

I want no part of your tolerant culture. I hope that’s not what you’re implying.

Or there’s some sarcasm in there I’m not getting. It happens.

You’re assuming it was molestation or something close to it. Any reasonable person would considering the fathers reaction. The problem is we live in a world with a lot of really fucked up people and when you get enough fucked up people you get some really fucked up things happening. (Anything that CAN happen WILL eventually happen). My “hunch” is based on the kid “admitting” to something. I don’t know about you, but when I was 15 I wasn’t admitting to anything unless I was caught red-handed.

I doubt we will ever find out exactly what happened but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was something like the kid was helping his little sister go to the bathroom. Maybe in wiping her he inadvertently touched her vagina and the mom or an aunt saw the contact and accused him of doing it on purpose and things got out of hand from there. Sound far fetched? In a family where a man can do what that man did, it’s not so far fetched.[/quote]

You’ve got a point, Mr. Optimus Prime. Thank you for clearing that up.

[quote]kheaslim wrote:
on edge wrote:
Mettahl wrote:

As for the kid, I would’ve simply driven him to the police station, told them that he was their problem now, and left. Is that illegal? I hope not, because I wouldn’t want that little fuck of an ex-son back around my poor daughter.

It’s starting to sound like he made up the story to get out of living with his father & step mother. He wanted to live with his grandparents.

Well that plan backfired.[/quote]

Lol you think?

This is fucked up in many many ways. But seriously the fuck is wrong with the father? I do somehow understand ‘beating up’ the kid. Tough love? Although personally (probably) I would discuss matters calmly with my kid if I had one and did that. I mean 15 years old, sheesh, he’s a kid damn it. But shooting him? The fuck is wrong with the father?

BC

[quote]nobodyreal wrote:
Detroiter here, representing. Sorry for coming in late to the convo, but does anyone know the state of the justice system here in Detroit? EVERYONE gets minimum sentences or gets paroled because there is such a budget deficit that the government can’t afford to incarerate all the prisoners as long as they should be. The result is that people get out way sooner than they should. And we all know about sex offenders right? How most rapes are done by people who have previously raped? IE, the prevalence of repeated offenders?

If that’s so, if there was a good chance that the son would be given a minimum sentence OR paroled early–and that sex offenders often strike again–doesn’t it at least make the fathers actions SOMEWHAT more just? I mean, if everyone responded with the attitude of the father(pedophilia = death), cases of pedophilia would sure decrease.

BTW, she was 3. Can you imagine the psychological trauma that’s going to be with her for her entire life? [/quote]

Excuse me sir, but your logic is fucked up. According to your logic humanity should go into a kiling spree, so ‘less people (none?) do the particular offense in fear of getting killed’ right? I do believe in freedom of speech and I do respect your opinion.

But nevertheless, that’s fucked up.

BC

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:
This is fucked up in many many ways. But seriously the fuck is wrong with the father? I do somehow understand ‘beating up’ the kid. Tough love? Although personally (probably) I would discuss matters calmly with my kid if I had one and did that. I mean 15 years old, sheesh, he’s a kid damn it. But shooting him? The fuck is wrong with the father?

BC[/quote]

Yeah, the father was way out of line. It makes me wonder what the kid really did, though. Did he just touch her, or did he actually molest her?

[quote]FlameofOsiris wrote:
Bicep_craze wrote:
This is fucked up in many many ways. But seriously the fuck is wrong with the father? I do somehow understand ‘beating up’ the kid. Tough love? Although personally (probably) I would discuss matters calmly with my kid if I had one and did that. I mean 15 years old, sheesh, he’s a kid damn it. But shooting him? The fuck is wrong with the father?

BC

Yeah, the father was way out of line. It makes me wonder what the kid really did, though. Did he just touch her, or did he actually molest her? [/quote]

In my humble opinion it doesn’t really matter. Now that he’s dead that is. The father should have looked straight into his eyes and asked him that tough and acted accordingly. 15 years old is still a kid in my book.

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:
FlameofOsiris wrote:
Bicep_craze wrote:
This is fucked up in many many ways. But seriously the fuck is wrong with the father? I do somehow understand ‘beating up’ the kid. Tough love? Although personally (probably) I would discuss matters calmly with my kid if I had one and did that. I mean 15 years old, sheesh, he’s a kid damn it. But shooting him? The fuck is wrong with the father?

BC

Yeah, the father was way out of line. It makes me wonder what the kid really did, though. Did he just touch her, or did he actually molest her?

In my humble opinion it doesn’t really matter. Now that he’s dead that is. The father should have looked straight into his eyes and asked him that tough and acted accordingly. 15 years old is still a kid in my book. [/quote]

Of course. I’m not at all saying that it would be justified if the kid molested her. I’m just curious as to how idiotic the fathers actions really were.

[quote]BiggieBenAgain wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Rekkitanko wrote:

A 15 year old does not have the mental capacity to understand the repercussions of his actions.

I completely disagree. I teach HS and Everything we are taught in the Education system says that students are not fully able to stop their outbursts but they do have a functioning thought process.[/quote]

You said you disagree but apparently the standard you are supposed to abide by supports my claim. Why are you in this profession again? – I mean this is something that should be closely considered on your behalf.

We don’t need any more rogues in the education system. We need a conscious effort towards cooperation. Cooperation allows for an environment that is conducive to education.

I’m no expert but I think that would be identified as a form of conditioning (see: nature v. nurture).

Also, how do you judge this “genuinely bad” child? Seriously, I’d really like to hear your response.

You should start there. “Bad kids” are condemned before they even get a start. From my experience, kids don’t like labels; they’re restrictive.

It’s counter intuitive to label a child. This is one of the most constructive points of their lives. Hence the curiosity to test their limits.

I agree completely. That’s the objective. I’m not condoning this behavior… Is that what you understand from my post?

Let me put it like this then. If a person does not have the faculty to know (knowledge being a relative facet), then a person should not be held responsible for their actions.

As I stated in my response to an objection to the claim, minors do not have legal capacity for this exact reason. You are paid (assuming you teach at a public school system) due in part to the opportunity that this law provides.

LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT, THIS IS NOT JUST “SOMEONE” THAT PERPETRATED THE ACT. THIS WAS THE FATHER’S OWN SON THAT MOLESTED THE FATHER’S OWN DAUGHTER. BOTH THE VICTIM AND PERP WERE CHILDREN OF THE MAN.

  • Not mad, but it seems like people are missing this one vital bit of info.

Anyhow, go back and read my response that I made to an objection. There’s credible research there. Your experience is objective and may vary.

*From what I understand, the amygdala is responsible for stress and fight-or-flight response as well as memory. The stimuli that are introduced in this period have a long-lasting and crucial effect to the neuro-synapse. This process is also known as fear conditioning. While the advanced prefontal cortex is responsible for complex reasoning, and correct social behavior, which naturally takes time to develop.

For future reference: When one refutes a claim that has been backed by credible research, one should offer a credible source that refutes or debunks the initial citation.

lol Who cares about WHY they did it. How is the reason why they do it going to help the victim or better yet exact JUSTICE for the victim?
If you assault a child, no matter what your on, or how whacked out you are or how psychotic, or how young or how retarded or stupid or any of that bullshit, then you deserve to pay for it with your life. Or worse.

Period.