# Connecticut Home Invasion



## LoneRider (Sep 24, 2010)

In light of having heard of this recent event - a violent Connecticut home-invasion, rape and homicide - I wonder what opinions people had regarding the death penalty and crime and punishment in general. I was honestly horrified and sickened by the account of this and what the family had to endure and perhaps my harsh opinions are a product of what I felt after reading the article. 

My opinions are thus - punishment should be as harsh as possible and fit the crime. Convicted rapists/sex offenders should be castrated without anesthesia in my opinion - I think the screams alone of the hypothetical rapist having his manhood forcibly removed (preferably with an acetelyne torch) would discourage other would-be rapists who happen to be watching the broadcasted punishment. Convicted murderers, such as the human garbage in the linked article, should be punished with the death penalty and that penalty should be administered as slowly and painfully as possible. Say what you will of violating human rights but those home invading rapists and murderers in that case already violated their victims' rights and thus their rights are forfeit. 

A larger question would be this - is not justice an eye for an eye at its most basic level?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 24, 2010)

Yes. I agree that you have a point. However, and this is the major counter argument for me: there will always be innocent people who get convicted for a crime they didn't commit. It happened in the past, it is happening today, and it will happen in the future.

And I do not think it is right that we should have a death penalty, knowing that 1 or 2 out of every hundred people is actually innocent. Read up on the innocence project if you don't believe me. Give them life without parole. The population will no longer be at risk, and if the convicted person is innocent, he'll at least still have his life. And if sometime later he can be proven innocent, no irrepairable damage has been done.

That is the major reason I am against death penalty.
And unless you are fine with a system that kills innocent people every now and again, so should you.


----------



## LoneRider (Sep 24, 2010)

What of those who beyond a shadow of a doubt murdered/tortured/raped innocent people? The survivors of those murdered deserve justice. Why let that individual live when it is clear his life should be forfeit? 

There is an option of life imprisonement that juries can seek - but in cases like this one the death penalty is the right sort of punishment. 

Does this mean the other 98 or 99 convicted and hardened criminals should also be spared? No. If they have murdered their lives shall be forfeit.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 24, 2010)

LoneRider said:


> What of those who beyond a shadow of a doubt murdered/tortured/raped innocent people? The survivors of those murdered deserve justice. Why let that individual live when it is clear his life should be forfeit?
> 
> There is an option of life imprisonement that juries can seek - but in cases like this one the death penalty is the right sort of punishment.
> 
> Does this mean the other 98 or 99 convicted and hardened criminals should also be spared? No. *If they have murdered their lives shall be forfeit*.


 
What do you think life in prison is?

I have recently been reviewing my stance on the death penalty.  I have to say that I don't like the idea of an innocent person who was convicted being killed, even if we gave them the fairest trial possible.  At least while they are in prison they can continue to appeal their case and maybe be freed.

I would much rather have those who have rightfully been convicted of murder and rape contribute something to society with their miserable lives.  Bring back the chain gang, make them work for their sins.  At least in this way society can in some small way be paid back for their sins.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 24, 2010)

LoneRider said:


> My opinions are thus - punishment should be as harsh as possible and fit the crime.



What purpose does it serve?



> Convicted rapists/sex offenders should be castrated without anesthesia in my opinion - I think the screams alone of the hypothetical rapist having his manhood forcibly removed (preferably with an acetelyne torch) would discourage other would-be rapists who happen to be watching the broadcasted punishment.



Rape is a crime of violence, not a crime of sex.  I am no expert, but we had to undergo a lot of training when I was taking Criminal Justice courses in college, and from what I was taught, rapists rape; if their penises are taken away, through whatever means, they rape with instruments that substitute for a penis.



> Convicted murderers, such as the human garbage in the linked article, should be punished with the death penalty and that penalty should be administered as slowly and painfully as possible.



What purpose does that serve?



> Say what you will of violating human rights but those home invading rapists and murderers in that case already violated their victims' rights and thus their rights are forfeit.



I have no problem with the concept of incarceration or the death penalty.  Indeed, the convicted should, and do, lose many of their rights.



> A larger question would be this - is not justice an eye for an eye at its most basic level?



Not in modern societies.

Justice is about protection.

Protection of individuals; their rights and their lives.

Protection of society; our freedoms and our safety.

Protection of our way of life; our system of government.

Justice should, and for the most part does, concern itself with these things.  We remove criminals from the streets in order to protect citizens from them, to protect society from them, and in some cases to protect our system of government from them.  Incarceration is not about punishment or even rehabilitation; it is about protecting the rest of us.

There is nothing to be gained by inflicting pain on a convicted person except to (perhaps) give some comfort to the friends and relatives of the injured or dead.  This in and of itself may not be so awful; but it does not lead to a safer society.

Look at our criminal justice system like the white blood cells in our bodies.  Their job is to protect individual cells; to protect the system as a whole, and to ensure that life continues.  They remove threats with extreme prejudice.  That does not mean they exact vengeance from cancer cells; but it does mean they show no mercy in removing them. There is nothing to be gained by torturing a flu virus, but there is much to be gained by effectively destroying it.

And to be quite blunt; our criminal justice system is good.  With all of its problems, it is still probably the best in the world.  But innocent men and women get convicted from time to time; it happens. We can not give back the years we take from an innocent person, but we can try to make up for it in other ways.  If we've tortured them or castrated them or beaten them or inflicted extremely cruel punishment intentionally upon them, how do we say we're sorry about that? If we've put them to death, how do we give them their lives back?

I share your anger about what these animals did.  Torturing them won't fix anything, and basing a justice system upon it is the mark of an immature society; one I would not want to live in.


----------



## LoneRider (Sep 24, 2010)

> I would much rather have those who have rightfully been convicted of murder and rape contribute something to society with their miserable lives. Bring back the chain gang, make them work for their sins. At least in this way society can in some small way be paid back for their sins.


 
Society would be better served by those individuals rotting in unmarked graves and being denied even coffins for burial or better still letting scavengers consume their remains. They are human garbage to be disposed of, vermin to be killed.

Perhaps sentence them to hard and hazardous labor in very austere conditions - such as uranium mining. That could be an alternative to executing such scum that deserve it. 



> What purpose does it serve?


 
Harsh punishment could serve as a deterrent. If someone hears that two home invading rapists were flayed alive, then perhaps it might deter a potential criminal. 



> What purpose does that serve?


 
How would that father who lost his daughters feel hearing those two degenerates being torn to ribbons? I think it might be closure. Hell let the man have the first cut.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 24, 2010)

LoneRider said:


> Harsh punishment could serve as a deterrent. If someone hears that two home invading rapists were flayed alive, then perhaps it might deter a potential criminal.



It doesn't.  There are many countries that exact such punishments.  They have crime also.



> How would that father who lost his daughters feel hearing those two degenerates being torn to ribbons? I think it might be closure. Hell let the man have the first cut.



Sounds great.  How about the next trial, where the evidence is not quite so cut-and-dried and it turns out later that the men are innocent?  Everything still OK then?

The purpose of our justice system is to protect us, our society, and our way of life from threats.  That is all.  We are not in the business of revenge.


----------



## MJS (Sep 24, 2010)

LoneRider said:


> In light of having heard of this recent event - a violent Connecticut home-invasion, rape and homicide - I wonder what opinions people had regarding the death penalty and crime and punishment in general. I was honestly horrified and sickened by the account of this and what the family had to endure and perhaps my harsh opinions are a product of what I felt after reading the article.
> 
> My opinions are thus - punishment should be as harsh as possible and fit the crime. Convicted rapists/sex offenders should be castrated without anesthesia in my opinion - I think the screams alone of the hypothetical rapist having his manhood forcibly removed (preferably with an acetelyne torch) would discourage other would-be rapists who happen to be watching the broadcasted punishment. Convicted murderers, such as the human garbage in the linked article, should be punished with the death penalty and that penalty should be administered as slowly and painfully as possible. Say what you will of violating human rights but those home invading rapists and murderers in that case already violated their victims' rights and thus their rights are forfeit.
> 
> A larger question would be this - is not justice an eye for an eye at its most basic level?


 
Sadly, I hear and read about this incident daily.  Reading articles in the paper today, made me have mixed emotions...sadness, obviously for the lone survivor, as well as the families, and hate and disgust for the 2 pieces of ****.  

Did they intend to do what they did initially?  Not a clue, and I'm not going to armchair QB whether they would/wouldn't have done the things they did.  Whats done is done, and that is what needs to be focused on, as far as the trial goes.

Personally, I'm all for the death penalty.  And yes, I've talked about people spending X number of years in prison, for crimes they didnt do, what would happen if they killed an innocent person, only to find out he wasn't 'guilty' like they thought, etc., etc.  IMHO, if there is solid proof, and from what I've been seeing, there is alot of it, then if the death penalty is whats suggested, then screw all the endless appeals, strap those 2 scumbags to the chair, pull the switch and end the pain for the guy who survived, although this is a pain that'll stay with him, 'til the day he dies.

OTOH, perhaps life in prison is the better option.  No parole, no appeals, NOTHING!  You rot in a prison cell, until the day you die, end of story.  Of course, if this isn't the option, then this will drag on and on, because the lawyers for the dirtbags will fight the dp, the bleeding hearts club will protest, do their marches, and all the other BS they do, and what peace will this give the man who lost his family?  It wont give him any.  

I say lock them up and throw away the key.  There is NO chance of any rehab and these guys are best left in a place where they can never do something like this again.

On a slight off topic note...and this is why I have little to no compassion for anyone who does stuff like this.  Not just people who do home invasions, but anyone who is willing to inflict pain and suffering and torment on their potential victims.  Someone breaks into a house, and the homeowner blows them away, I say good for him!  You do stuff like this, you get what is dished out to you.


----------



## MJS (Sep 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I would much rather have those who have rightfully been convicted of murder and rape contribute something to society with their miserable lives. Bring back the chain gang, make them work for their sins. At least in this way society can in some small way be paid back for their sins.


 
Amen!  Instead of having the DOT workers out there, in the hot weather, picking up trash on the side of the highway, make the inmates do it.  Instead of giving them weight equipment to work out with, let them exercise by hard, manual labor.


----------



## LoneRider (Sep 24, 2010)

> Amen! Instead of having the DOT workers out there, in the hot weather, picking up trash on the side of the highway, make the inmates do it. Instead of giving them weight equipment to work out with, let them exercise by hard, manual labor.


 
Make the bastards mine uranium with minimal protection and let cancer kill them.


----------



## MJS (Sep 24, 2010)

LoneRider said:


> Harsh punishment could serve as a deterrent. If someone hears that two home invading rapists were flayed alive, then perhaps it might deter a potential criminal.


 
Sadly, it dont work that way.  There is no deterrent, because the system, IMO, needs to be fixed first.  Instead of guys with 30+ crimes on their rap sheets, still walking around, doing more crimes, lock their asses up.  Maybe jails/prisons should follow the lead of Sheriff Joe out in AZ.  Now thats a place that doesnt seem like a country club.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 24, 2010)

Those two should be dipped in kerosene and the husband given a box of matches.


----------



## Carol (Sep 25, 2010)

Never heard of a murderer calling out hits from pine box.


----------



## geezer (Sep 26, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Those two should be dipped in kerosene and the husband given a box of matches.



I share the emotion. But my brain reminds me of the frustrating reality that no action of vengeance will undo or repair the damage done. And as Bill pointed out, when you look at nations that exact such forms of retribution today, or you look back a a few centuries to a time when the Anglo-European legal systems that we evolved from applied such extreme measures, society was not free of crime. It was just more brutish and violent all the way around.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 26, 2010)

geezer said:


> I share the emotion. But my brain reminds me of the frustrating reality that no action of vengeance will undo or repair the damage done. And as Bill pointed out, when you look at nations that exact such forms of retribution today, or you look back a a few centuries to a time when the Anglo-European legal systems that we evolved from applied such extreme measures, society was not free of crime. It was just more brutish and violent all the way around.



Many conservatives (and as you know, I count myself one) believe in limited government.  Government has a very strict and limited mandate, and intrusion into other areas is neither warranted nor wise.  Encouraging the state to exact vengeance in order to satisfy a sense of outrage by victims' families is a clear overstepping of those boundaries.

Government serves a distinct purpose, and in the case of criminal justice, it is to keep us as safe as it can, to protect the functioning of society, and to protect the government which we have. That is effectively served by detecting, capturing, trying, and upon conviction, removing from society the dangerous elements.  I don't much care if that is done by incarceration or by putting the most dangerous criminals to death; so long as it is done.  

Ensuring that such criminal convicts receive massive pain as 'punishment' for their crimes does not serve any purpose that the STATE should be performing.  I understand outrage, I understand the need for closure and for victims to feel that 'justice has been done'. The state is not the mechanism for exacting vengeance; and if we think it through rationally, most conservatives should conclude we don't want it to take on that role.

For those who believe in religion, such vengeance is left to the Creator or to Karma anyway.  The state has no business attempting to act in the name of God.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> For those who believe in religion, such vengeance is left to the Creator or to Karma anyway.  The state has no business attempting to act in the name of God.



My religion encourages forgiveness, but allows for me to exact equal punishment... I cannot kill a man for stealing my TV, but I can take his TV from him.

That is, after all, what "An Eye for an Eye" is all about... it doesn't condone revenge, but rather sets limits on what punishment is fitting of a crime. 

Much like Shylock and his Pound of Flesh, but not a drop of blood.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 26, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> My religion encourages forgiveness, but allows for me to exact equal punishment... I cannot kill a man for stealing my TV, but I can take his TV from him.
> 
> That is, after all, what "An Eye for an Eye" is all about... it doesn't condone revenge, but rather sets limits on what punishment is fitting of a crime.
> 
> Much like Shylock and his Pound of Flesh, but not a drop of blood.



Do you wish to live under a Sharia-type law?  We are a secular society.  Vengeance is not a function of a secular government.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 26, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> My religion encourages forgiveness, but allows for me to exact equal punishment... I cannot kill a man for stealing my TV, but I can take his TV from him.
> 
> That is, after all, what "An Eye for an Eye" is all about... it doesn't condone revenge, but rather sets limits on what punishment is fitting of a crime.
> 
> Much like Shylock and his Pound of Flesh, but not a drop of blood.


 
But if you read the Talmudic debates on the 'eye for an eye', it was never implemented because the punishment could never be truly equal to the crime. What if perpetrator had better eyesight? different eye colour, that's not an exact match?


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Do you wish to live under a Sharia-type law?  We are a secular society.  Vengeance is not a function of a secular government.



I didn't say anything about the government.  I was talking about myself.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 26, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> But if you read the Talmudic debates on the 'eye for an eye', it was never implemented because the punishment could never be truly equal to the crime. What if perpetrator had better eyesight? different eye colour, that's not an exact match?



Yes yes, I know and the arguments that Killing a 20 year old as Justice for his killing of an 80 year old doesn't even out because the 20 year old loses more life... I understand It is possible to pick nits that way or to place even value, i.e. one Physical Eye for one Physical Eye.  The issue I have with breaking it down the way you outlined is that then a Noble or Politician's life would be worth more than a housewife or a farmer... and that's not right either.  Pretty soon we start saying "Well, Blue Eyes are rarer than brown, so a person with brown eyes is worth less... that guy has black skin, its inferior to white skin, that guy has an IQ of 86, he had one of 149" etc... 

In other words, it's not a perfect solution, but I like it as a guideline. It dictates to me that if you destroy my car, I can't stab you in the chest.  Is that wrong?  If so, I'd be happy to build a vengeance based model for my morals where I get to exact whatever punishment makes me FEEL BETTER about what you did to me, and to hell with how harsh it is, even if it means dropping a few carpet bombs on the entire neighborhood you live in because you spilled my beer in the bar...


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 26, 2010)

At one point "justice" was about making the victim whole (or at least as satisfied as he/she could be made) now "justice" is simply a function of the state where the victim may get to give a little "impact speech", but ultimately the state could care less. The state doesn't put away guys like this for what they did to this man and his family, they put them away as a matter of violation of statute. It's gotten to the point where some states have had to enact "victims rights amendments" to get some sort of mandated interaction between the victim and the prosecution. But even then there are no real guidelines mandating that the govt has to really listen.

Mind you Im not saying that that is not the way it probably should be, but have no illusion that "justice", means justice for YOU. 

I would feel more pity towards a rabid dog being put down than I would for these two taking the needle.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 26, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I would feel more pity towards a rabid dog being put down than I would for these two taking the needle.



Agreed.  But the needle is sufficient; remove them from society permanently.  There is nothing to be gained from setting their gonads on fire or whatever else it is some think should be done to them.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 26, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Yes yes, I know and the arguments that Killing a 20 year old as Justice for his killing of an 80 year old doesn't even out because the 20 year old loses more life... I understand It is possible to pick nits that way or to place even value, i.e. one Physical Eye for one Physical Eye. The issue I have with breaking it down the way you outlined is that then a Noble or Politician's life would be worth more than a housewife or a farmer... and that's not right either. Pretty soon we start saying "Well, Blue Eyes are rarer than brown, so a person with brown eyes is worth less... that guy has black skin, its inferior to white skin, that guy has an IQ of 86, he had one of 149" etc...
> 
> In other words, it's not a perfect solution, but I like it as a guideline. It dictates to me that if you destroy my car, I can't stab you in the chest. Is that wrong? If so, I'd be happy to build a vengeance based model for my morals where I get to exact whatever punishment makes me FEEL BETTER about what you did to me, and to hell with how harsh it is, even if it means dropping a few carpet bombs on the entire neighborhood you live in because you spilled my beer in the bar...


 

No it's about the concept that physical retribution is not an alternative. A lot of the retribution was monetary. Now we lock people in jail. 

The point is that people pointing to the Bible as justification for the death penalty have it wrong. When it came to the implememtation, it was just impossible to carry out.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 26, 2010)

MJS said:


> Amen! Instead of having the DOT workers out there, in the hot weather, picking up trash on the side of the highway, make the inmates do it. Instead of giving them weight equipment to work out with, let them exercise by hard, manual labor.


 
While I agree criminals should work towards their up keep, gardens, livestock, laundry etc, you have to watch what you have them doing. Having them pick up trash along the HWY takes good jobs from hardworking folks. Yes it will save tax dollars, but you just put a bunch of people out of work, and now have essentially slaves doing the work. Possible not a good scenario.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 26, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> While I agree criminals should work towards their up keep, gardens, livestock, laundry etc, you have to watch what you have them doing. Having them pick up trash along the HWY takes good jobs from hardworking folks. Yes it will save tax dollars, but you just put a bunch of people out of work, and now have essentially slaves doing the work. Possible not a good scenario.


 
In my mind, people are not owed a job.  The job of the government should not be to ensure that citizens have jobs, but are kept safe, and their rights not infringed upon.

I have no problem with putting them out to contribute back to the society in some small measure that they have taken out of it.  make them do all of the abolve, if they don't work, they don't eat.  But we spent at least thousands of dollars for their transgression.  They owe us that back, at the very least.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 27, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> In my mind, people are not owed a job.  The job of the government should not be to ensure that citizens have jobs, but are kept safe, and their rights not infringed upon.
> 
> I have no problem with putting them out to contribute back to the society in some small measure that they have taken out of it.  make them do all of the abolve, if they don't work, they don't eat.  But we spent at least thousands of dollars for their transgression.  They owe us that back, at the very least.



I am technically not against making inmates work to repay their debt to society (in the financial sense).

I would note that there has been a recent trend towards privatization of prisons and jails, and in such situations, there has been some movement towards putting inmates to work.  And this creates two problems.

The first is that depending upon the type of work done, it can expose us to more risk.  Prisoners on the outside of prison walls have to be supervised, and prisoners have escaped from such supervision, often with disastrous results.

The second is that once private industry begins to see inmates a profit center, there is at least the possibility that lobbyists will begin to lobby for stiffer sentences, more prisons, and harsher laws; not to make society safer, but to provide their employers with more free employees.  Just sayin'...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2004-07-06-call-center_x.htm



> Inmates vs. outsourcingBy Jon Swartz, USA TODAY
> ONTARIO, Ore.  David Day has a bounce in his  step and a glint in his eye unexpected in someone who makes nearly 400  telemarketing calls a day for less than $200 a month. That's because he  has a coveted job where few exist: behind bars.



Making license plates is one thing.  Making telemarketing calls or answering photos as an online sales rep?  Not so much.  But it is happening, and it is growing.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 27, 2010)

Shove em in jail and throw away the key.

(though there is a part of me that says hopes someone rapes them so they will know what it feels like.)


----------



## MJS (Sep 27, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> While I agree criminals should work towards their up keep, gardens, livestock, laundry etc, you have to watch what you have them doing. Having them pick up trash along the HWY takes good jobs from hardworking folks. Yes it will save tax dollars, but you just put a bunch of people out of work, and now have essentially slaves doing the work. Possible not a good scenario.


 
I understand what you're saying, however, that was simply 1 example of many.  I think its safe to say that we could think of a number of things that they could do.  OTOH, depending on the level of the prisoner, ie: 1-5, 5 being the worst offender, we probably wouldnt want certain inmates out of the prison anyways.  

As for the slave comment....this reminds me of another thread on here, where the topic was...if a student wasnt able to afford the monthly fee, could they spend 30min after class, helping to clean the dojo.  A few thought that was boarderline child abuse.  I disagree.  

In closing, I'll refer back to Sheriff Joe.  Some people could say that what he does is abuse.  Again, I disagree.  The key lies in where you draw the line....you can get juuuuust close enough.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 27, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am technically not against making inmates work to repay their debt to society (in the financial sense).
> 
> I would note that there has been a recent trend towards privatization of prisons and jails, and in such situations, there has been some movement towards putting inmates to work. And this creates two problems.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you.  I think that the jobs that they do should be carefully considered before undertaking them.  I don't necessarily think there should be a profit motive.  Any job that they undertake should be for the benefit of the state, not private corporations.  

In California, we have a Level system, 1-4.  Level 1 is the low level, petty type crimes, and level 4 is the murderers, rapists, etc.  Also, while you are inside, based on your behavior, your level can change, mostly for the worst, sometime to a lesser level.  The types of jobs that an inmate can do would take such levels into consideration.


----------



## MJS (Oct 5, 2010)

http://www.courant.com/community/ch...heshire-home-invasion-verdict,0,2650867.story


----------

