Tragedy in Cheshire
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/t...c_tab01_layout
I grew up in CT in a town right next to Cheshire and would hang out in Cheshire all the time. I can't believe something like this can happen in this day and age in a town like that.
I've seen some pretty bad crime stories, but this is one of the worst in recent memory in it's cruelty.
I grew up in CT in a town right next to Cheshire and would hang out in Cheshire all the time. I can't believe something like this can happen in this day and age in a town like that.
I've seen some pretty bad crime stories, but this is one of the worst in recent memory in it's cruelty.
Comments
"Each is charged with aggravated sexual assault, arson, robbery, kidnapping and risk of injury to a minor."
The story says they were raped and their surroundings set on fire, so why they hell are they not charged with rape and attempted murder?
Also, when would someone have stopped and thought, y'know these guys have been doing crime all their lives, maybe just maybe the system isn't working.
The death penalty is too good for them IMO. A painless lethal injection? How about tying them to a bed and watching them burn alive. That poor guy is going to get a life sentence and will live with what they did to his family and they just get put to sleep. That's not justice.
Are the people who make up the law a bunch of retards or something?
"Each is charged with aggravated sexual assault, arson, robbery, kidnapping and risk of injury to a minor."
The story says they were raped and their surroundings set on fire, so why they hell are they not charged with rape and attempted murder?
Also, when would someone have stopped and thought, y'know these guys have been doing crime all their lives, maybe just maybe the system isn't working.
The death penalty is too good for them IMO. A painless lethal injection? How about tying them to a bed and watching them burn alive. That poor guy is going to get a life sentence and will live with what they did to his family and they just get put to sleep. That's not justice.
You don't get brownie points for out-vengeance-ing the next person.
In fact, it just looks plain ugly on your part.
In terms of public policy, there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to prevent this.
You don't get brownie points for out-vengeance-ing the next person.
In fact, it just looks plain ugly on your part.
I'm sure the mother and father felt differently.
In terms of public policy, there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to prevent this.
Sure there is. Make sure we have a well-trained and well-armed population.
Sure there is. Make sure we have a well-trained and well-armed population.
That might, might reduce the chances of such things happening. But nothing will absolutely prevent such things, and no matter how horrible some crimes might be, there's a point of diminishing returns where attempts to cure a problem becomes worse than the original problem itself.
The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, but countries with lower incarceration rates and no death penalty either have lower rates of violent crime. If we're looking for real solutions, and not just acting like an angry mob waving pitchforks thirsty for vengeance, clearly just piling on more of the standard "get tough on crime" attitude and policies isn't going to help.
Sure there is. Make sure we have a well-trained and well-armed population.
Unlikely. Cultural norms are probably the only thing that could minimize this, but even then it will happen. In a country with 300,000,000 these incidents are bound to happen. Plus, we don't know the facts of the case yet and there may be more to the story. It's unlikely that this was completely random. Sometimes people do crazy shit.
Anyway, burning these guys alive isn't harsh enough.
In terms of public policy, there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to prevent this.
You don't get brownie points for out-vengeance-ing the next person.
In fact, it just looks plain ugly on your part.
I think this point of view is what causes a lot of the problem. People are being too lenient. Sure they're just kids, so what if they steal apples, let them. Sure they're just kids, so what if they steal cars just let them. Sure they're just kids, so what if they kidnap a toddler, horrifically assault him close to death and leave him on a train track for a train to run over him. You see where that kind of thinking leads?
Keep pushing back the boundary of acceptability and see where we get. Young people who use a curse word in every sentence, who have no respect for anyone or anything because their crimes are trivialized. You might not think that's what you're doing but you are.
Today we have people committing some of the most horrendous crimes imaginable and where is the deterrent? That they will have a scum sucking defense lawyer appointed by the state to defend them no matter what malicious crime they commit and then a nice cosy place to live for a few years while some homeless people who stay within the law have to sleep on the street.
They raped and murdered an 11 year old girl in a horrific way. If you think that they don't deserve the worst punishment possible to inflict on a human being then I don't value your opinion much at all.
If you think that when someone punches you in the face that you are the bigger man by running away then just wait until he does it every day as you are an easy target. These people committed crimes their whole life and nobody did anything and now a family has been completely destroyed and you think that we're the bad ones by treating them the way they treated others?
Now if these guys get a death sentence, it's not our job as a society to avenge anyone, its our responsibility to protect us from these criminals. And putting them to death ensures that they won't harm anyone. That's why we use a painless lethal injection. We'd be no better than they would be if we killed them in a painful way.
I think this point of view is what causes a lot of the problem. People are being too lenient. Sure they're just kids, so what if they steal apples, let them. Sure they're just kids, so what if they steal cars just let them. Sure they're just kids, so what if they kidnap a toddler, horrifically assault him close to death and leave him on a train track for a train to run over him. You see where that kind of thinking leads?
I'm pretty sure no one let them get away without punishment for their prior crimes.
Today we have people committing some of the most horrendous crimes imaginable and where is the deterrent? That they will have a scum sucking defense lawyer appointed by the state to defend them no matter what malicious crime they commit and then a nice cosy place to live for a few years while some homeless people who stay within the law have to sleep on the street.
For, um, most people, prison isn't just another place to sleep at night.
And public defenders are decent people working a thankless job.
They raped and murdered an 11 year old girl in a horrific way. If you think that they don't deserve the worst punishment possible to inflict on a human being then I don't value your opinion much at all.
They deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law and no more.
Vengeance, on the other hand, is just ugly.
These people committed crimes their whole life and nobody did anything and now a family has been completely destroyed and you think that we're the bad ones by treating them the way they treated others?
I reserve judgment on your character, as this isn't about you, but your statements possess the same brutal mentality as those that killed those women. It's been at least 2000 years since "an eye for an eye." Don't you think it's time to move on?
Lastly, which of their prior crimes did "nobody [do] anything about?"
I think people think that things are worse off than they were in the good old days only because we live in a worldwide connected age. We have TV, newspapers, the internet and we are made fully aware of the atrocities being committed not just in our own town or state like 100 years ago, but we are in the know about atrocities that happen in towns and cities and countries on the other side of the world. And with the ballooning population these things seem like they are happening more often when in reality they are just following the curve of the planet's population growth.
I know that atrocities happened before but society as a whole is getting worse. Surely things like happy slapping show you that. Casual violence perpetrated by teenagers:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle534788.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4728783.stm
It's not just that these things happen but the resulting sentences handed down for them. Child molesters and rapists are being let off from charges or given 1-2 year sentences on average and even if it's longer we find out they only ever serve at most half the sentence. It's a complete joke.
Now if these guys get a death sentence, it's not our job as a society to avenge anyone, its our responsibility to protect us from these criminals. And putting them to death ensures that they won't harm anyone. That's why we use a painless lethal injection. We'd be no better than they would be if we killed them in a painful way.
I disagree. They committed an atrocity out of greed and selfishness, doing it in return would be punishment for what they did. That's completely different. I don't see why they should get the privilege of a lighter sentence than their victims.
But ok if painful death is out then why not anesthetize them and remove their limbs and let them live out the rest of their lives like that? Oh but that would violate their human rights of course.
I'm pretty sure no one let them get away without punishment for their prior crimes.
It depends on what you define as punishment. Whatever it was it certainly wasn't strong enough to deter them from doing it again.
And public defenders are decent people working a thankless job.
No they're not. I've read of cases where defense lawyers will get teenage rape victims to hold up the underwear they were wearing during the attack in court in front of their attacker. You're not trying to tell me that the attacker suggested that line of questioning. It's all down to defense lawyers pulling whatever they can out of the book to get their defendant off no matter the charges and no matter if they believe they are guilty.
They deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law and no more.
The law is wrong and has proven itself time and time again. Every single day you hear of the law failing victims of crime.
I reserve judgment on your character, as this isn't about you, but your statements possess the same brutal mentality as those that killed those women. It's been at least 2000 years since "an eye for an eye." Don't you think it's time to move on?
I fail to understand your logic. These people commit terrible crimes and you want to give them an easy time of it and you think my opinion is brutal? 'an eye for an eye' may be an old principle but it's still as relevant to day as it ever was. But then again 'spare the rod and spoil the child' was an old principle too and we ignored that (see links above for the results).
I know that atrocities happened before but society as a whole is getting worse.
Getting worse? What's getting worse and since when? The US violent crime rate is far below what it was 15 years ago. Outsider is absolutely right.
Getting worse? What's getting worse and since when? The US violent crime rate is far below what it was 15 years ago. Outsider is absolutely right.
You don't understand. Crime is always getting worse. Society is perpetually going downhill. Today's violence is always more extreme than yesterday's, today's criminals are always bolder and more depraved and freer to prey upon us than they were yesterday, and we're always, always far too lenient and give "them" too many rights and we have our priorities all screwed up, coddling the criminals while the law-abiding citizen is forgotten and neglected and can't get an even break.
Get with the program!
It depends on what you define as punishment. Whatever it was it certainly wasn't strong enough to deter them from doing it again.
Recidivism is a problem any way you look at it.
However, the state judiciary and legislature work extensively on this issue. There's volumes of regularly updated research on recidivism, so if you're really interested I suggest taking a look.
No they're not. I've read of cases where defense lawyers will get teenage rape victims to hold up the underwear they were wearing during the attack in court in front of their attacker. You're not trying to tell me that the attacker suggested that line of questioning. It's all down to defense lawyers pulling whatever they can out of the book to get their defendant off no matter the charges and no matter if they believe they are guilty.
You do believe in the rights of the accused, do you not?
Just seeing exactly which parts of the U.S. Constitution you'd like to see go by the wayside.
I fail to understand your logic. These people commit terrible crimes and you want to give them an easy time of it and you think my opinion is brutal? 'an eye for an eye' may be an old principle but it's still as relevant to day as it ever was. But then again 'spare the rod and spoil the child' was an old principle too and we ignored that (see links above for the results).
I doubt anyone knows what made them hardened criminals.
Recidivism is a problem any way you look at it.
It's a problem now because people don't get punished enough. In schools decades ago, people used to get physical punishment for what they did. Nowadays, they get a slight telling off - teachers can't shout or degrade pupils or anything. So what happens? The kids think they can do what they like and they do. So many teachers are taking early retirement and are off work with stress.
In prisons it's the same. Criminals feel their human rights are violated when they have to transport their own feces when the toilets are broken at which point it's within their rights to sue the state for this.
Re-offending is not just something that happens for no reason, when the punishment gets less, the re-offending goes up, it's pretty straightforward. When crime starts to pay off then why bother living within the law?
You do believe in the rights of the accused, do you not?
Sure but where do you draw the line between giving the accused rights at the expense of those of the victim. You'd rather give the accused the right to humiliate a rape victim in front of a court full of people over giving the victim the right not to be humiliated? You're already presuming the accused is innocent. Now you may say innocent until proven guilty is the way the system works but that doesn't give the accused the right to do absolutely anything they want to destroy an accuser.
I doubt anyone knows what made them hardened criminals.
That's not really here nor there, what we know is that they are hardened criminals and are continuing to be. From that we can assume that whatever punishment they received wasn't strong enough.
Re-offending is not just something that happens for no reason, when the punishment gets less, the re-offending goes up, it's pretty straightforward. When crime starts to pay off then why bother living within the law?
That's not really here nor there, what we know is that they are hardened criminals and are continuing to be. From that we can assume that whatever punishment they received wasn't strong enough.
Well, like I said.
If you really wanna get into the whole recidivism debate you should read up on it, because, no, it's most definitely not as simple as "longer punishment = less recidivism." I just wrote a legal memo for my judge summarizing a recent research report on the effects on the recidivism rates of inmates with 30 and 90 days of mandatory aftercare. (Conclusion? No difference, but aftercare targeting their specific problems *does* make a difference. For example, anger management programs for those who cite problems in that area and continued substance abuse programs for those who feel their drug problem is still an issue). Anyway, just giving you somewhat of an idea of the complexity and actual concrete research involved in this area, as opposed to your broad suppositions.
Sure but where do you draw the line between giving the accused rights at the expense of those of the victim. You'd rather give the accused the right to humiliate a rape victim in front of a court full of people over giving the victim the right not to be humiliated? You're already presuming the accused is innocent. Now you may say innocent until proven guilty is the way the system works but that doesn't give the accused the right to do absolutely anything they want to destroy an accuser.
That's a good question.
Basically we have an adversarial system, and the idea is that somewhere in the process of the two sides competing the truth will come out. And I'm sensitive of course to the extraordinary difficulty of just being an accuser in a rape case, but I think that's straying from the topic here somewhat.
it's most definitely not as simple as "longer punishment = less recidivism." I just wrote a legal memo for my judge summarizing a recent research report on the effects on the recidivism rates of inmates with 30 and 90 days of mandatory aftercare. (Conclusion? No difference
No, not longer punishment, harder punishment. If someone steals in the middle east, they get their hands cut off or at least mangled. That's a short punishment but a much more intense one and they won't steal again because they can't. I'm not saying do this on a first offense obviously but if someone is charged for stealing 50 times, you need to take steps so that it's out of their ability to choose whether or not to steal, remove their ability to do so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2587039.stm
Instead of locking someone up for 30 days vs 90 days try 15 days but this time in solitary in a pitch black room with nothing but a hole in the ground to defecate into. Methinks you'll see better results.
Basically we have an adversarial system, and the idea is that somewhere in the process of the two sides competing the truth will come out. And I'm sensitive of course to the extraordinary difficulty of just being an accuser in a rape case, but I think that's straying from the topic here somewhat.
Well, this is a rape case though and we haven't heard what kind of stunts the defense lawyers will try and pull off yet so we'll have to wait and see how it pans out.
Instead of locking someone up for 30 days vs 90 days try 15 days but this time in solitary in a pitch black room with nothing but a hole in the ground to defecate into. Methinks you'll see better results.
So how is it that countries who are less barbaric, who not only don't go medieval like you're suggesting, but don't even lock as many people up in jail as we do in the US, can end up with lower crime rates?
I don't want my government to be an instrument of "poetic justice". I don't want it to have that much power. I'd rather set a more civilized example. I'd rather the government be more effective at reducing crime than have it be more satisfying to the lust for vengeance. I'd rather have hundreds of people "under punished" than have one innocent person wrongly and horribly abused. I'd rather endure a little more crime that gets honestly cataloged as crime than have abusive sadists, backed by the imprimatur of the state, committing crimes that aren't called crimes merely because they're sanctioned by law.
Find me just one example of a government which has ever kept the populace "in line" that wasn't itself committing the moral equivalent of crime on the innocent and guilty alike.
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/t...c_tab01_layout
I grew up in CT in a town right next to Cheshire and would hang out in Cheshire all the time. I can't believe something like this can happen in this day and age in a town like that.
I've seen some pretty bad crime stories, but this is one of the worst in recent memory in it's cruelty.
Yea, I saw this on NBC 30 news and was quite shocked. Totally tragic story. Still, we've had some f'ed up stuff happen in this state lately.
So how is it that countries who are less barbaric, who not only don't go medieval like you're suggesting, but don't even lock as many people up in jail as we do in the US, can end up with lower crime rates?
Canada is different though. Not every country will have the same culture that breeds hardened criminals. The ones which do need the means to deal with them.
I don't want my government to be an instrument of "poetic justice". I don't want it to have that much power. I'd rather set a more civilized example.
One where it can't protect its upright citizens from harm. In theory having a bunch of nice upright people sounds great but at the end of the day, there will always be barbaric people who need to be dealt with and nice, upright people aren't capable of doing it properly. Just like when you were young, your dad would always be the one to beat you but your mum would hug you afterwards. Remove the punishment and all you get is reward for your crime or at worst a meaningless punishment, which is tantamount to approval.
I'd rather the government be more effective at reducing crime than have it be more satisfying to the lust for vengeance. I'd rather have hundreds of people "under punished" than have one innocent person wrongly and horribly abused.
I'm glad you said that because I'm with you on the first part but I am so much against the second part. That is exactly the idea I'm against. I personally would rather see one innocent person abused than thousands of innocents abused at the hands of these 'under punished' criminals. We're trying your method already and it's not working. Overcrowded prisons with people committing the same crimes over and over.
I'd rather endure a little more crime that gets honestly cataloged as crime than have abusive sadists, backed by the imprimatur of the state, committing crimes that aren't called crimes merely because they're sanctioned by law.
You don't define a criminal not being punished enough a crime?
You're saying that punishing a criminal is a crime whereas punishing a victim by not punishing them enough is justice?
Find me just one example of a government which has ever kept the populace "in line" that wasn't itself committing the moral equivalent of crime on the innocent and guilty alike.
So wait, you mean that it's ok to let the population run riot so long as you can sleep at night knowing that the government is made up of decent people?
No government keeps their populace in line completely but why do you think that the American government resorts to the same tactics terrorists use in places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. With some people, you just can't get through to them without using the same force they use. By all means get them to send these people to your house for tea if you think a nice chat would do it though.
Look at the stats:
the effects on the recidivism rates of inmates with 30 and 90 days of mandatory aftercare. (Conclusion? No difference
What can you get from that? The punishment they receive under the current system is worthless no matter how long it is applied.