Teenage robbers force son to rape mom after they do

[ParryDat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_re_us/gang_rape_teens

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Two teenagers were accused of gang raping a woman and forcing her 12-year-old son to join in the attack, then beating him and pouring cleaning solution into his eyes.
ADVERTISEMENT

Authorities allege Avion Lawson, 14, and Nathan Walker, 16, were among a group of about 10 masked suspects who forced their way into the woman's apartment in a crime-ridden housing project the night of June 18.

The two were being held without bail Friday on suspicion of armed sexual battery by multiple perpetrators, sexual performance by a child, armed home invasion and aggravated battery. Both were arrested this week, but formal charges had not been filed. Authorities said the two would be charged as adults.

"Any rape case is horrible but this takes it to another level, something you can't think of even in your worst dreams," police spokesman Ted White said.

According to the police report, a man knocked on the woman's door at about 9 p.m. and told her he had a flat tire. The mother and son, whom police have not identified, went outside and were ambushed by a group of gun-wielding suspects.

The victims told police they were forced back into their home and beaten and sexually assaulted. According to authorities, the men raped, sodomized and beat the woman, then forced her son to participate in the assault at gunpoint, making him have sex with his mother in front of them.

The boy was then beaten and had numerous household cleaning liquids poured into his eyes, according to the police report.

The suspects also stole a few hundred dollars worth of cash and jewelry, White said.

White said more arrests were expected, but he would not say whether authorities had identified additional suspects. The teens in custody were not cooperating, but Lawson confessed to taking part in the attack, White said. Walker has denied involvement, White said.

DNA evidence in a condom found in the victims' home linked Lawson to the crime, police said. Investigators also say they found a palm print belonging to Walker at the scene.

The victims did not suffer life-threatening injuries and have been released from the hospital, White said.

"They're going through the county victim services for counseling," he said.

Lawson lived in Dunbar Village, the hardscrabble project where the attack occurred. Walker was apparently visiting a friend there, White said.

Authorities believe the suspects all knew each other from the neighborhood, but they don't think they knew the victims directly.

Prosecutors have 21 days from the time a suspect is arrested to formally file charges. Lawson was arrested Tuesday. Walker was arrested Thursday.

Walker made a first court appearance on Friday, after which his father, also named Nathan Walker, spoke briefly.

"My son has a good heart," the elder Walker said outside court. "I can't believe my son would do something like this. I don't teach my son violence so I don't understand."

Walker's attorney, Robert Gershman, said Friday he intended to enter a not guilty plea on behalf of his client once charges are formally filed. He would not comment further.

A telephone message left at the office of Lawson's public defender was not immediately returned.

:gloomy:

These fuckers deserve the death penalty.

[Kwiz]

Call me naïve, but I'm quite frankly amazed. It takes an especially screwed up band of sociopaths to do something like this.

[4letterwords]

Wtf? are there any other words than WTF?

[Black fist]

holy shit

[h2orowe]

Sometimes I think the "No Cruel And Unusual Punishment" law is bullshit. Sometimes someone deserves to be raped. And the people who did that deserve to be raped so hard that their kidneys rupture.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Why does this remind me of something from A Clockwork Orange? Only on scale worse than I can imagine.

[stsparky]

Bash their heads in with rocks? I don't see any way for these soulless monsters to regain their humanity.

[Decade]

I dont want these kids dead, I want them in prison and getting sodomized with curling irons for the rest of their lives.

I hope these kids rot in their own personal hells for the rest of their lives. Their long, horrible, PAINFUL lives.

[Firefly]

Sick. Just sick.

[Archomnislash]

Wow. How low can crime get?

[Citizen]

The people in this thread make me glad that all criminals are still granted basic human rights in America.

[Kfisher]

Just goes to show you that there's no limits to the kind of offenses sick bastards would commit nowadays.

[Kwiz]

The people in this thread make me glad that all criminals are still granted basic human rights in America.

... no kidding. Why is there so much popular support behind the idea that countering abuse with abuse is acceptable? Because it somehow solves problems to "sodomize them with curling irons"?

[Chris]

... no kidding. Why is there so much popular support behind the idea that countering abuse with abuse is acceptable? Because it somehow solves problems to "sodomize them with curling irons"?


I think if it actually happened, people would be upset.

But for the meantime, damn. That's just fucking sick. That's something I find hard to comprehend, how anyone would remotely get pleasure out putting causing that much pain for fellow human beings.

[D-pad]

While this crime is horrible, and not something that happens everyday...

It's just your standard rape with a twist, and every time a rape is reported on
the news, people are just like, "Oh it's a shame...Oh well."

Is this one really that special, as to incite anger in people?

[ParryDat]

... no kidding. Why is there so much popular support behind the idea that countering abuse with abuse is acceptable? Because it somehow solves problems to "sodomize them with curling irons"?

I don't want to dig too far into this,but in certain circumstances I don't see why it isn't appropriate to counter violence with violence.I damn sure wouldn't leave up to only our judicial system to make sure they all got proper punishment.

[Citizen]

I damn sure wouldn't leave up to only our judicial system to make sure they all got proper punishment.

Because a sentence brought down with blind anger and hatred is better?

[Dead Sexy Vocab]

That shit is disgusting.

I nearly lost my trust with humanity reading that.

[Beowulf]

Because stuff like this doesn't happen every damn day in Darfur...

[The_Penguin]

The people in this thread make me glad that all criminals are still granted basic human rights in America.
They need a hug.

Some free healthcare too.

That'll prevent them from doing anything in the future.

[Beowulf]

Citizens right, we don't know any of the details except for what we got told. For all we know all it was just a robbery that the press blew out of proportion. In any case there are far more horrible things happening in the world right now that we conveniently ignore.

[Cherub Rock]

Just toss them in prison somewhere and saturate the media in the area with what they did. That'll take care of things far more effeciently than anything the government can do.

[ruaidhri]

I agree with Citizen. What please me about OP9 is that there are people that speak up about an accused's right to a fair trial before his/her peers.

First, let's not forget that in our American system of government the accused are considered innocent until the state proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. How does convicting and punishing people accused of crimes without a trial and without any proven evidence protect the innocent.

Second, how could sinking to the depth of anyone that could commit such acts of barbarity make anything better. We are supposed to be civilized.

And, third, let's not forget that DNA evidence has proven that the state does occasionally get it wrong and has imprisoned and even executed innocent men and women. What's better, going through the process and protecting the innocent (which could be you or me) or quickly finding someone to blame and inflicting punishment, perhaps on the wrong (innocent) individual(s)?

[ParryDat]

They've already found DNA evidence linking one boy,and fingerprints linking the other.

Secondly I read over the part where it said that they would be charged as adults,so I'm pretty satisfied about that.

Thirdly,I'm not wishing anything to happen to them IF they turn out to be innocent.If they are all guilty,then they will get what is coming to them.

[Kwiz]

I don't want to dig too far into this,but in certain circumstances I don't see why it isn't appropriate to counter violence with violence.I damn sure wouldn't leave up to only our judicial system to make sure they all got proper punishment.

Name a single instance in which this philosophy has worked in the long term.

[ParryDat]

We aren't talking war or anything.

Are judicial system has total control over what happens,and as I have said before they will be charged as adults so I am satisfied.

[manrush]

They are 14 and 16 for fucks sake!!! Why should they be tried as adults? AS little hypocritical, don't you think? What the fuck's with this country? A 14 or 16 year old kid can be tried as an adult, but they're not adult enough to vote or buy a beer. What the fuck? I blame society. Seriously, I hope that they don't get the death penalty. By the way, I am a proponent of NOT trying under-eighteeens as adults. As horrible as the crime was, these little fucks are just KIDS. They're too young to know the full consequences of their actions.

Phew, done.

[The_Penguin]

They are 14 and 16 for fucks sake!!! Why should they be tried as adults? AS little hypocritical, don't you think? What the fuck's with this country? A 14 or 16 year old kid can be tried as an adult, but they're not adult enough to vote or buy a beer. What the fuck? I blame society. Seriously, I hope that they don't get the death penalty. By the way, I am a proponent of NOT trying under-eighteeens as adults. As horrible as the crime was, these little fucks are just KIDS. They're too young to know the full consequences of their actions.

Phew, done.
Two teenagers were accused of gang raping a woman and forcing her 12-year-old son to join in the attack, then beating him and pouring cleaning solution into his eyes.
They sure act as if they deserve to be tried as adults.

Oh, one more thing, I am waiting for someone to say the term "human nature".

[ParryDat]

So 14 and 16 years old isn't old enough to know that rape and pouring Clorox into people's eyes is wrong :boggled:

16 years old.Imagine that in two more years he will be a Young Adult.

I realize that people do make mistakes,but unfortunately not all of them are forgivable.Yeah I was harsh in saying that they should get the death penalty.However to not try them as adults would be worse.

[The_Penguin]

Does Florida still have Old Sparky running :) ?

[The_Penguin]

So 14 and 16 years old isn't old enough to know that rape and pooring Clorox into people's eyes is wrong :boggled:

16 years old.Imagine that in two more years he will be a Young Adult.

I realize that people do make mistakes,but unfortunately not all of them are forgivable
The hell are you talking about? How am I, in one shape or another, defending the bastards?

[ParryDat]

The hell are you talking about? How am I, in one shape or another, defending the bastards?

The hell are you talking about?

I wasn't even talking to you.I was talking to Maniakal-Rushin.

[The_Penguin]

The hell are you talking about?

I wasn't even talking to you
My bad, saw it under my post, so...

[4letterwords]

They are 14 and 16 for fucks sake!!! Why should they be tried as adults? AS little hypocritical, don't you think? What the fuck's with this country? A 14 or 16 year old kid can be tried as an adult, but they're not adult enough to vote or buy a beer. What the fuck? I blame society. Seriously, I hope that they don't get the death penalty. By the way, I am a proponent of NOT trying under-eighteeens as adults. As horrible as the crime was, these little fucks are just KIDS. They're too young to know the full consequences of their actions.

Phew, done.

What kindof brain dead 14 and 16 year olds are you talking about? A 14 and a 16 year old know that you're not supposed to violently rape a woman, force her young son to rape her, and then torture the young boy by putting CHEMICALS in his eyes.

Jesus christ.

[Stephy]

Article is meh. Disgusting really. :(

[ParryDat]

My bad, saw it under my post, so...

It's Cool :hat:

[Daishikaze]

What kindof brain dead 14 and 16 year olds are you talking about? A 14 and a 16 year old know that you're not supposed to violently rape a woman, force her young son to rape her, and then torture the young boy by putting CHEMICALS in his eyes.

Jesus christ.

Maybe he meant to Type 04 and 06 years old? ;)

Seriously though, I doubt they didn't know what they were doing, they knew exactly, they just didn't think they'd get caught. They deserve whatever punishment the court sees fit to bring down on them. I can only hope they are to lenient on them

[Kaji]

Does Florida still have Old Sparky running :) ?

Yes, but only if they choose it (and even then, I don't know if it's an option for new cases or not). It used to be the sole form of execution by the state, but a few people started getting lit on fire in the process, so they switched over.

[manrush]

What kindof brain dead 14 and 16 year olds are you talking about? A 14 and a 16 year old know that you're not supposed to violently rape a woman, force her young son to rape her, and then torture the young boy by putting CHEMICALS in his eyes.

Jesus christ.

Then tell me why a 14 or a 16 year old is old enought to get an adult punishment but not old enough to vote or drink? I smell a double standard here. I stand by what I said.

I'm sorry, but sometimes, one must defend the indefensible.

[Daishikaze]

What does being able to vote and drink have to do with their crimes? They committed very adult crimes, its not like they accidentally killed one of the peers because they thought they were only pretending to beat him to death like in the movies/videogames.

They sexually violated a woman, they derived pleasure out forcing her own son to do the same a gun point, and then the blinded the kid for life with various Chemicals. Why should their age even come into it at this point, when the fact is they knew exactly what they were doing? If they had the forethought to put a condom on, they knew what their were doing, it wasn't a game or temporary insanity.

They should spend a significant amount of time behind bars, and perhaps when/if they get out they will be much better people for the experience.

[whispering]

Seriously, I hope that they don't get the death penalty.
US used to be with Somalia the only countries that can give death penalty to a minor. But AFAIK US doesnt do that anymore.

Anyway their not kids, they deserve every year of their sentence, no matter how long.

BTW, what is the year you become an adult infront of law in US? Here its 15, younger cant be sentenced but are still liable for damages.

[Jetsetlemming]

18, for incredibly serious, horrible crimes like murder and rape juveniles can be charged as adults. The likelihood of being charged as an adult for a serious crime increases the closer to 18 a minor is.

[stsparky]

I'm sorry but I only see unredeemable monsters in the news story. They need to be kept away from society forever if found guilty.

[Dresh]

Then tell me why a 14 or a 16 year old is old enought to get an adult punishment but not old enough to vote or drink? I smell a double standard here. I stand by what I said.

You can vote at 18, you can drink at 21. Why can't I drink now that I'm 18? Is that a double standard? By your logic, yes it is.

[manrush]

That's exactly the problem with society these days. People are too hysterical, too willing to judge, and all too willing to label other flawed humans as "monsters." Those kids are humans, because any human, even the party gathered here, can committ a heinous crime.

The death penalty won't solve anything. In my view, it is just a tool of revenge requested by people who just can't get over the death of a loved one. Here's some piece of advice to the stubborn mourners. Get the fuck over it!!! The one you love is dead!!! They're never coming back!!!

[Citizen]

Then tell me why a 14 or a 16 year old is old enought to get an adult punishment but not old enough to vote or drink? I smell a double standard here. I stand by what I said.

I'm sorry, but sometimes, one must defend the indefensible.

Not letting a 14/16-year-old vote doesn't really hurt anything. Sure, they could probably do a decent enough job of it if allowed to, but they're not, so oh well.

On the other hand, letting them off easy after they raped and brutalized a woman and her underaged son just because they're not allowed to vote would be pretty messed up.

Granted, there's also something to be said for the fact that making an educated decision on which political party you want to vote for is just a tad bit more complicated than being able to understand "Don't rape people and pour chemicals in their eyes.".

[manrush]

I'm not saying they should be let off easy. i'm saying that they should not be executed, that society gets too hysterical when a rare crime like this happens, and that there is a double standard. Unless they can drink at age 16, they should get put only into the juvi at age 16. I am not going to change my position unless one of those three inconsistencies are removed.

[ParryDat]

I'm not saying they should be let off easy. i'm saying that they should not be executed, that society gets too hysterical when a rare crime like this happens, and that there is a double standard. Unless they can drink at age 16, they should get put only into the juvi at age 16. I am not going to change my position unless one of those three inconsistencies are removed.

I agree that they should not be executed,and I admited posts back that I went overboard with suggesting death penalties to be handed out.

However I think that reasoning is kind of weird.

There are reasons that 16 year olds cannot drink.If people that are 21 years old act like clowns when they are drunk what makes you think a 16 year old would act any better?They can become a statistic when they reach the age of 21,but a 16 year old should not be concerned with getting drunk.I would hope he/she would be worrying about something either school related,or normal teenage social problems.

I also have to mention the fact that there is a good little something called COMMON SENSE.As a teenager I would surely hope that you would have enough common sense,to not go out and commit crimes as vicious as this.

[Cherub Rock]

I can't believe some of you people are willing to call them minors in the face of law.

[Citizen]

i'm saying that they should not be executed

I didn't realize either of us were talking about the death penalty. It's not the only form of adult punishment, you know. If tried as adults, they wouldn't get the death penalty. They'd just get sent to adult prison.

there is a double standard. Unless they can drink at age 16, they should get put only into the juvi at age 16. I am not going to change my position unless one of those three inconsistencies are removed.

How can you possibly compare drinking at 16 to raping at 16? Aside from the fact that being tried as an adult and legally drinking are both "adult" things, they're nothing alike and completely unrelated.

[Kaji]

Russian: Chances are they won't be sentenced to death since they didn't actually kill anyone. It's been a while since death was the standard punishment for rape. Heck, even killing someone isn't a guarantee, so I doubt these guys will get it unless there's a fair bit that the news isn't saying.

Now, 2 life sentences without parole, on the other hand...

[Kwiz]

That's exactly the problem with society these days. People are too hysterical, too willing to judge, and all too willing to label other flawed humans as "monsters." Those kids are humans, because any human, even the party gathered here, can commit [sic] a heinous crime.

While media circuses do happen (and they tend to drum up mindless reactions), it's important to remember that a sociopath's brain is wired such that it's unable to feel guilt or shame. The idea that people generally have good intentions definitely has a role to play in society, but like every concept, it has limits. Now we haven't heard of any psychiatric diagnosis of the rapists, so there's not quite enough information to prove that they're sociopaths.

... Given the nature of the crime, though, I wouldn't doubt that they fit into that wonderful 3-4% of the population.

[Myrsilus]

Of course, some people just need that little push to get them to fall into committing such crimes. Some, like sociopaths, have the greater capacity toward this sort of thing, but it can be surprising how a seemingly stable person can suddenly do a 180.

That's human nature (For Penguin).

[h2orowe]

They are 14 and 16 for fucks sake!!! Why should they be tried as adults? AS little hypocritical, don't you think? What the fuck's with this country? A 14 or 16 year old kid can be tried as an adult, but they're not adult enough to vote or buy a beer. What the fuck? I blame society. Seriously, I hope that they don't get the death penalty. By the way, I am a proponent of NOT trying under-eighteeens as adults. As horrible as the crime was, these little fucks are just KIDS. They're too young to know the full consequences of their actions.

Phew, done.
How the hell is this a double standard or whatever you were saying? Drinking/voting are NOT the same thing as raping someone. Seriously. Only juvi? Dude? That's utter bullshit. They should go to prison. It's a pretty "adult" decision to decide to rape someone, force their son to rape someone, and pour chemicals on their eyes. You're an idiot if you think society not letting them vote/drink forced them to do this. I'm not allowed to vote or drink seeing as I'm still 16, but I don't go around raping. So what? Most kids aren't allowed to do things until they hit a certain age anyway. Plenty of things. It's stupid in some aspects, yes, but you can't say that that would cause someone to rape someone. They deserve to go to prison at the very least. Sending them to juvi is just.. retarded.

"What are you in here for?" one minor asks.

"I got in a fight in public-blahblahIdon'tknowsomethingsomewhatminor like that-" he says. "What are you in here for?" he asks them.

"Oh, well you see, I raped this guy's mom, he was like.. 12 years old. Then I made him rape her too.. oh.. and then I used some chemicals on his eyes. Yeah." he says.


That's just stupid. Who the hell cares if they're minors. They're old enough to know the consequences of their actions.

[Hatsumomo]

This story makes me sick. I hope the mother-son relationship isn't completely FUBAR.

And Russian's blathering is giving me a headache with how much it's not making sense. At 14 and 16, it's generally assumed that you know right from wrong (i.e., rape and torture of a woman and her child is wrong). They decided that they were oh-so-bad and grown, therefore they get treated as adults in the criminal justice system. You want them punished like children, a slap on the wrist and their records sealed when they're 18 or 21?

They've proven themselves unfit for society and that they could do the most horrendous things to a fellow human being. It's not that big of a leap to murder. Lock them up and throw away the key.

Christ, and the parents of the perpetrators going "My son is an angel with straight As! He could never do something like this!" Yeah, well he did. Take the fucking blinders off and realize that this particular kid has failed at life in the biggest way.

[manrush]

I'll give you that, presuming that they're found guilty. What if they're found innocent? What of the hysteria then? Will calling them "monsters" be justified anymore? Try and answer that.

[Daishikaze]

At this point they'd need Cochran in order to be found innocent and he's dead.

[h2orowe]

I'll give you that, presuming that they're found guilty. What if they're found innocent? What of the hysteria then? Will calling them "monsters" be justified anymore? Try and answer that.
Yes. It will be. The title monster can be taken back and apologized for, whereas raping someone and scarring them like that mentally can never be taken back.

[manrush]

No offence to anyone here, it's just that I don't feel any connections with such crimes. I am not one to appeal to my base emotion. I'm the kind who coldly watches the case and makes the decision of whether or not to support the perpetrators or the victims after the results are in. I only condemn after all the facts are in. I could care less about the suffering of the alleged "victim's" family.

So if a family member of mine got raped and/or murdered, my position on death penalty/harsh sentences will still be the same.

[h2orowe]

I don't feel bad for the families of the victims, I feel bad for the victims themselves. That's deep mental scarring, and the kid is probably blind. I forgot if it said he was or not, but it seems like he would be.

[ParryDat]

He's not blind because the article would have said,but I am certain that his eyes have significant irreversible damage.

[Chris]

No offence to anyone here, it's just that I don't feel any connections with such crimes. I am not one to appeal to my base emotion. I'm the kind who coldly watches the case and makes the decision of whether or not to support the perpetrators or the victims after the results are in. I only condemn after all the facts are in. I could care less about the suffering of the alleged "victim's" family.

So if a family member of mine got raped and/or murdered, my position on death penalty/harsh sentences will still be the same.

While I applaud your efforts to be fair and balanced, you've taken it a bit too far. In a case where a man robbed to feed his family. Sure. In a case where a man shot another man who broke into his house to steal 20 bucks. Certainly.


Shit, in a rape case where the woman literally egged the man on and then at the last moment called rape, that's something you look at with some amount of objectivism and still find some support on the side of the rapist.

But this shit? 99.9999999999999999999% of the moral codes out there are gonna say that this case is 100% fucked up. There's more than just a "base" emotion here. There are laws. These "kids" did not just lightly overstep these laws. They trampled over them without any remorse.
Even if there was a ringleader and the other people went along, they are still 100% at fault. If you're just a spectator and set by and watch this happen (like what you may be suggesting) then they are still 100% wrong.

Law is not a black and white thing. There are minor crimes, there are middle grade crimes, there are serious crimes. Guess which one this falls into. And given the nature of this act, there is no excuse for it. At all. The people involved knew exactly what they were doing, even if they were only spectators. If found guilty (and it looks like they've got some good evidence against them) they should receive a punishment equal to the crime which they committed. To me, 75 years in jail for the rest of their lives sounds good.

[4letterwords]

Then tell me why a 14 or a 16 year old is old enought to get an adult punishment but not old enough to vote or drink? I smell a double standard here. I stand by what I said.

I'm sorry, but sometimes, one must defend the indefensible.


Because I would trust a 14 or 16 year old to make obvious right and wrong decisions, not a drunken one.

Also it's not good for their growing bodies.

[PopCulturePooka]

I think the woman needs to bear responsibility here for her rape for living in a dangerous area and opening her door at night.

[manrush]

That was sarcasm, right? I hope it is anyways. What you just said there sounds more outrageous than what I usually say, and that's saying a lot (except that I mean most of the outrageous things that I say).

To Chris: Right and wrong, and morals in general, are highly relative, malleable, and subject to change over time. In my view, it's not a crime to watch a crime take place and do nothing.

[PopCulturePooka]

That was sarcasm, right? I hope it is anyways. What you just said there sounds more outrageous than what I usually say, and that's saying a lot (except that I mean most of the outrageous things that I say).
Well wasn't that the whole point of some peoples arguments in the rape thread though?

[4letterwords]

Theres a big difference between getting wasted at a party by yourself and making piss poor decisions which results in getting raped... and not being able to afford to live in a safer neighborhood and getting your house BROKEN INTO and being raped and tortured with chemicals.

[PopCulturePooka]

Theres a big difference between getting wasted at a party by yourself and making piss poor decisions which results in getting raped... and not being able to afford to live in a safer neighborhood and getting your house BROKEN INTO and being raped and tortured with chemicals.
She didn't get broken into. She got a knock on the door late at night and went out to help a man with a flat tire. In a bad neighbourhood. Kind of irresponsible.

[4letterwords]

For me, opening the door when someone knocks on it is definitely different then getting blackout wasted with people you're unsure about. Yes, maybe she shouldn't have opened the door... but we don't know HOW dangerous her neighborhood is. To a lot of people, where I live is a dangerous place, but to a lot of people it's completely safe. Would I open my door to someone at night? Yes I would... but I wouldn't help them do anything. I wouldn't, however, get blackout drunk at party with people I'm not completely sure about.

[Chris]

To Chris: Right and wrong, and morals in general, are highly relative, malleable, and subject to change over time. In my view, it's not a crime to watch a crime take place and do nothing.

How is that not a crime? You're aiding the perpetrator by not stopping the crime itself. A crime that in this case the observers, if there were any at all (I'm assuming there were, usually there is a ringleader in cases like this) knew full well what was going on was illegal.


And yes, all that is relative, but its generally accepted, and backed by United States law that forcing rape like this is, in fact, immoral.

[manrush]

How is that not a crime? You're aiding the perpetrator by not stopping the crime itself. A crime that in this case the observers, if there were any at all (I'm assuming there were, usually there is a ringleader in cases like this) knew full well what was going on was illegal.


And yes, all that is relative, but its generally accepted, and backed by United States law that forcing rape like this is, in fact, immoral.

Um, I'm not the one comitting the crime, the perpetrator is. Why should I help? The crime doesn't affect me in any way, so I don't feel any obligation to help.

[Chris]

Um, I'm not the one comitting the crime, the perpetrator is. Why should I help? The crime doesn't affect me in any way, so I don't feel any obligation to help.

Regardless of what you may or may not feel your obligation is, in the case of a crime like that, a person's rights is being infringed upon. Any citizen who has the power to stop that, yet does not is indirectly infringing that person's rights by perpetuating that infringement. If nothing else, you can notify proper authorities. Note, this is hardly black and white, please don't try to apply this to some stupid law or ridiculous situation.

[Angelyne]

FTFA:

A telephone message left at the office of Lawson's public defender was not immediately returned.

I feel sorry for the poor bastards who were assigned to defend these little shits. Imagine having it on your public record that you had to defend such a horrible crime; it has to cause even the sleaziest lawyer to pause.

The victims obviously didn't deserve this shit, but really, why the fuck would you open a door to an unexpected strange visitor? Hasn't anyone else watched that one scene in A Clockwork Orange?

[wtf.pirate]

..that's just fucked up .__. And whilst it makes me very angry and wonders what people think they have the right to violate someone else's freedom and personal space. Is power really that enticing?

And whilst abuse only spurns abuse, all people in this need counseling of some kind =/ Especially that little boy. #$#*

It isn't fair.

[whispering]

I wonder what the mother of either of the criminals thought, when she heard about it. Must have been real hard to deal with.

[Angelyne]

I wonder what the mother of either of the criminals thought, when she heard about it. Must have been real hard to deal with.

You're assuming that the parents are even around to care. It takes some seriously bad parenting to create this type of monster.

[CNagy]

No offence to anyone here, it's just that I don't feel any connections with such crimes. I am not one to appeal to my base emotion. I'm the kind who coldly watches the case and makes the decision of whether or not to support the perpetrators or the victims after the results are in. I only condemn after all the facts are in. I could care less about the suffering of the alleged "victim's" family.

So if a family member of mine got raped and/or murdered, my position on death penalty/harsh sentences will still be the same.
A simple cold analysis comes up with one conclusion; kill the perpetrators. Society is, in the long run, better when it eliminates such persons where-ever they are found. I don't care if they are 16, 14, or 6. DNA evidence these days is pretty solid, a hand print is hard to deny, and if convicted to die they'll have plenty of chances to appeal in the off chance that they are innocent.

West Palm is my backyard, I spent a good 15 years there growing up. But even if these perpetrators were someone I knew or was related to, a simple analysis remains the same: society is better off killing them. Why rehabilitate one so far off from center except for civilization's sake? "Look at how civilized we are, we've tried to turn this person who is capable of shattering social mores and law into a normal person, regardless of how irrational it is to do so." It is appealing to emotion that is going to keep these kids alive, because logic dictates that the best course of action is elimination.

[japanat]

Name a single instance in which this philosophy has worked in the long term.Ted Bundy, among others. Not saying that these kids deserve death (although it sounds tempting), just saying that the death penalty ALWAYS prevents a recurrence by that individual. Unless his name is Chucky...

And minors cannot be sentenced to death. On March 1, 2005, "The Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for juvenile offenders yesterday(from the Mar 2 Washington Post), ruling 5 to 4 that it is unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death for a crime he or she committed while younger than 18." And I'm not aware of any case in the last 30 years in which the death penalty was even requested unless the crimes included murder.

"Aggravated Rape is a Class A felony that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years of prison in Florida" (from an ombudsman's site), so these fellas could be spending a long time behind bars. Not counting the aggravated assault, felony committed with a weapon, aggravated robbery and other charges; they're still looking at a probable 60 year sentence, which means at least 20 years before they're eligible for parole. Tack on the others, and they'd better hope the sentencing doesn't include consecutive sentences, or they won't even be eligible for parole for 50 years!

Maniakal,
Are you sure you're not from NYC in the '80s, where a whole bar full of people watched a gang rape on a pool table and did nothing? I can understand someone not wanting to get directly involved in a situation where 10 masked youths/men are committing such a heinous offense as in the OP, because of fear for their own life. But most folks today would at least sneak away and dial 911.

If you truly would look at the situation dispassionately after one of your own family were raped or murdered, then I don't understand you. Even though I didn't especially like my father when I was younger, I wouldn't have been able to just sit there if something were happening to him.

[Hatsumomo]

You're assuming that the parents are even around to care. It takes some seriously bad parenting to create this type of monster.


In another article, the parents of one of the perps was all, "My kid is a good kid and on the honor roll! He could never do something like this!" Essentially, they're turning a blind eye to the fact that their kids are full of fail.

Fuck that. If I had a kid and he did something this fucked up with his friends, I'd kill him and his friends. I'd gladly do the prison sentence.

[manrush]

Ted Bundy, among others. Not saying that these kids deserve death (although it sounds tempting), just saying that the death penalty ALWAYS prevents a recurrence by that individual. Unless his name is Chucky...

And minors cannot be sentenced to death. On March 1, 2005, "The Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for juvenile offenders yesterday(from the Mar 2 Washington Post), ruling 5 to 4 that it is unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death for a crime he or she committed while younger than 18." And I'm not aware of any case in the last 30 years in which the death penalty was even requested unless the crimes included murder.

"Aggravated Rape is a Class A felony that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years of prison in Florida" (from an ombudsman's site), so these fellas could be spending a long time behind bars. Not counting the aggravated assault, felony committed with a weapon, aggravated robbery and other charges; they're still looking at a probable 60 year sentence, which means at least 20 years before they're eligible for parole. Tack on the others, and they'd better hope the sentencing doesn't include consecutive sentences, or they won't even be eligible for parole for 50 years!

Maniakal,
Are you sure you're not from NYC in the '80s, where a whole bar full of people watched a gang rape on a pool table and did nothing? I can understand someone not wanting to get directly involved in a situation where 10 masked youths/men are committing such a heinous offense as in the OP, because of fear for their own life. But most folks today would at least sneak away and dial 911.

If you truly would look at the situation dispassionately after one of your own family were raped or murdered, then I don't understand you. Even though I didn't especially like my father when I was younger, I wouldn't have been able to just sit there if something were happening to him.

I'm going to protect my family, but I won't help a stranger against whom a crime is being comitted because that stranger means nothing to me.

As for the death penalty issue. I'm always going to be anti-death penalty. And no murder, no matter how gruesome will change that position. The death penalty is an ineffective deterrent to crime and it is less expensive to lock a sick fuck away for life than to execute them.

[manrush]

In another article, the parents of one of the perps was all, "My kid is a good kid and on the honor roll! He could never do something like this!" Essentially, they're turning a blind eye to the fact that their kids are full of fail.

Fuck that. If I had a kid and he did something this fucked up with his friends, I'd kill him and his friends. I'd gladly do the prison sentence.

Vigilante justice is not the answer. Answering killing/rape with more killing solves nothing. Takig revenge upon someone is idiotic and has no place in today's society.

[manrush]

A simple cold analysis comes up with one conclusion; kill the perpetrators. Society is, in the long run, better when it eliminates such persons where-ever they are found. I don't care if they are 16, 14, or 6. DNA evidence these days is pretty solid, a hand print is hard to deny, and if convicted to die they'll have plenty of chances to appeal in the off chance that they are innocent.

West Palm is my backyard, I spent a good 15 years there growing up. But even if these perpetrators were someone I knew or was related to, a simple analysis remains the same: society is better off killing them. Why rehabilitate one so far off from center except for civilization's sake? "Look at how civilized we are, we've tried to turn this person who is capable of shattering social mores and law into a normal person, regardless of how irrational it is to do so." It is appealing to emotion that is going to keep these kids alive, because logic dictates that the best course of action is elimination.


Elimination solves nothing except make us think that all our problems will be solved if we kill someone. It only leads to more killing. The rational thing to do would be to keep these fuckers alive. "Society is better when eliminating such people" You're entering dangerous territory here. That could easily be interpreted as an argument for eugenics (eliminating those who are useless to society).

[manrush]

Regardless of what you may or may not feel your obligation is, in the case of a crime like that, a person's rights is being infringed upon. Any citizen who has the power to stop that, yet does not is indirectly infringing that person's rights by perpetuating that infringement. If nothing else, you can notify proper authorities. Note, this is hardly black and white, please don't try to apply this to some stupid law or ridiculous situation.

If the so-called "victim" is not related to me in any way, then they mean nothing to me. Thus, I have absolutely no obligation to help.

[CNagy]

Elimination solves nothing except make us think that all our problems will be solved if we kill someone. It only leads to more killing. The rational thing to do would be to keep these fuckers alive. "Society is better when eliminating such people" You're entering dangerous territory here. That could easily be interpreted as an argument for eugenics (eliminating those who are useless to society).
No, I'm not entering dangerous territory. Don't make a slippery slope argument out of this. Eugenics has been disproved quite thoroughly, and you are making statements with no actual explanation or basis.

"...make us think that all are problems will be solved if we kill someone." Hyperbole much? Your argument lacks any logical reasoning. Additionally, the idea that it leads to more killing is laughable because it is either blatantly obvious (a guy killed someone and it lead to his being killed) or another vague appeal to emotion (killing is bad, there'd be more of it, this plan is bad.) You really need to specify these sorts of things when you make statements like this.

And then there is the line "The rational thing to do..." When a dog bites someone, do we keep it alive? When any other animal hurts a person, it is almost always put down. To suggest otherwise for humans who, with higher thought and reason on their side, commit terrible acts is another appeal to emotion, not logic. You give no reason, you just state it'd be rational and, hey, who doesn't want to be rational? Your argument holds no real weight.

Studies have shown that the death penalty is rarely a deterrent in regards to criminals committing crime-- but one can hardly argue that it doesn't work on an individual basis. Someone executed for their crimes isn't quite able to get out and repeat them, save for in our horror films.

[geesehoward4life]

What concerns me the most about this incident, and has been something that I have been talking about for years. Is that the victim's in this case became victims's because the mother tried to show compassion for someone that she thought had an emergency.

How much damage does this case do, not only to these innocent victims, but to the community in general and beyond, as this story gets more and more attention. The very nature of the crime shows that the accused were very deliberate and clearly have issues that stem beyond what we are seeing in this moment where they finally gave in to whatever thoughts they had running around in their minds.

The parents involved are clearly part of the problem, but I have already read other articles on this incident and from what I have learned the accused in this case have been causing trouble for some time and finally they did something that crossed the line. But when you read what I just typed and then look at the nature of what these men did and I called them men because they felt the need to make grown-up choices. They must suffer grown-up consequences, because look at the un-talked about, domino-affect of their actions. Who will help someone who is truly in need in that community now that these foolish young men have not only violated some of the most necessary elements to ANY COMMUNITY;

Trust
Understanding
Compassion

Without internal stability, there can be no prosperity and attacks like this definitely destabilize a community. Once people become fearful of being humane to others, then the miscontented misfits can then step up to doing God knows what. The woman opened the door because she genuinely believed they needed help. Any who would say this is naive, need no longer debate about Iraq, Darfur, the gun violence in major cities of America or whatever socio-political issues are going on in Japan, if you call this incident naive on the woman's part. It was genuine compassion and concern to help that led her to open the door. If you consider or call her naive, then that means we, as a country and individuals, have no business worrying about anyone else when we fault people for doing what is humane and right. You SHOULD help people in trouble, most will agree that in their time of need they would be thankful for help when they needed it.

By doing what they did to that woman, then going a step further and having her own son have sex with her?!?! Who will trust someone enough in that community alone, when they are strangers or maybe even known, and need help? THIS is what should also be focused on because THIS is why the criminals and fools are making our own streets unsafe. They disrupt public trust and then pray off of it. Then the mass media does not address the actual damage that goes beyond JUST THE VICTIMS, but actually creates a space for more people of this kind of mentality to start flourishing. This has become a particularly severe problem in Black city neighborhood's were the people who wanna make something of themselves, live behind closed doors, looking for any opportunity to move anyplace else because their neighborhood has been overrun by the criminal element. The criminals are able to not just terrorize their initial victims, but then their acts breed more fear and little to nothing is done to highlight the hidden aspects of their brutality.

These young men, in my eyes, need to be evaluated heavily from a psychological standpoint to find out what the hell was going on in their lives that they would do such a thing as to not only pray off of another persons compassion, but then rape her on top of that, AND THEN force her own son to have sex with her. Something has seriously gone wrong for them to have gone to such extremes. By merely punishing them we ignore a problem that may actually be a part of their community and needs to be addressed. They will be punished accordingly, I have no worries about that, but there is another case of similar bizarre magnitude, where patterns I predicted years ago are starting to emerge, unfortunately. It is clearly a total lack of respect for human life.

[Chris]

If the so-called "victim" is not related to me in any way, then they mean nothing to me. Thus, I have absolutely no obligation to help.


You don't think you do. The law views this quite differently, and rightly so. Regardless of what you'd think in a situation like the one we're looking at here, had you been present you still would have held the power to stop it.

That's what I'm getting at here. If the law sees that you can do something that'll fully stop the crime, and its a significant crime, and you do nothing at all, then you are at fault. That's regardless of what you believe.

[ParryDat]

FTFA:



I feel sorry for the poor bastards who were assigned to defend these little shits. Imagine having it on your public record that you had to defend such a horrible crime; it has to cause even the sleaziest lawyer to pause.

The victims obviously didn't deserve this shit, but really, why the fuck would you open a door to an unexpected strange visitor? Hasn't anyone else watched that one scene in A Clockwork Orange?

Strange enough I saw that movie two days ago,and I couldn't help,but think of the scene.

[manrush]

What should be done to those lawyers that defend such "horrible monsters?"

[xinster]

rofl@this thread. everyone thinks they are right and should be in charge.

[manrush]

What concerns me the most about this incident, and has been something that I have been talking about for years. Is that the victim's in this case became victims's because the mother tried to show compassion for someone that she thought had an emergency.

How much damage does this case do, not only to these innocent victims, but to the community in general and beyond, as this story gets more and more attention. The very nature of the crime shows that the accused were very deliberate and clearly have issues that stem beyond what we are seeing in this moment where they finally gave in to whatever thoughts they had running around in their minds.

The parents involved are clearly part of the problem, but I have already read other articles on this incident and from what I have learned the accused in this case have been causing trouble for some time and finally they did something that crossed the line. But when you read what I just typed and then look at the nature of what these men did and I called them men because they felt the need to make grown-up choices. They must suffer grown-up consequences, because look at the un-talked about, domino-affect of their actions. Who will help someone who is truly in need in that community now that these foolish young men have not only violated some of the most necessary elements to ANY COMMUNITY;

Trust
Understanding
Compassion

Without internal stability, there can be no prosperity and attacks like this definitely destabilize a community. Once people become fearful of being humane to others, then the miscontented misfits can then step up to doing God knows what. The woman opened the door because she genuinely believed they needed help. Any who would say this is naive, need no longer debate about Iraq, Darfur, the gun violence in major cities of America or whatever socio-political issues are going on in Japan, if you call this incident naive on the woman's part. It was genuine compassion and concern to help that led her to open the door. If you consider or call her naive, then that means we, as a country and individuals, have no business worrying about anyone else when we fault people for doing what is humane and right. You SHOULD help people in trouble, most will agree that in their time of need they would be thankful for help when they needed it.

By doing what they did to that woman, then going a step further and having her own son have sex with her?!?! Who will trust someone enough in that community alone, when they are strangers or maybe even known, and need help? THIS is what should also be focused on because THIS is why the criminals and fools are making our own streets unsafe. They disrupt public trust and then pray off of it. Then the mass media does not address the actual damage that goes beyond JUST THE VICTIMS, but actually creates a space for more people of this kind of mentality to start flourishing. This has become a particularly severe problem in Black city neighborhood's were the people who wanna make something of themselves, live behind closed doors, looking for any opportunity to move anyplace else because their neighborhood has been overrun by the criminal element. The criminals are able to not just terrorize their initial victims, but then their acts breed more fear and little to nothing is done to highlight the hidden aspects of their brutality.

These young men, in my eyes, need to be evaluated heavily from a psychological standpoint to find out what the hell was going on in their lives that they would do such a thing as to not only pray off of another persons compassion, but then rape her on top of that, AND THEN force her own son to have sex with her. Something has seriously gone wrong for them to have gone to such extremes. By merely punishing them we ignore a problem that may actually be a part of their community and needs to be addressed. They will be punished accordingly, I have no worries about that, but there is another case of similar bizarre magnitude, where patterns I predicted years ago are starting to emerge, unfortunately. It is clearly a total lack of respect for human life.

So what do we do? Force people to respect human life? What you just quoted above "a total lack of respect for human life" will no doutedly be hijacked by those who want to ban abortion and a person's right to die.

I, for one, respect no life but my own. It's a dog-eat-dog world. Self-preservation comes first, even at the expense of others.

[xinster]

So what do we do? Force people to respect human life? What you just quoted above "a total lack of respect for human life" will no doutedly be hijacked by those who want to ban abortion and a person's right to die.

I, for one, respect no life but my own. It's a dog-eat-dog world. Self-preservation comes first, even at the expense of others.

you remind me of dwight from the office.

[ParryDat]

What should be done to those lawyers that defend such "horrible monsters?"

It's their jobs,whether they like it or not,they have to eat.

And also I don't know why you quote "Horrible Monsters" like they are something else other than.That is exactly what they are.Maybe in bizzaro world they would be heroes.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by mAn1AkAl-rUsh1n
What should be done to those lawyers that defend such "horrible monsters?"

The mind is a beautiful thing, I can imagine drawing and quartering or smearing them in peanut butter and lowering them into a pit with two hungry bears... but really we don't know if the kids accused of the crime are guilty or not. The kids will all certainly be charged with the rape and assault, but what if one of the gang didn't want any part of the attack, what if the palm print was left by a kid trying to leave rather than participating? What if he was forced to commit the crime like the boy was forced to perform incest?

Would our opinions of those lawyers change if the kid who was living a nightmare (forced to commit crimes he wanted no part of) received a reduced sentence or was acquitted? That's why I think the lawyers take the job. Otherwise, they can be assigned the job by a judge as a public defender.

[Karthak]

All the moralising aside, all I see is a bunch of monsters who forced a little kid to rape his own mother. Arguing about how wrong the death penalty is in all cases is perfectly fine, but I still want to strangle those @¤%#ers with piano wire and watch their eyes pop.

[DizBukHaPeter]

Vigilante justice is not the answer. Answering killing/rape with more killing solves nothing. Takig revenge upon someone is idiotic and has no place in today's society.

Doing nothing is just as idiotic. We all are collectively responsible for the enviroment in which we live. If you dont report or do nothing to prevent crime, you are in effect creating an enviroment for more crime.

[PopCulturePooka]

Doing nothing is just as idiotic. We all are collectively responsible for the enviroment in which we live. If you dont report or do nothing to prevent crime, you are in effect creating an enviroment for more crime.
Don't worry, there's an extremely high chance that Rushin is just full of shit and hot air and trying to look 'cool' somehow.

There's also a high chance that reason why Rushin would do nothing is that he is actually a chickenshit pussy too scared to ever do anything, and needs to make some crappy excuse to justify his gutlessness.

[DizBukHaPeter]

Judging from his grasping at straws argument, its seems hes just a kid with no life experience. Wait till he gets out into the real world and he gets to play the victim role.

[Cherub Rock]

I don't think they should be executed as I'm pretty much against the death penalty, but if I was the father I would wait till they get out and then I'd put a bullet between their eyes.

[manrush]

No, you are both wrong. I will only do something if a friend or a relative is in trouble. Other than those conditions, I have no obligation to report anything.

Doing nothing is just as idiotic. We all are collectively responsible for the enviroment in which we live. If you dont report or do nothing to prevent crime, you are in effect creating an enviroment for more crime.

Not my problem.

[manrush]

The mind is a beautiful thing, I can imagine drawing and quartering or smearing them in peanut butter and lowering them into a pit with two hungry bears... but really we don't know if the kids accused of the crime are guilty or not. The kids will all certainly be charged with the rape and assault, but what if one of the gang didn't want any part of the attack, what if the palm print was left by a kid trying to leave rather than participating? What if he was forced to commit the crime like the boy was forced to perform incest?

Would our opinions of those lawyers change if the kid who was living a nightmare (forced to commit crimes he wanted no part of) received a reduced sentence or was acquitted? That's why I think the lawyers take the job. Otherwise, they can be assigned the job by a judge as a public defender.

But should the lawyers be held responsible for defending the kids if the kids are found guilty? Should they be humiliated and have their lives endangered?

I, for one, will not believe those kids are guilty until the jury finds them guilty. If that happens, then I'll proceed with the condemnations.

[Kaji]

Russian: The safety of the community we live in is everyone's problem. In many ways it's people thinking the way you describe that's lead to many of these places becoming so unsafe in the first place.

[Daishikaze]

No, you are both wrong. I will only do something if a friend or a relative is in trouble. Other than those conditions, I have no obligation to report anything.



Not my problem.

So are you saying that if you saw a random woman being brutally violated, you could happily ignore her cries for help?

[manrush]

Yes. Unless I benefit from saving her. There are people on the internet who have opinions that can be considered quite insane. I am one of those people.

But setting that aside, what will happen to the kids if they are found innocent? How will society treat them?

Yes, the DNA evidence is strong. But has the jury proven the kids guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, then in my eyes, those kids are innocent.

[stsparky]

No, you are both wrong. I will only do something if a friend or a relative is in trouble. Other than those conditions, I have no obligation to report anything. Not my problem.

You - of course - are wrong. Good Samaritan law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_samaritan_law):

... Good Samaritan laws describe a legal requirement for citizens to assist people in distress, unless doing so would put themselves in harm's way. Citizens are often required to, at minimum, call the local emergency number, unless doing so would be harmful, in which case, the authorities should be contacted when the harmful situation has been removed. Such laws currently exist in countries such as Israel, Italy, Japan, France, Belgium, Andorra, and Spain. The photographers at the scene of Princess Diana's fatal car accident were investigated for violation of the French Good Samaritan law. In Germany, "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (neglect of duty to provide assistance) is an offense; a citizen is obliged to provide first aid when necessary and is immune from prosecution if assistance given in good faith turns out to be harmful. In Germany, knowledge of first aid is a prerequisite for the granting of a driving license. ...

[羽之助]

Yes. Unless I benefit from saving her.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[Chris]

Not my problem.


It becomes your problem when you become a victim as well.

You ever realize that in many things in life its always the people who work together and support one another in a team effort that succede? Same concept here.

If you do nothing, if you don't report anything then as others have said, the enviroment has become more friendly to crime, and thus the chances of you becoming a victim help.

Yes. Unless I benefit from saving her.

PopCulturePooka said it best.

[CNagy]

Judging from his grasping at straws argument, its seems hes just a kid with no life experience. Wait till he gets out into the real world and he gets to play the victim role.
Quoted In Agreement. At this point, it is pretty obvious that Rushin's ideology is skewed, irrational, and full of holes. And at this point, it almost feels like troll feeding.

[manrush]

It becomes your problem when you become a victim as well.

You ever realize that in many things in life its always the people who work together and support one another in a team effort that succede? Same concept here.

If you do nothing, if you don't report anything then as others have said, the enviroment has become more friendly to crime, and thus the chances of you becoming a victim help.



PopCulturePooka said it best.

Then I'll do everything I can to keep myself from becoming a victim.

[manrush]

Quoted In Agreement. At this point, it is pretty obvious that Rushin's ideology is skewed, irrational, and full of holes. And at this point, it almost feels like troll feeding.

Irrational? How? In that I oppose the death penalty? In that I won't judge someone as guilty or innocent until the jury proves so beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Daishikaze]

Yes. Unless I benefit from saving her. There are people on the internet who have opinions that can be considered quite insane. I am one of those people.

Thats not only insane, its extremely selfish. I'm not the biggest or toughest bad-ass around, but If I see something like a woman being violated like that, I'm sure as hell going to do something to help or die trying. I'm not going to leave her in the lurch just because there is nothing in it for me. The day I do feel that way is the day I stop calling myself a human being.

I'm not howling for those kids blood, but I am certain that at least one of them is guilty at this point. and if one or both are guilty, they need to be locked away.

[manrush]

The article stated that the kids were "accused" of the rape. Last time I checked, "accused" does not equal "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

[CNagy]

Irrational? How? In that I oppose the death penalty? In that I won't judge someone as guilty or innocent until the jury proves so beyond a reasonable doubt?
Elimination solves nothing except make us think that all our problems will be solved if we kill someone. It only leads to more killing. The rational thing to do would be to keep these fuckers alive. "Society is better when eliminating such people" You're entering dangerous territory here. That could easily be interpreted as an argument for eugenics (eliminating those who are useless to society).
No, I'm not entering dangerous territory. Don't make a slippery slope argument out of this. Eugenics has been disproved quite thoroughly, and you are making statements with no actual explanation or basis.

"...make us think that all are problems will be solved if we kill someone." Hyperbole much? Your argument lacks any logical reasoning. Additionally, the idea that it leads to more killing is laughable because it is either blatantly obvious (a guy killed someone and it lead to his being killed) or another vague appeal to emotion (killing is bad, there'd be more of it, this plan is bad.) You really need to specify these sorts of things when you make statements like this.

And then there is the line "The rational thing to do..." When a dog bites someone, do we keep it alive? When any other animal hurts a person, it is almost always put down. To suggest otherwise for humans who, with higher thought and reason on their side, commit terrible acts is another appeal to emotion, not logic. You give no reason, you just state it'd be rational and, hey, who doesn't want to be rational? Your argument holds no real weight.

Studies have shown that the death penalty is rarely a deterrent in regards to criminals committing crime-- but one can hardly argue that it doesn't work on an individual basis. Someone executed for their crimes isn't quite able to get out and repeat them, save for in our horror films.

Yeah, irrational.

[Daishikaze]

A used condom on the scene containing DNA from one suspect says one of them is guilty.

[Random]

It could have been a setup! For all we know, someone else put the DNA in the condom to frame the kid.

[Daishikaze]

It could have been a setup! For all we know, someone else put the DNA in the condom to frame the kid.

Lol, thanks, I needed a good wheeze

[manrush]

And? That's evidence that could lead up to a guilty verdict, but it's not a guilty verdict because the jury hasn't yet decided. And anyways, there have been a number of cases where DNA evidence put innocent people behind bars.

Note: I am not defending the kids' actions. I'm just not so quick to label them guilty.

[Kaji]

While innocent until proven guilty is well and good, it does not preclude private citizens from fact-gathering and formulating their own opinion on what happened.

[manrush]

That's fine. I just happen to not form an opinion until I'm positive that I cannot swayed. Call it an opportunistic opinion if you will.

[CNagy]

And? That's evidence that could lead up to a guilty verdict, but it's not a guilty verdict because the jury hasn't yet decided. And anyways, there have been a number of cases where DNA evidence put innocent people behind bars.

Note: I am not defending the kids' actions. I'm just not so quick to label them guilty.

Care to link something regarding the bolded portion? I went ahead and searched the net for any mention of DNA evidence putting an innocent person behind bars to no avail, but perhaps you know of specific cases that you could quote.

[manrush]

From this article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20061022/ai_n16800078)

"The requirement may imbue the system with the appearance of infallibility, but it's a mirage. For one, crime labs have botched DNA evidence. Perhaps the most notorious is a particular Houston lab. Shut down in 2002 because of shoddy work, it reopened only this June. The lab's findings had led to two wrongful convictions, it has been determined, and many others are now in doubt.

A Virginia lab botched post-conviction DNA testing for an innocent death row inmate who came within hours of execution. What's more, errors with DNA testing have been surfacing all over the country.

The DNA requirement also won't stop intentional deception by, say, dirty cops who plant evidence. Such deception is, presumably, rare, but it's not non-existent.

And the DNA requirement fuels another problem: inconsistency. A professional killer skilled at not leaving behind DNA evidence would escape the death penalty. But not so the slob who reaches for a gun in the heat of a quarrel and kills his buddy, leaving DNA evidence all over the place precisely because he's not the cold-blooded killer the professional is."

[Kaji]

Let's play ball here, then: Why would someone dig through this kid's trash to save a used condom, then tag along with him to the incident, watch all that goes on, and then deposit it at the scene?

While it's not impossible to botch DNA evidence, you have to come up with some really contrived stuff to get out of this one.

[Myrsilus]

DNA testing is not infallible, but they have fingerprints AND sperm to go by in this case. I really doubt the chance that this DNA evidence could be botched.

[Random]

Just as contrived as forcing someone's 12 year old son to rape their mother?

[CNagy]

From this article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20061022/ai_n16800078)

"The requirement may imbue the system with the appearance of infallibility, but it's a mirage. For one, crime labs have botched DNA evidence. Perhaps the most notorious is a particular Houston lab. Shut down in 2002 because of shoddy work, it reopened only this June. The lab's findings had led to two wrongful convictions, it has been determined, and many others are now in doubt.

A Virginia lab botched post-conviction DNA testing for an innocent death row inmate who came within hours of execution. What's more, errors with DNA testing have been surfacing all over the country.
DNA testing does not produce false positives; human error does. That said, if the test was carried out incorrectly, that will be caught on the retest.

The DNA requirement also won't stop intentional deception by, say, dirty cops who plant evidence. Such deception is, presumably, rare, but it's not non-existent.

And the DNA requirement fuels another problem: inconsistency. A professional killer skilled at not leaving behind DNA evidence would escape the death penalty. But not so the slob who reaches for a gun in the heat of a quarrel and kills his buddy, leaving DNA evidence all over the place precisely because he's not the cold-blooded killer the professional is."
And this part is just spin, really. A system can't really account for corrupt cops, and the incidence of professional hitmen amongst the general population is bound to be astronomically low. Your article isn't exactly an objective source.

[Myrsilus]

DNA testing does not produce false positives; human error does.
That's just being picky - it's given that the process is accurate in itself and the true fault in most tests would be from human interaction with the process. The test sure isn't going to prepare itself.

Otherwise, I'm in agreement with your post. DNA testing is not what it was decades ago, and labs do not generally rely on one run of the test for conclusive data.

[The_Penguin]

Yes, but only if they choose it (and even then, I don't know if it's an option for new cases or not). It used to be the sole form of execution by the state, but a few people started getting lit on fire in the process, so they switched over.
The smiley was meant to introduce a sense of sarcasm into that post.

Frankly, 20-30 years seems appropriate. Parole after 20 years...

[The_Penguin]

That's exactly the problem with society these days. People are too hysterical, too willing to judge, and all too willing to label other flawed humans as "monsters." Those kids are humans, because any human, even the party gathered here, can committ a heinous crime.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao... all human and all monsters.
The death penalty won't solve anything. In my view, it is just a tool of revenge requested by people who just can't get over the death of a loved one. Here's some piece of advice to the stubborn mourners. Get the fuck over it!!! The one you love is dead!!! They're never coming back!!!
Tell it to Poly Class's dad. I dare ya. Tell that to someone who had his child raped and murdered.

I think he knows that his kid isn't coming back and is concerned about making sure that bastards like her murderer never do that again.

[The_Penguin]

I didn't realize either of us were talking about the death penalty. It's not the only form of adult punishment, you know. If tried as adults, they wouldn't get the death penalty. They'd just get sent to adult prison.
Probably not. They'll serve in juvi until they're 18, then they'll get sent to adult jail.

[The_Penguin]

Of course, some people just need that little push to get them to fall into committing such crimes. Some, like sociopaths, have the greater capacity toward this sort of thing, but it can be surprising how a seemingly stable person can suddenly do a 180.

That's human nature (For Penguin).
Oh, so close, but yet... no, not even close.

Please try again.

[Myrsilus]

No, I don't do that for stingy people.

[The_Penguin]

Ted Bundy, among others. Not saying that these kids deserve death (although it sounds tempting), just saying that the death penalty ALWAYS prevents a recurrence by that individual.
We need a fucking sarcasm smiley.

I figured that a simple smiley would have done the trick, guess not...

[Azrael]

Well, here's the million dollar question.

These two kids who did this crime - do you want them roaming about in society again? Would you be perfectly comfortable if they lived in your neighborhood? If perhaps you saw them at the local convenience store? If they got jobs near you, would you be comfortable accepting service from them?

My answer is definintely no.

[The_Penguin]

No, I don't do that for stingy people.
Would you prefer a voluminous post?

Sorry, I'm not Dostoevsky.

[Myrsilus]

Well, here's the million dollar question.

These two kids who did this crime - do you want them roaming about in society again? Would you be perfectly comfortable if they lived in your neighborhood? If perhaps you saw them at the local convenience store? If they got jobs near you, would you be comfortable accepting service from them?
Can't imagine there will be too many people comfortable with letting them run free. If they did it once, they can definitely do it again.

Would you prefer a voluminous post?

Sorry, I'm not Dostoevsky.
You mean in the form of one long post instead of a string of successive, tiny posts?

Then yes, I would. :innocent:

[Jetsetlemming]

We need a fucking sarcasm smiley.

I figured that a simple smiley would have done the trick, guess not...
:sarcasm:
Well, here's the million dollar question.

These two kids who did this crime - do you want them roaming about in society again? Would you be perfectly comfortable if they lived in your neighborhood? If perhaps you saw them at the local convenience store? If they got jobs near you, would you be comfortable accepting service from them?

My answer is definintely no.
Jesus fucking christ, no.

[stsparky]

there is a sarcasm smile-y :boggled: :S

[The_Penguin]

there is a sarcasm smile-y :boggled: :S
Ahh, didn't know.

[雨]

I thought that was the constipated smiley.

[The_Penguin]

I thought that was the constipated smiley.
What if you're constipated and sarcastic?

[The_Penguin]

Can't imagine there will be too many people comfortable with letting them run free. If they did it once, they can definitely do it again.


You mean in the form of one long post instead of a string of successive, tiny posts?

Then yes, I would. :innocent:
Fine, I'll become a writer and Russian for a sec.

Human nature is an animal instinct that drives to do these things. We, despite our great claims, are not much different from animals. Yes, we have advanced tools, understanding of our surrounding, knowledge, etc. But we still do things that are in line with instinct that requires us to get food, survive and reproduce.

I've started a thread on this elsewhere, but I'll put the link here again.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

Essentially, and I'll probably get flamed for this until the cows come home, the thing that drove those boys to commit those crimes was the innate human instinct (which is present in all of us) to reproduce and if we can get away with, be cruel/obnoxious (remember the assholes online who act the way they do because they have anonimity? Yeh, alot of people who are talking high and mighty acted that way atleast once.)

And in their minds, lacking wisdom and quite a bit of intelligence, the idea of getting caught probably never came up, so it is similar to thinking that you would not be caught (essentially, despite your exceptionally cruel and disgusting behavior, punishment is not something that one would expect at the end of that crime.)

Now, and for the love of God, I'm not justifying or excusing their actions. They are criminals and should serve their time (and the idea of life in prison doesn't sound too bad.) However, the idea that one's genes can bring out these animalistic instincts in some more than others is plausible as to what could drive a person to do something like this.

I'm not done with this argument, but it's late and I'm tired, so nighty-night...

[Cherub Rock]

Well, here's the million dollar question.

These two kids who did this crime - do you want them roaming about in society again? Would you be perfectly comfortable if they lived in your neighborhood? If perhaps you saw them at the local convenience store? If they got jobs near you, would you be comfortable accepting service from them?

My answer is definintely no.

It's a shame because chances are those two kids are going to cut a deal to impliment the other 7 or 8 people who were at the house.

[MNJetter]

Maybe the cops will be able to forge a solid case without the first two implicating the other ones. Then they'll be able to put all 10 of them in jail if they're guilty.

[CNagy]

That's just being picky - it's given that the process is accurate in itself and the true fault in most tests would be from human interaction with the process. The test sure isn't going to prepare itself.
That's not quite what I was getting at. When someone says DNA evidence has put innocent people behind bars, the implication is that the test has a certain accuracy rate; as merely an example, I'll use 95%. Again using that as an example, that would mean that there is a 5% inaccuracy.

When there is an inherent chance for the test itself to turn up a false positive, there is the infinitesimal chance that it will keep producing a false positive; not unlike people who win the lottery multiple times or have been struck by lightning repeatedly. The odds are very low, but it could happen.

When there is no inherent chance for the test to turn up a false positive, then only human error can produce a false positive. In that case, however, retesting can correct the error. Testing at different labs could correct the error. Oversight in such matters reduces the chances of multiple human errors across different labs. And repeated testing will eventually turn up a negative if the person in question is innocent. Considering that a negative result usually results in the person being set free, human error is correctable, generally. Test inaccuracy would not be.

Thus, the wording should be "Incompetence in DNA testing has put innocent people behind bars." It is a slight but significant difference.

[Jetsetlemming]

there is a sarcasm smile-y :boggled: :S

Ahh, didn't know.
:sarcasm: <-

[Jetsetlemming]

I've started a thread on this elsewhere, but I'll put the link here again.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

Essentially, and I'll probably get flamed for this until the cows come home, the thing that drove those boys to commit those crimes was the innate human instinct (which is present in all of us) to reproduce and if we can get away with, be cruel/obnoxious (remember the assholes online who act the way they do because they have anonimity? Yeh, alot of people who are talking high and mighty acted that way atleast once.)

Complete and utter bullshit. Rape has nothing to do with reproduction, and forcing someone ELSE to rape someone, then torturing them is as far from something as good as baby-making as you can fucking GET.

[Myrsilus]

That's not quite what I was getting at. When someone says DNA evidence has put innocent people behind bars, the implication is that the test has a certain accuracy rate; as merely an example, I'll use 95%. Again using that as an example, that would mean that there is a 5% inaccuracy.

When there is an inherent chance for the test itself to turn up a false positive, there is the infinitesimal chance that it will keep producing a false positive; not unlike people who win the lottery multiple times or have been struck by lightning repeatedly. The odds are very low, but it could happen.

When there is no inherent chance for the test to turn up a false positive, then only human error can produce a false positive. In that case, however, retesting can correct the error. Testing at different labs could correct the error. Oversight in such matters reduces the chances of multiple human errors across different labs. And repeated testing will eventually turn up a negative if the person in question is innocent. Considering that a negative result usually results in the person being set free, human error is correctable, generally. Test inaccuracy would not be.

Thus, the wording should be "Incompetence in DNA testing has put innocent people behind bars." It is a slight but significant difference.

I couldn't tell what you meant before. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Cherub Rock]

About DNA testing.

DNA testing isn't like testing for steroids or an STD, where there are two results: positive and negative. DNA testing matches up a piece of evidence, like semen or a hair folicle with the DNA of a suspect. The chances that is matches them incorrectly are pretty much slim to none. In other words the chances of a false possitive are the chances that two people would have the same DNA (and then the chances that they would have come in contact, which makes it even more unlikely).

[whispering]

I wonder when their gonna say its cause they play video games, watch NR movies or because they smoked marihuana once and started hallusinating, cause y'know

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/6365/38diagonal35web0001rz0.jpg

[羽之助]

the horrors of the chronic

Pfff. I accomplish all that and I've never smoked anything in my life.

[DizBukHaPeter]

Well, here's the million dollar question.

These two kids who did this crime - do you want them roaming about in society again? Would you be perfectly comfortable if they lived in your neighborhood? If perhaps you saw them at the local convenience store? If they got jobs near you, would you be comfortable accepting service from them?

My answer is definintely no.

I bet rushin would feel comfortable with them, after all rushin is in no way connected with these people, so what does he care what they did?

[manrush]

If they don't harm me directly, then I'll feel comfortable with them.

[The_Penguin]

If they don't harm me directly, then I'll feel comfortable with them.
What guarantee do you have that they won't after it has been shown that they do have tendencies to do be that violent and despicable?

[manrush]

What guarantee do you have that they won't after it has been shown that they do have tendencies to do be that violent and despicable?

If I don't hear any sounds of breaking and entering, then that is my assurance.

[The_Penguin]

If I don't hear any sounds of breaking and entering, then that is my assurance.
What if you hear them in an hour? What do you do then?

If I were, I'd have a shotgun loaded near me.

[ParryDat]

If they don't harm me directly, then I'll feel comfortable with them.

So you don't care that there are little kids and mothers in the neighborhood :boggled:

[manrush]

What if you hear them in an hour? What do you do then?

If I were, I'd have a shotgun loaded near me.


Oh, I'd always have a means with which to defend myself.

To ParryDat: That's correct. And it's not like parents will let their kids anywhere near me, as they'll grow up to be drug dealers or prostitutes if subjected even a little to my influence.

[The_Penguin]

So you don't care that there are little kids and mothers in the neighborhood :boggled:
Well, as his nic says, he's not the most sane OP9 member :) .

[Kenkenchan]

I'm going to protect my family, but I won't help a stranger against whom a crime is being comitted because that stranger means nothing to me.

Just out of curiosity, why would you help your family and friends but not a stranger?
To clarify, I'm not asking why you wouldn't save a stranger, but why you would save your friends and family.

[OliveButtercup]

Then tell me why a 14 or a 16 year old is old enought to get an adult punishment but not old enough to vote or drink? I smell a double standard here. I stand by what I said.

I'm sorry, but sometimes, one must defend the indefensible.

Maybe you should be a criminal defense lawyer. These guys need a good one right about now.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I'm not saying they should be let off easy. i'm saying that they should not be executed, that society gets too hysterical when a rare crime like this happens, and that there is a double standard. Unless they can drink at age 16, they should get put only into the juvi at age 16. I am not going to change my position unless one of those three inconsistencies are removed.
That is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard in my life.

If an 18 year-old is 'capable' of drinking, or mature enough, and doesn't get the right to do it, what harm is caused? Is he somehow irrevocably harmed? His inability to vote will somehow cause harm to society? If we didn't set arbitrary ages for these things, we would have the courts working FOREVER trying to figure out whether or not person X is responsible enough to have privelege Y. Therefore we don't do it.

When a crime like this happens, it's going to be evaluated. That's what the courts do. There is absolutely no reason to say that it isn't fair because they can't drink. That's a non-sequitor which shows a DISTURBING lack of understanding of the law and privelege.

What should be done to those lawyers that defend such "horrible monsters?"
This one REALLY gets me. Have you not read the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights)?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Nothing should happen to the lawyers. They are given one, or the option of one, and someone is going to have to do it.