Father of Murdered 5-Year-Old Says He'll Make Sure Killer Suffers Same Fate

Well, as a parent I can say I can understand where this guy is coming from but I have to say the law is the law and he should have known this when the guy was first put behind bars. Time off for good behaviour is the norm except in federal cases and cases specifically set up for not a day less than.

Some crimes deserve the perp to never know freedom for the rest of their miserable lives and I am of the mind that this is one of them.

If the guy does kill him then all he has done is waste his life mired in hate.

Shame really, all around.

That risk is more acceptable than the state executing an innocent person...there is no undoing a mistake like that and creates another murder there can never be justice for.

Either way, the state failed.

For me it's not about being nice or not nice, it's about being civilized. I am better than this barbarian. He's an animal and he should be kept chained up like one.

There are of course levels and degrees of horrendous behavior. But there is very little difference between your proposal and those that operate under Sharia Law - "justice" meted out at the behest of, or directly by the family members of a victim.

Where does the application of this logic end? If I'm unhappy with a fine given to someone who crashes his car into mine, am I entitled to stab him?

Stab? No. Crash into his car, of... uh...

I don't examine every WF member's biography.....does Rick have kids?

Anyway, I can empathize with the "make him suffer for the rest of his life" mindset. But can you guarantee that once sentenced to life + 10, a murderer will indeed "do life"?
Escapes (though unlikely) do happen. Administrative mistakes happen too, and criminals get released accidentally. Killers also tend to kill again while in prison.

Thus anyone who is convicted of a horrendous crime like this should be removed from society, ideally by the hands of the family.

This is not an "honor killing" when a father kills her daughter for being a rape victim, or whatever else Sharia situation you can give.

It's pretty simple. Actions have consequences, so it makes sense that the family can set the price to be paid.

Sharia Law isn't limited to honor killings. The bolded part is almost identical to the principle under Sharia that a victims family can decide on the punishment. You've arrived at the same conclusion as Islamic fundamentalists, albeit through a different route.

I don't have kids, but that has no bearing on the legal principle, only on the strength of the instinctual reaction. And the latter should not define the former.

You're right Rick, why let the families decide? Better to let the state handle it. After all, we're civilzed.

Hopefully we can vote in leaders who will institute a mandatory death sentence in extreme cases such as this. Happy now?

I don't agree with the death penalty, but that's a much better course of action IMO.

TG has said she thought the greater pain would be inflicted by keeping him in jail for the rest of his life. As much as I might want it, I realize that justice is better served by giving an irredeemable killer the death penalty than merely punishing him forever.

Rick, FUCK YOU. You're an idiot. No go get your fucking shine box.

Honor killings are most definately not limited to Sharia Law either.

In fact, I'm not sure how much one has to do with the other.

I can't believe people are talking about this and honor killing in the same sentence.

An honor killing is exactly what it says it is - a killing to avenge an impingement on the honor of a family. Many times, honor killings are against family members - the taxi driver in Texas who killed his daughter for being a "whore," for example, the Pakistani family who stoned their son for being gay, etc.

All those things are seriously out of whack, and we look at them and say, "Really? Death for that?!"

Here we have a guy who committed a capital crime, who didn't get life. The dad was ok. But now they're letting him out 12 years early?

This isn't exactly a guy waltzing up to someone, slapping them, and drawling "My suthuhn herituge hayuz bun maaaaahed by yow yaynkee prayzence."

You guys are the ones who brought up honor killings. I'm referring to other elements of Sharia Law which you're in agreement with.

Maybe I'm a "turn the other cheek" guy and my instinctual action is to hug the killer and pray with him.

However hopefully after a careful preponderance of the evidence, I would come to my senses and do the right thing by intiating ventilation.

If the father is going to do it then he should just do it and not talk about it in advance as such talk can never help him.

You know, Rick, calling this an example of Sharia Law is wrong. Sure, it mirrors Sharia Law, but only to a small extent because it's not that. It's the Code of Hammurabi, which isn't a Muslim establishment.

This is strictly an eye-for-an-eye matter of justice, not the observation of very strict religious set of conduct that makes the LDS Word of Wisdom -- or, even better, the Law of Moses -- look easy to observe in comparison.

Sharia law says lots of things. Of course, the difference here is across several planes - for one, the justification of the legal code (Western ones don't do it because that's what a priest said that's what god wanted anymore). Another, the fact the legal code would punish the father unless it was explicitly nullified by the jury is quite a bit different then saying that's the legal way it should be handled. Etc, ad nauseum.

That being said, the only reason I wouldn't kill the fuckhead if I were the dad is if I had other loved ones that depended on me not being in jail.

But it's nice to know you can get time off for good behavior after you murder and cannibalize a child, and write it up in your journal.

Rick, you are either making a half-assed troll of this, or your worst attempt at equivalence ever.

<Billy Bob>And that is a huge fuckin' statement.</Billy Bob>

You do know that the parents were part of the decision to not take the case to trial, don't you?

Considering it was right there in the fucking article, no. None of us know.

We're talking about people stepping outside of the "legal code".
It is, as I said, the same conclusion reached through different means. I for one do not see a moral distinction, nor have I heard a good argument for one other than the usual incredulity expressed when you hold people to the standards that they expect of others.

Easy there douche...don't get your panties in a bunch. Clearly the person who posted what I quoted forgot that part of the story.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have contrasted it to a legal code, perhaps? LOL.

Personal codes of ethics and standards are not the same thing as legal codes, and they never will be. Morality and the law are only roughly analogous.

As far as you not understanding a morality behind terminating the life of a man who killed and ate your child, personally I think that's a lack of fundamental understanding on your part that says something about your current place in life.

I think it has less to do with understanding it, and more to do with advocating and/or encouraging it like a crowd of people chanting "Jump! Jump!" at a guy standing on a 10th story ledge.

Exactly.....nobody is advocating "git a rope!" every time someone is accused of a major crime. But if the legal system says "no doubt about it.....this person killed and ate a child" , then he should indeed be hung by the neck until dead (at a minimum).

Well, I think we are looking at two different things - what a just sentence would be, and what your reaction should be if a just sentence isn't applied.

I personally would prefer a guy that killed and ate a kid to get the death sentence, but I can understand the argument that life in prison is a just sentence.

However, the underlying issue here is he got a lesser term because he cooperated - in other words, because he made it easier on the lawyers to do their jobs. That had little to do with justice, and everything to do with convenience.

This is after the police found a diary that described in detail the cannibals actions. This is the ultimate slam dunk trial. But they still went easy on him because he confessed.

Yeah, I'd be pissed - especially considering he's got another 30-40 years of life in him. The guy did the crime when he was 16, and got 28 years in jail. He's 44, right?

In a just society, someone else would put a bullet in him and the father wouldn't have to do a damn thing.

But we aren't a just society, we are a civilized society, and that sometimes makes me vomit.

^ There is much truth in what you say, especially that last line.

On the contrary, the impulse to do it is perfectly understandable. But that doesn't make it right.

And if anything, advocating that such revenge attacks ought to be seen as just, but not recognised as such by law is even worse than Sharia. Widespread acceptance of vigilantism would be a recipe for disaster. At least if it's codified then things are stable.

If you don't like the sentence passed, you should try to get the law changed.