Father vows to kill son's murderer if released

[Ixodes]

How is he a danger to society?

He's a danger to one murderer. That's it.

No-one to shed tears over.

This. When a parent loses a child there are wounds that never heal. When the child is lost through a monstrous act, I could not even begin to imagine the pain, anguish, and hatred.

Being completely honest, if I lost a child to a murder like this I would imagine there would be at least a reasonable chance I would commit suicide. There are some pains that I don't think I could handle and this would be one of them. This father's reaction is the only thing that resembles normalcy in this whole sad situation.

[Seventh Pup]

I'm going to be honest before I read the article I thought perhaps the father was taking things a bit far. But after....

Holy shit. Seriously HOLY FUCKING SHIT. That is the most terrible thing I've read in a long time. It breaks my mind to think that someone could do that to anyone let alone to a child, and enjoy it so much that he would want to do it again. HOLY SHIT.

[awesome possum]

How did this man not be put to death? I haven't heard of many who deserve it more.

I wouldn't wish this father's plight on my worse enemy. I can't imagine, and even thinking about trying to do so makes me feel sick to my stomach.

"Prison justice"? You mean the assaults and rapes and crimes perpetrated on inmates who are supposed to be wards of the state, not subjected to vigilante notions of revenge? Prison is NOT supposed to be torture; nor is it supposed to be a place that is a danger to those inside it.

You're right. A place where dangerous criminals are housed for committing horrid crimes isn't supposed to be a danger to anyone at all. In reality it's supposed to be a lovely place where the worst thing that happens is Big Sid's Monthly Poetry & Crocheting Circle is postponed.

Prison justice is exactly what some people, like the sick mofo in the story, deserves.

The father is wrong and misguided.

No, he's not. Damaged and hurting, yes. Wanting to take the life of someone who tortured and killed and fucking ate your five-year-old is not wrong or misguided.

Vigilante crap has no place in a truly civil society.

Says the person who thinks anyone who gets an abortion should be put to death. Methinks you'd grow up if only you'd done as much living as you do proselytizing.

Very little rehab takes place in prison; prison is rather barbaric and savage in its treatment of inmates. I dont know what programs this inmate went through and what attempts at rehab took place.

Who cares? You think a "Gosh I'm sorry I was a murdering cannibal" therapy group is going to fix someone?

As for the people approving, I guess you've just missed a few decades, sorry but we won't be able to ship you back to 15th century, you'll have to adjust.

Yes, I'll be here with the rest of the neanderthals, hoping this piece of shit lives in misery every single second for the rest of his pathetic, should-have-been-aborted life.

[Balefont]

Holy shit. Seriously HOLY FUCKING SHIT. That is the most terrible thing I've read in a long time. It breaks my mind to think that someone could do that to anyone let alone to a child, and enjoy it so much that he would want to do it again. HOLY SHIT.

Yup. Pretty much.

Anyone wanna stick up for the guy and say they think he has had a good chance of being rehabilitated and able to function in society?

[Alexia]

What a ghastly story. I came home and hugged my girls.

If he hates that his child was killed, then killing another should be the last thing he would wish to do. Of course, if he believes killing non consenting people is OK, then yes, he would seek to do it to others. Which in my view makes this man a danger to society as a whole.

Sophistry at its finest...

[Balefont]

How did this man not be put to death?

Two words. Plea bargain.

[Kalbear]

The father is wrong and misguided. Vigilante crap has no place in a truly civil society.

In a truly civil society you wouldn't have

-a person eating 5 year olds

-a person sexually molesting 5 year olds

-a person being jailed for only 28 years for doing the above

Vigilantism is the correct action when the law is not just. Justice and Law are not the same by definition.

[S John]

Vigilantism is the correct action when the law is not just. Justice and Law are not the same by definition.

Agreed. You succinctly said what I was about to launch into a long post over.

As a society, obviously vigilantism is something to be discouraged, because by its very nature its going outside the laws of the land. But laws are not the be all and end all of human existence. I believe that this man's actions were beyond the pale and I think it could be argued that the father would not necessarily be morally incorrect to destroy this person. Of course, he would be guilty of murder by the laws of our society and he would have to pay the consequences for that. But, would it be justice on some more basic human level? Yea, I think so. He violated some innate tribal shit with that one. He should've been strung up in the first place.

[jurble]

Vigilantism is always wrong.

Batman disagrees.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

How did this man not be put to death? I haven't heard of many who deserve it more.

I wouldn't wish this father's plight on my worse enemy. I can't imagine, and even thinking about trying to do so makes me feel sick to my stomach.

You're right. A place where dangerous criminals are housed for committing horrid crimes isn't supposed to be a danger to anyone at all. In reality it's supposed to be a lovely place where the worst thing that happens is Big Sid's Monthly Poetry & Crocheting Circle is postponed.

Prison justice is exactly what some people, like the sick mofo in the story, deserves.

No, no one deserves to be abused, assaulted, raped. And yes, prisons are NOT supposed to be a danger; they are supposed to be punishment, rehab, but NOT a threat to those inside them. And if you wished a lower crime rate, you wouldf want more humane prison systems...people in jail, due to the corruption and the brutality of prison, generally become better criminals, NOT better people. The torture people experience in jail does NOT make them want to be happier productive individuals; kick a dog and you get a vicious animal. It works the same in people. Overcrowd rats and you get aggressive violent animals...applies to people too.

No, he's not. Damaged and hurting, yes. Wanting to take the life of someone who tortured and killed and fucking ate your five-year-old is not wrong or misguided.

Says the person who thinks anyone who gets an abortion should be put to death. Methinks you'd grow up if only you'd done as much living as you do proselytizing.

In my view, wishing to kill another because they did something that was not liked, is indeed wrong and misguided; those who hold such views are a danger to a civil society. And, you are wrong and mistaken...I am pro life, and so do NOT wish people killed. The death penalty is barbaric and savage. Its as immoral to kill a felon as it is a fetus. Never did I say anyone who aborts should be killed, as I in NO way think that.

As I have done allot of living, my opinions are quite valid.

[Lord of Oop North]

RiL,

Are you a lobbyist for the psych hospital industry?

[Res ipsa loquitur]

In a truly civil society you wouldn't have

-a person eating 5 year olds

-a person sexually molesting 5 year olds

-a person being jailed for only 28 years for doing the above

Vigilantism is the correct action when the law is not just. Justice and Law are not the same by definition.

By whose definintion of "just"? Eric Roedder believed the law on abortion is NOT just...so he killed a killer, in his mind. Because HE believed abortion as legal is not JUST...he was then correct in his act?

What of the homophobic people who feel the laws on homosexuality are unjust and cause harm? Are THEY justified then when they kill a gay person?

The view of "the law is not just" is a rather subjective one.

And yes, anyone CAN break law, as Roedder did, but those who do have to be prepared to face the consequences of their acts and not expect societal mercy because they believed they did the correct thing.

And a society can be civil and have some individuals with severe psychiatric disorders.

[Alexia]

By whose definintion of "just"? Eric Roedder believed the law on abortion is NOT just...so he killed a killer, in his mind. Because HE believed abortion as legal is not JUST...he was then correct in his act?

What of the homophobic people who feel the laws on homosexuality are unjust and cause harm? Are THEY justified then when they kill a gay person?

Are you comparing gay people and abortion doctors to somebody who sexually assaults, murders, and eats a child? Are you serious?

[So1ar]

his life has already been ruined and he's got to be in his 70s by now right? if i was the father i'm sure i would want to kill this man as well. nelson mandela was in jail longer than this guy. if anything deserves the death penalty then this would be it. in the words of samuel jackson "yes he deserves to die and i hope he burns in hell!"

[S John]

The view of "the law is not just" is a rather subjective one.

But 'laws' are built on cultural ideas of justice and morality... which are subjective. Society has deemed that certain things are acceptable behavior and certain other things are not. You only have to look at differences from country to country to see that laws are subjective. They are just ideas that those in power agreed upon and implemented into a system allowing them to attach a penalty to failure to abide by that idea.

I agree with you about not condoning vigilantism as a general rule. Any properly functioning society wouldn't promote it, because it undermines what they have set forth. Doesn't mean its always wrong though, imo. Thats the distinction I'm trying to make. The legal system doesn't have all the answers.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Does this really need to turn into an abortion debate?

[Insert Edit]

I actually would like to give Ril credit for being consistent. I see plenty o' pro lifers who are also pro death penalty.

The part of the story that added to the overall sadness for me was the then prosecutor saying that they took the plea deal so as to spare the family pain.

That didn't work out well in hindsight.

[Kalbear]

By whose definintion of "just"? Eric Roedder believed the law on abortion is NOT just...so he killed a killer, in his mind. Because HE believed abortion as legal is not JUST...he was then correct in his act?

Sure? No? Yes? Why not? Really depends on where you live.

The point is that the law can't cover every case, and some crimes are worse than others even though the details are different. The law sees one as legal and one as not. The law has given punishment that it saw as befitting the crime. That does not mean that societially that it is just.

Justice is very much defined by societal norms. In our society, carrying out an abortion is not a hugely abnormal act for most people. You can argue that you personally view that otherwise, but that doesn't change the normative value. Therefore, killing abortion doctors for simply carrying out abortions is an unjust punishment.

Similarly, a 28-year sentence for a person who sexually assaulted, killed and then ate a 5-year old child is unjust. It is far, far below the normal punishment - the societally normal punishment expected by our norms and beliefs. Our society would (in general) view this as a death penalty crime or at least life without the possibility of parole.

What of the homophobic people who feel the laws on homosexuality are unjust and cause harm? Are THEY justified then when they kill a gay person?

No, they aren't - because (again) the laws on homosexuality represent for the most part our societal norms.

Note that the laws don't have to, and sometimes the laws (or use of the law) is not a reasonable fascimile of justice as defined by the norms of society.

Another way to say what I said above is this: vigilantism is a reasonable alternative when the practiced law does not meet societal norms. One could even argue that this is the expected behavior in those situations.

The view of "the law is not just" is a rather subjective one.

And yes, anyone CAN break law, as Roedder did, but those who do have to be prepared to face the consequences of their acts and not expect societal mercy because they believed they did the correct thing.

I never said the father shouldn't face charges for killing a guy in cold blood, though that wouldn't be all that fair. It would be legally okay though.

More to the point, of COURSE it's a subjective thing! SO IS LAW. 28 years is entirely subjective - do you think that there's a law out there that says 'if you rape, kill and eat a 5-year old you should get x if you're 16 years old and keep a journal of it'? Don't be obtuse. The law is subjective and people, all the time, get both the law and the practice of the law wrong. Furthermore, the law changes over time based on the changing of societal norms. These things are absolutely subjective. There's no objective law any more than there's an objective morality or objective truth, and believing otherwise makes you in the same camp as any other extremist wackjob.

Now, you may decide that the law is a better subjective gauge, but don't pretend that one is more objective than another. Especially practiced law.

And a society can be civil and have some individuals with severe psychiatric disorders.

A society cannot be civil if it allows members of that society to rape, kill, and eat children and then return to society after 25 years or so. A civil society will not allow those kinds of people to exist in it, especially while the parents are alive.

[Insert Edit]

But 'laws' are built on cultural ideas of justice and morality... which are subjective. Society has deemed that certain things are acceptable behavior and certain other things are not. You only have to look at differences from country to country to see that laws are subjective. They are just ideas that those in power agreed upon and implemented into a system allowing them to attach a penalty to failure to abide by that idea.

I agree with you about not condoning vigilantism as a general rule. Any properly functioning society wouldn't promote it, because it undermines what they have set forth. Doesn't mean its always wrong though, imo. Thats the distinction I'm trying to make. The legal system doesn't have all the answers.

But how do you codify that? Vigilante justice is bad except * for these exceptions.

And to be clear, I have no idea what I'd do if someone did to my daughter what this man did - but if I killed him in retaliation, I'd expect to get whatever punishment was called for.

[Insert Edit]

vigilantism is a reasonable alternative when the practiced law does not meet societal norms. One could even argue that this is the expected behavior in those situations.

You're a cop, right? I hope you never have to be in a situation where you're upholding the law amongst a bunch of people who feel they are justified in taking the law into their own hands.

Again, I might murder someone who murdered and ate my kid, but then I'd expect to be prosecuted for it.