Post: #1

What do you think should happen to these 2?

Quote:A Missouri mother has been charged with child abuse and murder after police said she let her boyfriend rape her 4-month-old infant, resulting in the child’s death.

Prosecutors in St. Charles County on Monday released details about how 25-year-old Jessica Lynn Howell sent text messages to her boyfriend, Jordan Lafayette Prince, indicating that she was willing to let him have sex with her daughter even though she knew he had previously been convicted for sexual abuse of a minor.

“In those text messages, she suggested and encouraged some unspeakable things,” St. Charles Prosecuting Attorney Tim Lohmar told KTVI. “It is very, very disturbing.”

Lohmar said that Prince sexually assaulted the infant and then strangled her to death.

“Ashlynn was sexually assaulted causing multiple tears to her anus, a massive laceration to her rectum with massive hematoma in the area of the pelvis,” the probable cause document states. “The injuries to her anus and rectum of Ashlynn were sufficient to eventually cause her death even without the strangulation.”

Howell was being held on $1 million bond and was schedule to be arraigned on Tuesday. Prince remains in jail awaiting trial for first-degree murder charges.

Watch the video below from KTVI, broadcast June 18, 2013.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/18/po...ape-child/

Post: #2

When it comes to kids no bullshit. If you hurt a kid they will have scars for the rest of their lives an will suffer longer then the perpetrator will live. If somebody man or woman fucks around with a kid. Fry them up.

In this case?

Fry them both up.

Post: #3

I'm not anti-death penalty, but in terms of justice, them being sent into General Population is a much more fitting punishment.

Humane death via lethal injection, or chaotic and impending but unknowable death at the hands of not-so-friendly convicts.

WIA

Post: #4

I've heard that the "justice behind bars" meme is overrated and that the inmates don't exact that kind of retribution much anymore. Any truth to that?

Post: #5

(06-18-2013 09:42 PM)houston Wrote:  Prosecutors in St. Charles County on Monday released details about how 25-year-old Jessica Lynn Howell sent text messages to her boyfriend, Jordan Lafayette Prince, indicating that she was willing to let him have sex with her daughter even though she knew he had previously been convicted for sexual abuse of a minor.

This sentence was very strange - the author may have failed to think it through.

Let me get this straight: you should only be willing to let your boyfriend have sex with your 4-month-old infant if he hasn't been previously convicted for sexual abuse of a minor???

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #6

Few things are more despicable than hurting a defenseless child.

While I would support the DP in this case, WIA makes a good point - putting that guy into general population would be fitting. He will be spending a lot of time in the infirmary.

Post: #7

@JNF: From my understanding, the retribution is limited to guys locked up for rape/sexual assault or pedophilia. In particular, if you rape a child you had better watch your back.

Post: #8

(06-18-2013 09:50 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  I've heard that the "justice behind bars" meme is overrated and that the inmates don't exact that kind of retribution much anymore. Any truth to that?

You can request segregation or just try to kill yourself and they'll move you away from everyone. Probably depends on what unit you're sent to. You might get lucky and be housed with guys trying to get in and out asap. I don't think there's any gangs that take child molesters so you're gonna be all alone wherever you are.

Post: #9

Most prisons have special nonce wings, so it is unlikely there would be any repercussions in prison.

Post: #10

scaphism, lingchi or keehauling seem oddly appropriate

Post: #11

I think the death penalty is wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that no person is innately evil. The death penalty, very generally speaking, is a lingering remnant of that idea. As soon as you accept that you aren't killing a person for being evil, you realize you're killing a person for being broken.

Post: #12

Death Penalty won't prevent or convince psychopaths to not follow through with their intentions.

Post: #13

Most people who commit the most heinous and violent crimes have short time horizons. They're intellectually not capable of factoring in a potential death sentence ten years down the road for some act they commit.

Perhaps if the death penalty was imposed a month or less after a homicide it might work. But as it is, it's worth remembering that most murderers are dumb as rocks. If we could publicly cane them and give them a hundred lashes a week after their crime it might make more impact than a trip to the gas chamber a decade or two after their conviction.

Post: #14

...

Post: #15

The populistic message and misleading thread title colorfully illustrates why it's never a good idea to be swayed by emotional arguments and let individual cases dictate a policy.

Post: #16

Eh, the patriarchy made her do it. Maybe she had low self esteem and fell into the clutches of her manipulative asshole boyfriend.

Post: #17

(06-18-2013 10:00 PM)Marmite Wrote:  Most prisons have special nonce wings, so it is unlikely there would be any repercussions in prison.

I read something in the UK some years back about this guy finding out that one of his cell mates was a nonce and he just threw a mattress on this cat and kept jumping on the mattress until the nonce was no more.

I think the wardens sometimes let some lifers have a go at them and by and large public turns a blind eye to that.

Most people have kids or young relatives and not many want to have their tax money going towards keeping such animals alive.

Post: #18

(06-19-2013 08:03 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 10:00 PM)Marmite Wrote:  Most prisons have special nonce wings, so it is unlikely there would be any repercussions in prison.

I read something in the UK some years back about this guy finding out that one of his cell mates was a nonce and he just threw a mattress on this cat and kept jumping on the mattress until the nonce was no more.

I think the wardens sometimes let some lifers have a go at them and by and large public turns a blind eye to that.

Most people have kids or young relatives and not many want to have their tax money going towards keeping such animals alive.

I'm not saying that I would not delight in a cruel form of vengeance for a horrible crime as well, but:

a) such a vengeance is always inflicted on the male perpetrator, not the female
b) possibility of having the wrong guy. Particularly in an era where women are encouraged to report men for everything (i.e. shouting is "emotional abuse", or made up pedophilia accusations during divorce).

Given these two things (discrimination and uncertainty / injustice), I couldn't support such a thing even if I were 100% sure because I know the blood on my hands from collateral victims would be even worse.

Post: #19

Dahmer was beat to death with a pipe about 15 miles from me.

Who says WI doesn't have the death penalty?

Post: #20

(06-19-2013 01:21 AM)Vicious Wrote:  The populistic message and misleading thread title colorfully illustrates why it's never a good idea to be swayed by emotional arguments and let individual cases dictate a policy.

I didn't really expect any European members to be for the death penalty, even if a baby was raped and killed.

Post: #21

In no way would the death penalty have prevented this crime, the research I've seen has shown the death penalty to not be a deterrent. So we are left with whether the death penalty is cost effective when it comes justice compared to prison. In the western system of appeals and long term death row stays it is more expensive to execute a convict than to simply have them locked up.

Now there are countries that execute first and ask questions later, but I'm not sure that faster punishment fits justice. We already see many convictions over turned and many innocent people fall victim to failings in the system.

If we had a method of knowing the certainty of guilt, that therefore removes the need for appeals and death row stays, I'd be fine with a cost effective method of execution followed by the harvesting of the organs of the worst criminals, assuming that analysis showed this to be a net gain to society. However since this is impossible in today's system everything points to life imprisonment for these two.

Post: #22

Alot of people support bring back the death penalty and say that if 'innocent people are killed that is a price worth paying'.

With that in mind - I want to pass along an ingenious idea I came across once.

In the UK we don't have the death penalty. And the same is true in a lot of the states in America.

So - if there is ever a referendum in those places to bring back the death penalty. The following should happen.

The names of all those who vote to reinstate the death penalty should be stored on file.

And then - should it ever be shown that an innocent person was wrongfully executed by the state - a name should be drawn at random from those who voted to reinstate the death penalty.

And that random person should also be killed.

It is the only fair way to enforce the principle that if innocent people are killed 'that is a price worth paying'.

Post: #23

(06-19-2013 09:15 AM)houston Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 01:21 AM)Vicious Wrote:  The populistic message and misleading thread title colorfully illustrates why it's never a good idea to be swayed by emotional arguments and let individual cases dictate a policy.

I didn't really expect any European members to be for the death penalty, even if a baby was raped and killed.

You know what really irks my bleeding heart? I actually find it quite callous to use such a tragedy to plug ones own agenda on capital punishment.

Post: #24

(06-19-2013 01:49 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Alot of people support bring back the death penalty and say that if 'innocent people are killed that is a price worth paying'.

With that in mind - I want to pass along an ingenious idea I came across once.

In the UK we don't have the death penalty. And the same is true in a lot of the states in America.

So - if there is ever a referendum in those places to bring back the death penalty. The following should happen.

The names of all those who vote to reinstate the death penalty should be stored on file.

And then - should it ever be shown that an innocent person was wrongfully executed by the state - a name should be drawn at random from those who voted to reinstate the death penalty.

And that random person should also be killed.

It is the only fair way to enforce the principle that if innocent people are killed 'that is a price worth paying'.

32 states in the USA have the death penalty, so it is more accurate to say that a "majority of states in the USA support the death penalty."

Also, the people of a representative democracy have the right to vote on the policies that they want, so your point makes no sense since we as a society decide was is fair and what is not, and make laws accordingly.

Post: #25

WARNING-- RATIONAL POLICY TROLL:

Most importantly, don't listen to the people on the front lines of crime prevention management-- Police Chiefs in America. A big total of 1% mention thinking more death penalty would help prevent violent crime.

If you have worked in the criminal justice system for years as I have, you know criminals are dumber than shit. They can't plan their dinner, let alone consider consequences years away.

Bundy-types are a total outlier that isn't really relevant for public policy.

Here's their opinion, which of course doesn't matter compared to people's blood lust for revenge.

Their best point that if the money was spent on more cops that would actually have some preventive affect

http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?optio...Itemid=109

The death penalty was ranked last when the police chiefs were asked to name one area as “most important for reducing violent crime,” with only one percent listing it as the best way to reduce violence. The death penalty came in behind more police officers; reducing drug abuse; better economy and more jobs; longer prison sentences; and technological innovations such as improved laboratories and crime databases.

They rated expanded training and more equipment for police officers; hiring more police officers; community policing; more programs to control drug and alcohol abuse; and neighborhood watch programs as more efficient uses of taxpayers’ dollars.
Almost 6 in 10 police chiefs (57%) agreed that the death penalty does little to prevent violent crimes because perpetrators rarely consider the consequences when engaged in violence. Although the police chiefs did not oppose the death penalty in principle, less than half (47%) would support it if a sentence of life without parole with mandatory restitution to the victim’s family were available.

Another point is of course it will ALWAYS be the poor who get the death penalty. O.J. Simpson? No. Of course, the poor commit more violent crime, but I'd say it is completely impossible to apply the death penalty fairly.