View Single Post
Old 07-07-2007, 12:09 AM  
notabook
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Not a Library!
Posts: 9,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
First off, I do not think minors (teens) are completely oblivious with regards to the implications of sex. Sure, they might be both foolish and selfish when it comes to sex, paying little attention to the possible dangers of it and caring little about the emotions of their partners, but I dare say that a vast majority comprehend enough of it to cope with it fairly well. Considering the fact that the average person loses his virginity at 16 without raping anyone, getting anyone or getting infected with an STD, this almost certainly has to be the case. In fact, when one looks at the average 15 year old, there appears to be very little difference with the average GFYer in attitudes toward sex.

But this isn't about sex. This is about cruelty. Pure, unadulterated, premeditated cruelty. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty. And I am convinced that these "kids" fully understand cruelty - if they did not, there would have been no reason for this act. It was, indeed, a truly masterful exhibit of cruelty, displaying the knowledge and ability to inflict the most amount of harm possible.

This, in my opinion, is far worse in terms of motivation than most murders. A kid who does not fully understand the implications of taking a life might murder out of greed, or anger. Only someone who was truly and utterly evil, however, would do this sort of harm purely for sheer enjoyment.
They are not oblivious to the implications of sex - that's a "duh". However, the law currently states that they are (hence 16/17 years of age in most states/countries for consensual sex). One of the minors in the story was 14, who by law, cannot consensually consent to sex (meaning that he/she must be oblivious to the implications of sex). If that 14 year old cannot understand the implications of sex, then they surely cannot understand the concept of murder and should never, ever be subject to the death penalty – especially when no “death” has taken place. Punishments must fit the crime… the death penalty could not be applied unless they took a life.

The story is quite heinous, and yes in many ways it seems to be far worse than most murders. It was sadistic what they did, beyond sadistic really. Each of those people who contributed to the act… apparently 10 in total… each one was a Charles Manson in the making. Who knows if this was the first act of such utter depravity they have committed? These people who did this act though.. they were fucked up from the start, their brains were hardwired wrong from birth. It is my firm belief that you cannot learn to be a “Charles Manson”. You are born that way. You don’t learn to become a sadistic monster that forces the child of a mother to have sex with his mother.

Take these people and put them in prison for the rest of their days with no chance of parole. I get what you are saying in your post completely, I really do. But don’t kill them. By killing them, you become a little bit like them in the process (even in this case if nobody died, you get my point).
__________________
notabook is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote