PDA

View Full Version : Death penalty for child murderers



Phlegethon
Wednesday, November 5th, 2003, 11:56 AM
http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/ap/20031105/10/3313881771.jpg



A right wing protester at demonstration to promote the death penalty holds a banner reading 'Death penalty for child murderers' is seen near the district court in Aachen, western Germany, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2003 where the trial of two men started Wednesday, who are accused of having murdered siblings Tom, 11, and Sonja, 9, from Eschweiler, Germany, in March 2003. (AP Photo/Michael Sohn)

Tryggvi
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 04:06 PM
german news

Court hears of children's murder

NPD demands death penalty for child molestors

5 November 2003


AACHEN - Security was high as a German court heard details Wednesday of how a brother and sister were abducted and killed by two men in a crime which shocked the country earlier this year.

On the first day of their trial in Aachen, 33-year-old Markus Lewendel and 28-year-old Markus Wirtz appeared with their lawyers behind a reinforced glass screen specially constructed for their own protection.

The men are accused of murdering an 11-year-old boy and his nine- year-old sister - named only as Tom and Sonja - whose disappearance from near their home in March had sparked a major police search.

They are also charged with abducting the two children and of seriously sexually assaulting the girl.

A court spokesman said the glass screen had been constructed in view of the "strong emotions" raised by the case and "to prevent reactions which cannot be ruled out from members of the public".

As the trial began around 40 supporters of the right-wing extremist organization NPD demonstrated in Aachen calling for the death penalty.

They were separated by police from another demonstration involving about 170 people against the presence of the NPD.

The case has been receiving prominent media coverage in Germany where the disappearance of the children and subsequent discoveries of their bodies caused shock and outrage.

Tom and Sonja failed to return home after playing at a nearby abandoned mine in Eschweiler, 10 kilometres from Aachen, on 30 March. The next day, the boy's body was found at a road rest stop 15 kilometres away.

Two air force Tornado jets using heat-sensitive imaging joined hundreds of police in a week-long search for Sonja before her body was discovered in a wood about 100 kilometres south of Eschweiler.

Prosecutors have said both men, next-door neighbours in Eschweiler, confessed to the killings after their arrest in Switzerland on 17 April.

The court was told that Wirtz, a computer technician, and Markus Lewendel, a building cleaner, posed as plain-clothes policemen to lure the children into their car.

Both had deliberately set out to look for a young girl to sexually abuse, chief prosecutor Albert Balke said.

"The accused have placed themselves under a heavy burden of guilt," he said.

Both children were tied up with cable and their mouths taped before they were taken to Wirtz's apartment. Tom was later placed in the boot of the men's car and driven to a car park in nearby woods where a plastic bag was placed over his head and he was strangled to death by Wirtz.

He was killed because he was in the way of the accused's plans to sexually abuse his sister, Balke said.

Over the next day Sonja was sexually abused by both men in turns a number of times before the men decided to kill her.

She was taken to a wood where an attempt was made to suffocate her using a plastic bag and length of cord, but she resisted strongly. Wirtz then strangled her with his hands, Balke said.

A statement from Lewendel admitting his part in the killings was read to the court by his lawyer.

Wirtz remained silent. His lawyer, Wolfram Strauch, said in view of the unique public interest in the trial his client felt he "has no opportunity of expressing himself without being misunderstood".

Eleven days have been set aside for the trial which is expected to hear evidence from 30 witnesses and examine reports from 15 specialists. Sentencing is expected on 8 December.

DPA


Source: http://www.expatica.com/germany.asp?pad=190,205,&item_id=35508

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 04:36 PM
I'll be the first one to admit that my initial reaction to this is to want to torture and murder those men myself, to make them suffer they way the made those two children suffer, the way that those parents will suffer for the rest of their lives. I would never do it, though. That is only part of what separates me from those men.

Nordhammer
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 05:09 PM
The traumatizing of an innocent soul is probably the worst crime there is.

Protecting your children is the most primordial of instincts.

Scáthach
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 08:43 PM
''The parents of murdered schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman today arrived at the Old Bailey for the trial of their alleged killer.
Kevin and Nicola Wells and Sharon and Leslie Chapman walked into the court together on the opening day of the trial. Mr and Mrs Wells arrived hand-in-hand, and the four parents posed briefly for photographers outside the building.

The disappearance of their daughters, both aged 10, from Soham, Cambridgeshire, on August 4 last year, triggered one of the biggest manhunts ever seen in Britain.

The girls' bodies were found in an overgrown ditch in Lakenheath, Suffolk, 13 days later.

The trial of Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr, the couple arrested in connection with the disappearances, was due to formally begin at the Old Bailey today.

Mr Huntley, a former school caretaker, and Ms Carr, a former classroom assistant at the girls' primary school, have been in custody since their arrests on August 17 last year.

Mr Huntley, 29, has always denied their murder. However, at an earlier court hearing, he admitted a single charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

His former girlfriend Ms Carr, 26, denies one charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice and two charges of assisting an offender.

Initial proceedings will concern administrative processes, including the selection of a 12-strong jury to try the case.

On Wednesday, when the trial begins in earnest, Richard Latham QC, prosecuting, is expected to set out the Crown's case of how Holly and Jessica died.

Stephen Coward QC will defend Mr Huntley, with Ms Carr being represented by Michael Hubbard QC. The trial judge is Mr Justice Moses.''

-------------------------------

Ian Huntley's first statement to police

Press Association
Thursday November 6, 2003

The first statement given by Ian Huntley to police was today read out at his Old Bailey trial.
In it, Mr Huntley described the last time he had seen schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.

The statement read: "On Sunday [August] 4, I was standing out front of my house, brushing my dog. I saw two girls approach at about 6pm from the area of the college.

"One asked me about my partner, Maxine Carr. Maxine worked at St Andrew's, but had had to reapply for her job and had not been given the job.

"I did not know either of the girls. They obviously knew Maxine and obviously wanted to speak to her. They obviously knew where she lived.

"One asked how Miss Carr was. I told her she was not very happy, as she had not been given the job. They said they were very sorry, and walked off in the direction of College Road.

"I did not see them again. Both were wearing Manchester United tops with Beckham at the back."

He described the girls as aged between nine and 10 years old, one with blonde hair and one with brown, both 4ft 9in tall and of slim build.

Mr Huntley continued to tell police that, at around 11pm, he was walking his dog near the sports center. He went past three men who asked him whether he had seen two children.

"I said I had not. They did not give me any details, so I assumed I could not help," the statement said.

"I knew the police were looking for two girls, but did not associate it with the two I had seen earlier.

"This happened later when I spoke to other people. It was only when I heard the two girls were wearing Manchester United shirts that I connected the fact that I may have seen the girls earlier.

"When I had an opportunity, I told police I may have seen the two girls earlier. I did not see the two girls before or since."

· Ian Huntley denies murder, but has pleaded guilty to a single charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The trial continues.''

Moody
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 09:05 PM
I'll be the first one to admit that my initial reaction to this is to want to torture and murder those men myself, to make them suffer they way the made those two children suffer, the way that those parents will suffer for the rest of their lives. I would never do it, though. That is only part of what separates me from those men.

Would you give a prison sentence to kidnappers - or would that make you the same as them?
Would you fine those who stole money, or would that make you the same as them?

No, this is just liberal relativism.

The Criminal offends the Nation as a whole, and the Nation has invested in it the right to punish those criminals.
The two cases are NOT the same; one is the offender [the criminal] and the other is offended against [the innocent victim and by extension, the Nation of the victim].

There's no Justice in liberalism.

Sigrun Christianson
Thursday, November 6th, 2003, 09:48 PM
You're really up in arms over me, aren't you? :)

Evolved
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 11:44 AM
I'll be the first one to admit that my initial reaction to this is to want to torture and murder those men myself, to make them suffer they way the made those two children suffer, the way that those parents will suffer for the rest of their lives. I would never do it, though. That is only part of what separates me from those men.

How can the same person who thinks pre-emptive murder in "self defense" is defendable feel bad about killing someone after such a heinous crime?

It's a waste of money to house, clothe, feed, entertain and "rehabilitate" rapists in some country club mental institution for the rest of their lives. I say string them up by their genitalia and eviscerate them with meat cleavers. :axe

Sigrun Christianson
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 03:28 PM
How can the same person who thinks pre-emptive murder in "self defense" is defendable feel bad about killing someone after such a heinous crime?
Uh, where exactly did I say that Vårg was justified in killing that guy... ? Please refrain from attributing notions to me that I did not express. Also, please be a bit more careful and attentive when reading my posts so that I don't have to waste my time replying to unfounded accusations.

Milesian
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 04:33 PM
I'll be the first one to admit that my initial reaction to this is to want to torture and murder those men myself, to make them suffer they way the made those two children suffer, the way that those parents will suffer for the rest of their lives. I would never do it, though. That is only part of what separates me from those men.


Why "those men"?
Myra Hindley and Maxine Carr are just two women whom I can think of who have also committed these type of crimes. Rosemary West was guilty as well.
We need to realise that women are not some infallible creatures but are capable of being just as vile as any man.

Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear for any of these people if they were executed, and I put those who murder their victims in the womb on the same end of the scale - scum.

Sigrun Christianson
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 05:02 PM
Why "those men"?WTF are you talking about? When did I ever state that women are infallible.. ?
I don't know anything about the Hindly case so I can't comment.

Read what I replied to LG and stop wasting my time.

Milesian
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 05:23 PM
WTF are you talking about? When did I ever state that women are infallible.. ?
I don't know anything about the Hindly case so I can't comment.

Read what I replied to LG and stop wasting my time.

I'm not wasting anyone's time. If you choose to read my post, that's upto you.
If you want to know what I'm talking about then simply calm down and read your quote that I inserted into the beginning of my post. I don't know why you are on the defensive.

Sigrun Christianson
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 05:31 PM
I'm on the defensive because you & LG and a few others are attributing to me ideas that I didn't express or even imply.

I said 'those men' because they are men, right? Would you feel better if I went back and changed it to 'those humans' or 'those people'? When did I ever imply that only men are capable of evil and that women are infallible? You directed your statement at me as if I held that idea, which then irritates me because I state what I mean and there is no reason to read into me. So, yeah, defending myself against this type of nonesense is a waste of my time.

Why don't you spend a little more time reading what I wrote instead of reading into what I wrote so that we can avoid this in the future? Thanks. :)

Moody
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 05:53 PM
You're really up in arms over me, aren't you? :)

Why don't you be honest and answer the questions I put to you?

If you say that the State has no right to Execute child-killers because the State would also be committing 'murder', then do you think that;

1) The State has a right to imprison kidnappers?
2) To fine those who have stolen money?

Surely, by your 'logic', if a kidnapper is charged with UNLAWFUL imprisonment, then is it 'unlawful' for the State to imprison?

Likewise, by your 'reasoning', if a criminal is charged with taking money off of someone else, can the State take money off of the criminal?

According to your position the State cannot do these things!

So will you answer these questions, or will you keep writing meaningless one-liners?

Sigrun Christianson
Friday, November 7th, 2003, 07:33 PM
Why don't you be honest and answer the questions I put to you?
Okay. :)


If you say that the State has no right to Execute child-killers because the State would also be committing 'murder', then do you think that;

1) The State has a right to imprison kidnappers?
2) To fine those who have stolen money?

Surely, by your 'logic', if a kidnapper is charged with UNLAWFUL imprisonment, then is it 'unlawful' for the State to imprison?

Likewise, by your 'reasoning', if a criminal is charged with taking money off of someone else, can the State take money off of the criminal?

According to your position the State cannot do these things!
I'm talking about life vs. death, which translates to absolute liberty vs. zero liberty - in the abstract. We can restrict liberty [e.g confinement or incarceration] to protect the society from those who have proven unable to live within the confines of civilization and is so doing we are protecting ourselves without taking away his life. I just cannot justify killing a man when incarceration would serve the same purpose: protection. What is the rationale for murder when confinement serves the same function? The purpose must be punishment and vengeance, which is a whole different thread, imo.

The robbed and burgled can be repaid. The kidnapped and raped can be made almost whole again. The dead cannot be brought back to life.

Another problem I have with capital punishment is that it is irreversible. It is a fact that innocent men have been put to death. The man who is wrongly convicted and imprisoned can be released and partly compensated for his suffering - a token, at best, but still something. How do you give back a life that has been taken in error?

The State makes mistakes - HUGE, GIANT mistakes - ALL THE TIME. I don't trust public schools to educate my children. I don't trust the FDA to verify the health of my foods & drugs. The State has lied and deceived time and time again about many things of much less importance than a man's life, and yet I'm supposed to trust it to decide between life and death?


So will you answer these questions, or will you keep writing meaningless one-liners?
I just did answer your questions. You think that I have one reason to be against the death penalty, but I actually have several.

I've also had quite enough of your personal attacks and insults. I have tried to be civil and conciliatory, but you refuse to return the favor. We can continue to discuss this nicely if you like, but you won't be allowed to continue with your personal insults. :)

Moody
Saturday, November 8th, 2003, 06:25 PM
From that we learn that you [Sigrun] do accept that the State has the right to use the same methods as criminals do - the State CAN imprison kidnappers, CAN fine thieves.
So your objection to Execution does NOT rest on the principle that the State has no right to use the same methods as criminals.
Rather you object ONLY to Execution in particular, thereby destroying any pretence to a broader principle.

Your objection to Execution is based purely on DEATH.

You object to death as a method; this is much closer to your earlier objection that Execution "darkened your soul" - a sentimental/emotional objection.

Now to take your points in detail;

Sigrun Christianson; "I'm talking about life vs. death, which translates to absolute liberty vs. zero liberty - in the abstract".

Moody; Yes, you object to 'death' because you view it as 'zero liberty'.
But this isn't true - Death is a liberation from Life.

Sigrun; "We can restrict liberty [e.g confinement or incarceration] to protect the society from those who have proven unable to live within the confines of civilization and is so doing we are protecting ourselves without taking away his life".

Moody; Incarceration is only the restriction of PHYSICAL liberty.
Execution liberates the killer from life and liberates his victims by giving them Closure.

Sigrun; "I just cannot justify killing a man when incarceration would serve the same purpose: protection. What is the rationale for murder when confinement serves the same function? The purpose must be punishment and vengeance, which is a whole different thread".

Moody; Execution/Imprisonment/Fines etc., are all punishments which incorporate vengeance. Notice that is a RANGE of responses which correspond to the range of offences perpetrated by criminals. The most severe offences require the most severe punishment - i.e., Execution.

Sigrun; "The robbed and burgled can be repaid. The kidnapped and raped can be made almost whole again. The dead cannot be brought back to life".

Moody; Here you refer to the INNOCENT victims who did not CHOOSE any of these Fates. That's why there is a difference between the State Executing and a Criminal Murdering.
Of course, the criminal given imprisonment for 5 years say, cannot get those 5 years of his life back; and similarly one who has been fined and faces financial hardship with all its social ramifications cannot really be repaid for that loss.
And why should he be repaid? - he has to "pay his debt to the State", and is not to be given back his Time, money or, ultimately his Life.

Sigrun; "Another problem I have with capital punishment is that it is irreversible. It is a fact that innocent men have been put to death. The man who is wrongly convicted and imprisoned can be released and partly compensated for his suffering - a token, at best, but still something. How do you give back a life that has been taken in error?"

Moody; Execution is MEANT to be irrevocable/irreversible; that's why it is the most severe punishment the State has to offer.
What's wrong with 'irreversible'? NOTHING in life is truly reversible because Time moves in only one direction, forward.
As I've said, you cannot give a man back 5 years of his life spent in prison.
So all punishment is irreversible.
As to mistakes, if we stopped doing things because we may make mistakes then we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.
Liberal thinking tries to bring everything down to the lowest common denominator - 'you cannot do this or that because a lunatic may get the wrong idea etc.,', or you cannot do this or that in case a mistake is made'.
I say nonsense, - be bold, be brave.

Sigrun; "The State makes mistakes - HUGE, GIANT mistakes - ALL THE TIME. I don't trust public schools to educate my children. I don't trust the FDA to verify the health of my foods & drugs. The State has lied and deceived time and time again about many things of much less importance than a man's life, and yet I'm supposed to trust it to decide between life and death?"

Moody; So use political means to improve things; are you suggesting that its not possible to have a decent and truthful State?
Or are you just blaming 'them' for all your woes? Don't do that, - rather be positive; take responsibility.

Sigrun; "I just did answer your questions. You think that I have one reason to be against the death penalty, but I actually have several".

Moody; Good reasons are needed; to object merely on the grounds of;
1) Death, and
2) Mistakes,
As you do, is poor.
Simply because Death is the ultimate fact of life - we are all to face it; one of the draw-backs of today's Western society is the tendency to run away from Death. And also, as I've shown, mistakes always happen; they shouldn't hamper us in Living and doing what is Right.
The State has the right invested in it to Execute child-killers by its citizens. All the polls here show that the majority are in favour.
The State has the right to make War, it therefore has the right to Execute.
The State has the right to treat criminals in kind - if they steal, it Fines them, if they kidnap, it imprisons them, and if they kill, it can kill them.
The State is an organic entity - a criminal attacks the whole when he attacks even one member of the Nation. The Nation then deals with the criminal as if he made an attack on the State as a whole.
Last but not least, the State/victims demand Closure and only achieves this ultimately by Execution.

Sigrun; "I've also had quite enough of your personal attacks and insults. I have tried to be civil and conciliatory, but you refuse to return the favor. We can continue to discuss this nicely if you like, but you won't be allowed to continue with your personal insults".

Moody; I have not insulted you, although I know you may genuinely FEEL insulted. This I cannot help; please quote me where I have insulted you, and I will look at it - I am a reasonable man.
I will continue to post here and discuss things with whoever can be bothered to reply.