Sunday, March 05, 2006

Still not sure about capital punishment?

Lilybing Killer Free And Unreformed
Rachaelle Namana.

05/03/2006
NewstalkZBPrison officers say an ex-convict's confessions about her life in jail prove it will take money to get contraband out of prisons. Rachealle Namana has now finished her six-year sentence for the brutal manslaughter of her stepsister's 23-month-old baby Lillybing in 2001. She has told a Sunday paper prison was not as hard some people make out, saying she enjoyed drugs and porn in her cell.
More:
http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11964-5482186,00.html

Now here is worthless slut that could well benefit from a long drop on a short rope!

8 comments:

Rick said...

Now here is worthless slut that could well benefit from a long drop on a short rope!

Uncontroversially, the benefit to her would be zero.

On the other hand the benefit to the rest of us would also be zero, unless you count vengeful satisfaction. But that would be a benifit to brutes (like Stephen Franks), not to civilisation.

Lindsay said...

Preventive detention. We can't know what the benefit to us would be Rick until it's too late. The SST reported; She was not confident she would stay out of prison. "Do I look like I've turned my life around?" She is well-mired in the criminal lifestyle and some innocent person will get in the way of it. Quite possibly her next child. Stephen Franks sides with victims. That doesn't make him a brute.

Rick said...

It's enough to satisfy justice that we take her out of circulation. We don't need to take her life as well.

The benefit to us qua execution is no different than if Namana were locked away indefinitely. Those who prefer the former, like Franks, derive benefit from the satisfaction of punnishing- ie from causing pain. This, 9 times out of 10 indeed, really is "siding with the [vengeful, freshly wounded]victims," but it is their lowest nature that is being sided with.

libertyscott said...

I've said on my blog that there is a case for the likes of her to lose all rights to custody of children - child molesters get orders preventing them going near anyone under 16, she deserves the same - but violence against children is less of a concern than sexual abuse.

Anonymous said...

Itsnt it wonderful how NZ society ensures animals are better protected than children.Thats the fact folks Our laws are quite clear If you harm an animal you are punished and prevented from owning another to repeat your cruelty on .Not so with children.We quite happily allow children to get beaten to death by parents and care givers and then give another chance to do it again.Why because we are a sick screwed up society We worry morer about the perpertrator than we do about the victim.
gd

Oswald Bastable said...

The benefit in executing such worthless individuals, is that the taxpayer is spared the expense of keeping them alive and secure form the public.

Like rabid dogs, some people are too dangerous to be shown mercy.

I believe vengence has it's place, provided the vengence comes after the conviction. When the foulest of deeds are commited, powerful emotions are envoked. These need to be sated. We should not be ruled by our emotions, but expressing them is what we are.

I have personally worked with many of NZ's worst criminals and can see no reason why they should be permitted to live. These subhumans have never contributed anything but misery and have been a drain on resorces best used elsewhere, for all their lives.

Whne the parasite turns predator, they forefit all rights.

Rick said...

The benefit in executing such worthless individuals, is that the taxpayer is spared the expense of keeping them alive and secure form the public.

There are almost endless systems and scenarios which achieve that end without taking a life. I'm interested in, all things equal, the utility of the slaughter in itself (unless to a brute).

Mercy is a compromise of justice to compassion. Vengeance is a compromise of justice to animal blood lust.

can see no reason why they should be permitted to live... never contributed anything but misery and have been a drain on resorces best used elsewhere, for all their lives.

In civilised society we live by right not by "permission" and those rights are not subject to how much we contribute or subtract from resources.

I think you're describing statism, perhaps communism, where the state owns your life. If that's what you think we are or what we should be then, yes, it is consistent for our state to dispense with our lives as you suggest.

Oswald Bastable said...

Personally, I believe it is crueler to lock somebody up without hope of release, than to give them a swift execution. True venbgence is to leave them to rot, in my book!

I believe that the circumstancers in which an execution may be sanctions should be clearly set out in law. I am always uneasy about the powers of the state over the individual.

The circumstances for execution should be limited to incontravertable evidence, such as DNA, 'smoking gun'crimes, with multipe witnesses, clear video image and then only for the worst type of crimes.

These criminals are NOT part of civilised society. They have, by their own free will and action, placed themselves far from the behaviour expected in a civilised society.

I wouldn't send them to the state organ banks for parking offenses ;-)