Sick Fuck Dies, Leaves his last abode in a box.

[Stinky The Clown]

That sick fuck being John Couey, who raped and the buried alive Jessica Lunsford. The box in which he left prison should simply have been set out with the trash.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/30/florida.couey.dead/

I will not post his picture. That would give him too much credit for being human.

[lpbk2713]

1. I hope he thought of Jessica.

With each of his last painful breaths.

I can't say that I'm sorry for his worthless ass.

[mitchum]

22. Oh, I imagine that he did...

but unfortunately not in the way that you wish

Once a sick creep
always a sick creep

[Uncle Joe]

2. Here is her picture.

:(

[katkat]

3. he should have lived a long miserable suffering life

I went back and read this, and found:

She was found clutching her favorite stuffed animal, a purple dolphin.

Christ.

[Initech]

5. Yeah no shit. Instead he gets the easy way out.

[roguevalley]

8. an awful thing all around. poor little girl. I heard he was so simple

minded he colored in coloring books. how do you end up like this?

[moriah]

104. Considering the coloring books only showed up...

... when they were trying to get him declared retarded, and disappeared entirely when the judge ruled he wasn't... heh.

I do have issues with executing even the borderline mentally retarded, but then again I think execution is kinder than life in prison -- hence why I'm against the death penalty in general.

[redqueen]

10. Christ, indeed.

:(

[madeline_con]

121. Sparky should have been taken out of retirement just for him. n/t

[flvegan]

4. Shame he died so young, having suffered so shortly in prison.

[Maru Kitteh]

141. +1

[armyowalgreens]

6. We should go stand at his grave and judge him.

:sarcasm:

Let's just let it go people.

[eissa]

7. Oh for fuck's sake

some people deserve to be judged harshly, and a person who brutally attacks a child and buries them alive is among them. Sheesh.

[armyowalgreens]

9. He's dead.

Have fun judging a dead man. Get back to me if any good ever comes out of it.


None of us even met him. Yet apparently we are all qualified to judge him as if we are god.

No doubt, the acts he committed were disturbing to the highest degree. But that does not mean that we should be dancing on his grave.

[eissa]

11. I never met Pol Pot

but spoke to enough victims to know the hell they went through. It's called empathy, and it never ceases to amaze me the length to which some DUers go to defend pedophiles and murderers, all under the guise of "oh, well we can't judge them." It's the reason I stayed away from this forum for so long, and it's a shame to see that nothing has changed.

[madinmaryland]

16. I did meet Paul Paught, though!

:D

Nice guy!

[armyowalgreens]

17. Get over yourself.

I can empathize with victims without having to resort to such barbaric hatred towards the defendant.

If you have such a problem with my views, go away.

[REP]

28. "The defender"?

You call a convicted rapist and murderer a "defender"? Of what?

I have no problem judging him, or those like him, or those who are so naive as to preach about things of which they have little learning.

[armyowalgreens]

30. Typo

Fixed.

[REP]

34. Freudian slip much?

You'll get to that next semester. Maybe.

[JuniperLea]

49. That's not a typo

A typo is when your finger accidentally hits the wrong key... or misses a key... wring key, mises key... entirely different words are not typos. They are most likely Freudian slips, as was suggested.

[armyowalgreens]

60. A typo is a typographical error...

As in an error in typing.

It is not specific to spelling.

But to suggest that I somehow consider a convicted rapist/murderer somehow a defender is not only uncalled for, it's against the rules.

[JuniperLea]

61. You typed it, not me... eom

[armyowalgreens]

63. In other news, when you throw an object into the air it falls back to earth.

Anything else you'd like to point out?

[Forkboy]

97. "If you have such a problem with my views, go away. "

And you're telling others to get over themselves? :rofl:

[armyowalgreens]

109. It had to do with the person complaining that they don't like being in GD...

because of people like me.

If they don't like being here, they should go somewhere else.

[madeline_con]

123. "If you have such a problem with my views, go away."

Who the hell are you? Your views suck. I'm staying.

[armyowalgreens]

129. This is what I was referencing...

"It's the reason I stayed away from this forum for so long"

That is from the poster I was talking to. If she is going to complain that it is because of people like me that she stayed away, then she can gladly go somewhere else. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if she stopped trying to make us out as such horrible people that we literally repulse her from this board.

[katkat]

149. repulsive

I have no opinion about you personally, but your views are repulsive. They don't belong here defending this unspeakable piece of trash; they belong in the oh, poor Roman, he is such a good director he gets a free pass at raping a 13 year old threads.

[armyowalgreens]

150. "I have no opinion about you personally, but your views are repulsive."

What am I too anyone else but the views/things that I portray/say?

You do find me repulsive. Don't lie about that if you truly believe it.

"They don't belong here defending this unspeakable piece of trash"

I'm actually not defending him. But it comes at absolutely no surprise that you believe otherwise.

[LanternWaste]

177. And along those very same lines...

And along those very same lines, many people may emotionally vent their visceral reactions without resorting to metaphorical torches and pitchforks, or actual hatred. And possibly, the hatred we witness is merely profound disgust with his actions projected at him.

Safely releasing steam in a forum in which there are no consequences for releasing that same-- whether for good or ill, may be cathartic in particular scenarios such as this.

[uppityperson]

185. Well aren't you Special. eom

[JuniperLea]

13. What the fuck?

Are you some kind of anarchist? Should we dispose of all laws since we aren't God and have no right to judge? I guess we have no right to empathize with the victims either.

Or are you on drugs that make you not give a flying fuck at all?

Pathetic, you are.

[Treo]

14. The guy was slime

But he's dead and she's dead. What purpose does this serve? Do you want to keep throwing it in the family's face? let HER rest in peace

[armyowalgreens]

20. Some people don't want to let this rest in peace. They love reopening the wound...

It makes them feel good.

[JuniperLea]

46. Some people like closure

And still others are grateful to see some semblance of justice done in this whacked out world.

And some people are clearly only on this planet in an attempt to argue and be contrary. How sad for you.

[Treo]

47. Closure

How does dancing on his grave bring you closure?

[madeline_con]

124. Some people didn't get a chance to kick him in the face because police

found him first. So dancing and pissing serve to rectify that a little.

[Treo]

179. You do what you gotta do

IMO all you're doing is damaging your own spirit by filling it W/ hate

[Mixopterus]

57. But...

Justice was already done, he was tried and convicted. Finding joy in that and hoping for a harsher punishment is not adding to the justice already served, it's just primitive moral gratification.

[Hepburn]

186. +1....n/t

[moriah]

73. Can the wound caused by losing a child ever truly be healed?

If it had started to heal at all while the person who murdered their child still breathed the same air they did -- the air their daughter never would again -- it was reopened by the "offender/defendant/defender" less than a month ago when he petitioned for a new trial.

Are people like Tim Miller, who founded Texas Equusearch -- an organization that assists law enforcement and families in searching areas when a person is missing -- in memory of his daughter, Laura Miller, who was murdered by a serial killer who has still managed to evade law enforcement even after 25 years, "re-opening a wound" by putting his daughter's picture and story on their website? He's not letting his daughter's murder be forgotten. What about John Walsh? The parents of Kristen Modafferi and Polly Klass?

Seriously... their parents do not want their children forgotten, they do not want the matter to simply "rest in peace". They want their children and what happened to them to be remembered and hopefully learned from so no other parent loses a child like they did.

[armyowalgreens]

76. Please just stop...

We are talking about this situation. Not the situations you decided to bring up for no apparent reason but to add more emotional charge to the situation.

"Can the wound caused by losing a child ever truly be healed?"


I'm not sure. But even if the answer is no, lets not pick at it so it gets even more infected. I cannot believe you are trying to justify the sick bullshit going on in here by taking advantage of those stories you presented. I simply cannot believe it.

[Blue Diadem]

95. Well, if you're not sure then why are you even in this thread?

You placed yourself in a thread about a convicted child rapist and murderer. A murderer who buried that poor innocent child alive. Have you even stopped to imagine the terror that child experienced before and during her death. Poking holes in the bag only to find that she was still unable to breathe because she was buried? Imagine it just for a second and you may understand why people are dancing on his grave.

Sick bullshit is abducting a child from her home. Sick bullshit is raping her. Sick bullshit is putting a plastic bag over her head and throwing her in a hole and piling dirt on her. Sick bullshit is his letting her suffocate and all you're concerned about is what people are saying about the dead POS that did it.

[armyowalgreens]

111. I know the story. I watched it on the news as the events unfolded...

That doesn't change my position on this.


It was a horrific act. It makes me sick to think about the suffering that took place.

But excuse me for not responding to such violent suffering by wishing more suffering on another human. I just see that as a bit hypocritical.

[moriah]

98. The "sick bullshit" of being glad he's dead?

"I am not shedding any tears," the girl's grandmother, Ruth Lunsford, said on Wednesday. "I don't feel sorry for him. I think God said, 'John Couey, it's time to go.' "

"I don't feel sorry for him that he had to suffer," she said. "He didn't have any mercy on my granddaughter when he murdered her. I'm glad we didn't have to wait years and years for his appeals and execution, and the taxpayers no longer have to pay for him. I'm glad that God took a hand in it."

The "sick bullshit" of feeling that dying of natural causes was kinder than what he deserved?

Citrus County Sheriff Jeff Dawsy, who led the investigation into the girl's death, told reporters he wished Couey could have faced the death sentence handed down by the jury.

"I know he didn't suffer the way Jessie did when he killed her," Dawsy said. "I'm sorry I won't get to look him in the eyes as he died, but I'm relieved to know he'll never hurt another child again."

The "sick bullshit" of saying that the appeals process made it where their wounds couldn't heal, but now that he's dead maybe they can?

"I never dreamed it would happen like this," Jessica's father, Mark Lunsford, told CNN. He said he never thought he would live long enough to see Couey put to death because of the lengthy appeals process.

He said he was sad when he heard the news of Couey's death. "To me, death is sad," he said. "But her death, Jessie's death, has been redeemed ... I'm relieved. I'm glad it's over with."

------

My point was that the reaction of posters on here mirrors the reaction of parents who have lost their children, instead of being incongruous. If posters on here are guilty of "sick bullshit" for feeling that way, you're also saying the same of the parents.

[armyowalgreens]

110. The sick bullshit was you taking advantage of those stories to add more emotion...

to an already emotionally charged discussion. Is that not why you did that in the first place?

We don't need any more emotion. We need calm, logical thought.

When you say that you are sad that someone couldn't live 100 years so they could suffer longer in prison, that is an emotional response. We don't need anymore of that.

[madeline_con]

126. Who the hell is "we" whom you've decided doesn't need any more emotion? n/t

[armyowalgreens]

130. "We" as in all of us. We all need calm, rational thought.

Are you saying that we don't need that?

What do you think we need? Angry, irrational thought?

[madeline_con]

195. Couey was convicted of a horrific crime against Jessica Lunsford.

After much rational thought, I've decided he deserved to be drawn and quartered. I calmly contend that it is truly a shame that this was not done, nor was Mark Lunsford allowed to ride one of the horses used in such a procedure.

[moriah]

148. Uh, read what you wrote again.

You: "I cannot believe you are trying to justify the sick bullshit going on in here."

Your wording seems pretty plain to me -- that you felt what other people said was "sick bullshit" and that I was justifying it. So, again, what "sick bullshit"?

Why did I mention four families who have lost children and went on to create organizations in their children's memories so that what happened to their children would not happen to any other child? Because someone said the case should not be discussed because it reminds the family of what happened to their child, and you said "Some people don't want to let this rest in peace. They love reopening the wound... It makes them feel good." I couldn't believe that you honestly think people were discussing what happened simply to make themselves feel good and to harm the family, but that's certainly what you seemed to be implying.

The absurdity of such a statement was compounded by the fact that some of the people who don't want to let matters like children being murdered "rest in peace" (and who you therefore accused of discussing them only to make themselves "feel good") are the very parents that you agreed with the other poster would be harmed by those discussions. The Lunsfords have followed in the footsteps of the Millers, Walshes, Klaases, and Modafferi's -- they all want what happened to their children discussed and known. They don't want it swept under the rug, forgotten, allowed to "rest in peace". So I pointed out that fact -- if you are so concerned about the family's wishes and well-being, then the fact that they want their children's stories to be discussed and learned from should carry a great deal of weight.

Also, note that I never said I wanted him to stay in jail 100 years. However, if the choice is between execution or living out the rest of their natural lives behind bars, especially in a Supermax unit as a person who received life w/o parole in Arkansas would (however short or long that natural life may be), I feel that execution is the lighter punishment, so life in prison is the one I prefer. It has the benefit of not only being harsher than a death sentence, but it can be reversed if it turns out the person was actually innocent -- you can't bring back the dead (unless you're that omniscient being we discussed downthread.)

I must say that from what I've seen you post in this thread that you appear to be taking a great deal of pride and self-satisfaction from condemning those who you consider "illogical", "emotional", "barbaric", "insane", "primitive", and "malicious". Does it feel good? Not only are you better than a murderous pedophile, you're better than people who hate murderous pedophiles! Yippee!

(edit to fix miswording on what I prefer!)

[armyowalgreens]

154. ahhhh okay...

The sick bullshit is wishing suffering on another human being.


"I couldn't believe that you honestly think people were discussing what happened simply to make themselves feel good and to harm the family, but that's certainly what you seemed to be implying. "


1. I do believe that people here are making such disgusting claims to make themselves feel good. Maybe a better way to say it is that they say these things in order to comfort themselves. It's a coping mechanism and I completely understand why they are doing it. But it's still wrong.

2. I never said that anyone here did anything in order to harm the family.


"the very parents that you agreed with the other poster would be harmed by those discussions."

I don't believe I ever did such a thing. I highly doubt that the parents will ever read this. That is not my worry.


"They don't want it swept under the rug, forgotten, allowed to "rest in peace"."


I absolutely agree. We should not be sweeping these topics under the rug. When I referenced resting in peace, I was specifically talking about the punishment of Couy. But of course, you guys jumped to radical conclusions.

I am not against discussing the reasons for and the consequences of rape/murder/molestation etc...

"I must say that from what I've seen you post in this thread that you appear to be taking a great deal of pride and self-satisfaction from condemning those who you consider "illogical", "emotional", "barbaric", "insane", "primitive", and "malicious". Does it feel good? Not only are you better than a murderous pedophile, you're better than people who hate murderous pedophiles! Yippee!"

Yes, nothing brings me more satisfaction than getting torn apart by a bunch of people who think I'm a rape/murder apologist. What an absurd thing to say.

Do you think it's easy taking a stance like mine? It's not and it does not bring me pleasure to have to constantly swim against the tide. I defend my position because I believe it is the right position to hold.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "being better than" someone else. So I cannot comment on that statement.

I think I am right and you are wrong. You are exactly like me only the roles are reversed. If that means that I think I am better than you, you are also guilting of thinking that you are better than me.

I look at people like Couey and feel hopelessly sad. I do not necessarily feel sad for him, but I feel sad looking at such a miserable thing.

I pity such miserable things because I know that we are superior to him. We are better than him. I wish that he was not defective. But that does not mean I am excusing his actions. His actions were observably horrific. I do not understand how any human being could do such things.

I question whether or not we could really classify him as a human being. He is no doubt a human. But there are certain qualifications for being a human "being" that I do not think are met by people like him.

So what is he? I'm not really sure. By placing him outside the realm of human beings, that means that he is no longer subject to the rules of human beings. Unfortunately, that also means that we cannot punish him like a human being because he is not a human being.

He is defective. A mistake. An error.

Can we repair people like him? Well as of right now the answer is no.

If in the future we become capable of fixing people like this, do they deserve to be repaired? I'm inclined to say yes.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my entire thought process is flawed.

But I do not subscribe to the idea that absolute truth exists. Therefore I am very wary of saying that someone "deserves" punishment or reward.

[moriah]

193. Please understand, then, how you may be perceived....

"Yes, nothing brings me more satisfaction than getting torn apart by a bunch of people who think I'm a rape/murder apologist. What an absurd thing to say.

Do you think it's easy taking a stance like mine? It's not and it does not bring me pleasure to have to constantly swim against the tide. I defend my position because I believe it is the right position to hold.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "being better than" someone else. So I cannot comment on that statement."

You don't get what I meant by that bit of snark? "We refuse to give into your primitive ideology." Does that not sound condescending to you? It reeks of a sense of smug superiority. By saying that, you implied that you are more evolved than others -- you are saying you are not primitive but they are. That is saying you are better than them. You can't condescend to an equal or a superior.

It certainly implies a much greater sense of superiority than the people who are expressing their outrage do by saying what they wish would happen to people who rape and murder children. Yet you have appeared to agree with others who said that the purpose of expressing that outrage was to make themselves look better than a murderous pedophile, or make them feel good about themselves. Saying that you wish people who murder children would suffer is not making a comparison between yourself and the murderer -- but saying you refuse to give into a "primitive" ideology that others are embracing definitely makes a comparison between you and them.

I can sympathize with getting shat upon for holding to a belief -- my reasoning for why I oppose the death penalty gets me hit from both sides of the argument. People who think the death penalty is an absolute evil don't understand how I can think execution is kinder than locking them in a box 23 hours a day for the rest of their natural lives. People who support the death penalty as the only way to get justice for taking a life see that box as a hotel and think I'm coddling murderers. I can't win for losing, but I have stuck by that belief.

But the reason I asked if it felt good to compare yourself to those who would wish suffering on a murderous pedophile was because you made the blanket statement that it made others feel good to wish suffering on a murderer and therefore say they were better than the murderer. At least I asked if it felt good instead of assuming it did.

I don't think you are wrong for not wishing suffering on another human being. I do think you are being short-sighted and condescending by suggesting that people who do wish that are "primitive" in comparison to yourself. Have you never wished someone who harmed you ill? Can you honestly say that you have never indulged in a revenge fantasy? To quote a fairly well-known book, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Even if I don't see the entire book as revealed word from an omniscient deity, it wouldn't be so well-regarded if it didn't have some truth in it. Feeling that people who harm others should be harmed is normal, natural, and part of our brain's wiring. (Yes, scientists have proven it -- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0827_040827_punishment.html -- we are hard-wired to want bad things to happen to people who do bad things.) It enables the "external social control" that you have probably read about in sociology. It is part of how we attempt to make people conform to the norms of society -- and without it, the scientists showed, cooperation between people breaks down very quickly.

It's the actually doing something to fulfill that natural desire that would violate social norms -- our current social norm is that we do not allow cruel and unusual punishment, even though it would allow the punishment to fit cruel and unusual crimes. As much as people say that they would want to murder a person who raped their daughter, for instance, outside of John Grisham books vigilante justice is punished, and rightly so. When a very dear friend of mine disclosed that her stepfather had been raping her since age 12, I wanted to do some very horrible things to him that were a lot worse than murder so badly that I only attended one hearing, and I personally heard from six other people who were gun owners that they wanted so badly to blow his brains out that they refused to attend any court hearings -- they didn't trust themselves not to pack heat if they went. THAT is where rationality comes into the picture.

[madeline_con]

125. If you have such a problem with moriah's views, go away. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

132. Still stuck on that?

Read post 129.

[redqueen]

182. ...

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[JuniperLea]

87. John Walsh built a fine organization on the death of his son...

And I'm quite sure he doesn't ever want any of us to forget about his son, Adam. Look at all the good that has come from this.

Some people just don't understand the need to process history in such a way as to avoid the same pitfalls the next time.

Good rant.

[moriah]

102. As did Tim Miller.

Part of the reason his organization came to my mind first instead of John Walsh's work is that I am a volunteer for an organization that attempts to help find missing persons and give names back to the unidentified dead. Tim Miller's daughter's body was found in a field outside of Houston, TX -- that day they not only located her remains, but also the remains of a woman police have still not yet been able to identify. Heidi Fye's remains were discovered in that same field two years prior to Laura's murder, and in 1991 a fourth woman's body was found there -- they haven't yet been able to identify her either.

Texas Equusearch has been extremely helpful in searching rural areas and areas where the terrain would be far too difficult to take a four-wheeler or other ATV in -- mounted searches allow them to cover ground more quickly.

[JuniperLea]

180. You just gave me chills...

This is such hard work I'm sure, but so worthwhile. Not only to the families of the victims, but to society as a whole. There are some very sick people in the world. I can't imagine anyone raping or murdering without some serious mental disconnect... and there is no guarantee it won't happen again unless they are removed from society.

Keep up the good work... wow.

[moriah]

194. Thank you for checking out the site.

It was hard at first to read about how people had disappeared without a trace, and how others have been found horribly murdered and still remain nameless -- for the first couple of months I got extremely paranoid about being alone at night. I didn't even want to sit on my back porch and smoke a cigarette, and when I did I kept looking out into the shadows. It brings home the point that "yes, it can happen to me". No one really wants to think about the evil that people are capable of doing.

But the only way that those two girls, or the tens of thousands of others just like them, will ever get their rightful names back is if the reconstructions and case profiles are seen by a person who recognizes them. Here are just a few of the other cases profiled that touched me in particular -- the second link for each is to a Youtube video profiling the case.

Flat Tops John Doe -- He was found by hunters, they don't think he was murdered -- but surely Lib is looking for him!

Carbon County Jane Doe -- It's been more than 30 years, and the person who butchered this woman and her unborn, full-term baby has still not yet been caught -- it's very likely that he knew her, but since we don't know who she is, there's very little to go on.

El Dorado Jane Doe -- Used the name "Cheryl Ann Wick" -- She was killed in El Dorado, Arkansas and her killer was caught, but who was she really?

[JuniperLea]

44. How is commenting on DU throwing it in the family's face?

Some of us follow the news, were upset about this story, and are grateful for closure.

What purpose does your comment here serve?

[armyowalgreens]

19. Straw man galore. You guys are acting absolutely insane...

Like I already said to the other poster, I can empathize with a victim without resorting to barbaric hatred of the defendant.

But I see that I've hit a nerve. It seems that there's always a nerve thats hit with people like yourself. You can't have a conversation on topics like this without acting like absolute fools.

Pathetic? No.

[Codeine]

37. He wasn't a "defendant."

He was convicted of his crimes. To style him as "the defendant" implies doubt.

[armyowalgreens]

41. There is always doubt. That's why it's beyond a "reasonable" doubt and not beyond all doubt.

But that is neither here nor there.

If you'd like I can use "offender". That was actually my original intent. But I accidentally combined defendant and offender.

[Codeine]

45. Why not "convict" or "child-murderer"?

Either term is more accurate than your own.

[mitchum]

50. Not a "defendant" since the trial was concluded...

however, "convicted murderer" is very accurate
And now "dead convicted murderer" is even more accurate

[moriah]

89. He confessed, and in his confession revealed details that the police did not know yet.

I do have to say that I think the idiotic police officers who continued to question him after he asked for an attorney need to lose their jobs, or at least go back through the academy -- he could have walked because of them denying him his right to an attorney.

I personally believe all police interviews, especially in murder cases where the death penalty is a possibility, should be videotaped... not just confessions. Both custodial and non-custodial interviews, and not just interviews with suspects but witnesses as well. It would reduce the likelihood of a false confession being induced by police, and would allow investigators to go back and study not just the words said, but also the body language used.

I also have significant issues with executing the borderline mentally retarded. Then again, I think execution is a kinder fate than what I believe is deserved in most cases where the death penalty is given. I think making them spend the rest of their lives in prison, with the knowledge that they would never walk free again and would die behind those walls, is a harsher punishment than ending their suffering prematurely. (Here in Arkansas, all death row inmates are in the Supermax unit -- a person who received life in prison without the possibility of parole is also often put there. Yeah, the 23 hours in a box kind of unit.) So I oppose the death penalty mainly for that reason.

But in this case, he told them that she was buried alive before they ever found her body, and told them that he had put her in a plastic bag. That is the kind of corroboration to a confession that indicates a confession is true rather than false, and since the police didn't know those facts at the time, there's no way they could have fed him the story and just have him repeat it back on camera. (If you want to look at a confession that I personally believe was false, check out the West Memphis Three case.)

I think it's pretty safe to call him a murderer.

[Hepburn]

187. Defendant is the correct legalese ~~ whether convicted or not. n/t

[JuniperLea]

100. So your "holier than thou" dance on people in this thread...

Is better than any of their "holier than thou" judgmental statements.

And you don't see the irony in your comments.

Wow.

And you lumped me in with grave dancers... show me one place here where I did anything of the sort.

You need a mirror.

[armyowalgreens]

108. I'm a vampire.

[Maru Kitteh]

151. No actually. You're better than this.

4000 years of human society and every current civilized society on earth despises those who murder the defenseless in malice and for self-gratification. That hate is multiplied in the abuse and murder of children.

Hate, disgust, revulsion, contempt, ostracization . . . they ALL serve a perfectly viable, I dare say even noble function in maintaining the sacred social contracts of society.

To hold in utter disgust and contempt the worst violators of society is noble, enlightened, and responsible.

[armyowalgreens]

157. I find nothing noble, enlightened or responsible in wishing harm on another human...

or any being for that matter.

[JuniperLea]

183. That is your shortcoming...

And you have the audacity to smear others who have human empathy based on the self-admitted fact that you have none, and further wish those who do would just stfu.

Amazing.

[JuniperLea]

181. So very well said... eom

[Uncle Joe]

23. Human survival requires judging, of the dead it's called history,

and of the living it's called critical thinking, and this has nothing to do with being a god.

[armyowalgreens]

26. You'd be right if that was what people were doing. But there is no "critical thinking" taking place.

This is a party to celebrate the death of another human being.

Actually, some people were sad. Sad not because he was dead. But said because he didn't live to suffer for 100 years.

I feel so proud of my liberal brethren.

[Uncle Joe]

31. I said judging of the living was critical thinking, this man is dead so now as a part of history,

the rage reflected at his memory is a natural human emotion that also serves as a survival mechanism, reinforcing the message through all manner of condemnation, that these heinous actions were and are unacceptable at any level; judicial, societal and emotional.

[Mixopterus]

38. Uhm...

Critical thinking is used in history too.

[Uncle Joe]

42. You are correct,

critical thinking is required of the living and the dead.

This man was found guilty and died in prison, if anyone can prove his innocence, I would certainly not eliminate the consideration, but until that day, the actions he committed during his life must be condemned.

[Mixopterus]

53. Yes

But condemnation is not schadenfreude or showing supposedly righteous glee over the demise of another human while simultaneously wrapping yourself in morality and hoping for MORE suffering on his part. He was tried, convicted, and was already in prison, by all accounts justice has been served. Screaming for more and savoring his potential suffering is excessive and highly unethical.

[Uncle Joe]

59. I agree in part however as I posted above,

I believe that emotional carryover to be a natural survival mechanism of the species and if survival of the species is an ethical consideration; then those emotional actions are logical and to some degree, in our current evolutionary stage warranted.

[Mixopterus]

69. I disagree

Isn't it nobler to restrain such impulses instead of giving in to them?

Additionally, those emotions are not a logical response or even warranted in most cases. Being overjoyed and hoping for MORE suffering on an individual on which justice has been rendered is not considered rational by nearly any position and would be considered unethical by almost every single ethical standard.

[Uncle Joe]

74. If the person is dead, you're emotional wishes make no difference, however

for the living it stands as a reinforcing *memory mechanism that some acts are so heinous as to make them unacceptable to all levels of society, not just judicial but civic emotional and or historical as well.

Do not be mistaken I'm not condoning torture or mob justice, but I am suggesting emotional public wrath has a logical and ethical place.

Personally I'm not overjoyed at anyone's death not even this man, having said that I can't berate the people that are incensed to the point of hating him, my hopes are that one day humanity will evolve to the point were little girls aren't kidnapped, raped and murdered and there will be no call for such counter hatred.

*Emotion cements memory, that's why so many people remember what they were doing when JFK was shot or when Elvis died, etc.

[armyowalgreens]

78. "emotional public wrath has a logical and ethical place. "

Jesus christ.

I don't even know what to say to that.

[Uncle Joe]

81. You can just call me Uncle Joe, Joe or UJ, I'm not Jesus Christ, but thanks for the complement. n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uncle Joe]

85. Life if full of amazing things and I believe you will be amazed many times over.

I am out for the evening.

Peace to you,:hi:

[armyowalgreens]

72. "then those emotional actions are logical "..NO.

They are not inherently logical simply because they come from instinct. That is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard all day.


Emotional responses can be rational and irrational.

I cannot believe that you think that "natural survival mechanisms" have anything to do with reason. ugh.

[moriah]

105. "Schadenfreude is chocolate for the soul."

"That's why ours are full of cavities." -- R. K. Milholland

[armyowalgreens]

40. I wasn't aware that we are instinctual animals living in the wild.

Your entire scenario is absurd.

We are capable of reasoning.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Yes we are capable of reasoning but we haven't reached Vulcan status yet.

We live individually, as a society and globally by our emotions, to deny that is to deny reality. The corporations don't spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on commercials appealing to our logic, emotion is the ultimate decider.

Mom, apple pie, baseball, the flag, Bush vs Gore, FAUX "News", Glen Beck, the fear of fictional government death panels while real life corporate "health" insurance ones exist should tell you how instinctual or emotional we are as a species.

[armyowalgreens]

55. And you are playing the same bullshit game that the corporations and ad agencies are playing.

Don't appeal to reason. Appeal to instinct.

At least you admitted it.

[Uncle Joe]

66. I never said not to appeal to reason, that's your emotion or instinct speaking.

I do my best to engage at all levels the optimum ideal of logic or reason and the reality of emotion, to deny either is to deny humanity.

[armyowalgreens]

71. If you believe that appealing to instinct is good...

I find it hard to believe that you believe in reason.

You justified appealing to instinct by saying that it produced some sort of societal good. Which is ludicrous.

Reason trumps instinct unless one is in a situation where they are incapable of being logical. And then we have to question whether or not that person should be making serious decisions in such a state.

[Uncle Joe]

80. I never said appealing to instinct was good but I will repost my sentence for your reading pleasure

with bolding placed on key words.

"I do my best to engage at all levels the optimum ideal of logic or reason and the reality of emotion, to deny either is to deny humanity."

In other words I said logic or reason is the optimum ideal, however emotion is reality, if you can't speak in both, you're missing out a great deal on human interaction.

[armyowalgreens]

84. "to deny either is to deny humanity"

How philosophical.

I'm not asking you to deny humanity. I'm telling you that simply because humans can be naturally illogical does not mean that being illogical is good.

We aren't perfect beings. Even our natural processes are riddled with weaknesses.

Your argument is hopelessly sophomoric.

[subcomhd]

91. pearls before swine, dude

[Forkboy]

99. "I feel so proud of my liberal brethren. "

You're so special. Where would liberals be without you? :hug:

[armyowalgreens]

112. "Brethren" implies brotherhood or equal importance in the community.

Therefore, you would be almost nearly the same without me. You wouldn't even notice a change. I play a very, very small role in the destiny of humanity. Just like you and everyone else.

[obliviously]

116. You have got a lot to learn about life kid

and death for that matter. Sometimes I think you would be a lot better off if you just read about some subjects.

[armyowalgreens]

117. I am currently in the middle of reading "A Theory of Justice" by Rawls...

Maybe it will change my mind? Who knows.

Maybe I'm being too absolute myself; which is hypocritical. It just bugs me when people are so absolute on certain emotionally charged subjects.

[obliviously]

118. Honestly I'm not trying to put

you down. But there are certain things you have to live in order to understand how and why people react to them the way they do. The death of an innocent evokes strong anger and emotions. This is how people get this out is by expressing how they feel. Don't be to critical.

[armyowalgreens]

131. So you are telling me that only victims are capable of fully understanding situations like this?

Would that not also imply a certain amount of bias? If all victims wanted to roast the convicts alive in an iron bull, would you say that they are right because only they understand the situation?


I understand that it's hard to make conclusions on topics like this because of the fact that they are particularly rare. But to suggest that I cannot understand the rage of the people in here is absurd. I understand why they are angry. What Couy did was HORRIFIC.

But no one here has experienced the holocaust. And I think we can still understand the situation and the reactions of the people.

There is a difference between anger, or even rage, and some of the rhetoric being passed around in here.

I'm sorry but wishing horrific suffering on a human being, no matter who they are, is not justifiable simply because someone is angry.

[obliviously]

178. I'm sorry! What I said went right over your head

When more water passes under the bridge you will understand.

[Mixopterus]

190. Hobbes

Would argue that both victim and perpetrator are literally incapable of rendering a proper judgment, so I tend to agree with you.

That is why third parties have always, traditionally, been the arbiters in disputes.

[Mixopterus]

189. Rawls is an excellent philosopher

Regarding the philosophy of law, with his philosophical roots laying within Immanuel Kant, IIRC.

I know that, personally, I hold Ross, Rawls, and Kant as the ideal theoretical underpinnings of a civilized society.

[ampad]

62. It is times like this

That I wished I had the capacity to believe in a heaven and hell. If there is a such thing as hell then this sick bastard is likely roasting in the hell fire. I only wished that he lived a long dreadful life in prison. How is that? I could care less about the morality of judging sick fucks such as this one. If there is such a thing as karma then something nasty and horrible from a Stephen King novel snatched his soul before he drifted off to the the blackness. Sick bastard.

[Carni]

94. To each his own!

I on the other hand will celebrate that piece of crap's demise!

GOOD RIDDANCE!

[Selatius]

67. Are you God? nt

[moriah]

77. I'm not the person you were speaking to, but no, I'm not God.

Then again, I'm not Christian either, so the whole "judge not" thing isn't part of my religious training. (Edit to add: And I agree with the person you were speaking to that yes, kidnapping a child, raping them for days, and then burying them alive is something that I feel quite comfortable in judging to be wrong.)

[armyowalgreens]

79. I am also not religious. But that does not negate the fact that you do not know all...

And therefore cannot logically cast such absolute judgement on individuals.

I mean, feel free to keep being illogical. Clearly logical is not important in discussions like these.

But it does not take a christian to use the "God" argument. If you'd like, we can say omniscient being. Would that be better?

[moriah]

103. If you noticed, which I guess you didn't, I said I felt comfortable judging what he did to be wrong.

And yes, I stand by that -- I feel perfectly comfortable in judging that kidnapping a child, keeping her hostage for several days, raping her, then burying her alive is extremely wrong.

He confessed and provided details that the police didn't know at the time, which were corroborated when they found her body the next day. Logic says that if he knew details that only the killer would know, and details that the police didn't know at the time, that unless he was omniscient or clairvoyant, that he committed those acts.

Therefore, I feel perfectly comfortable with the judgment that he did something extremely wrong.

Logical enough for you?

[Carni]

93. Nice personal mantra

I mean in your profile:

"I'm a self-loathing liberal and understand that I am the oppressor."

[Forkboy]

96. LOL

:crazy:

[mamaleah]

107. There are some crimes that cannot be forgiven.

Killing an innocent child is one of those. The monster that did this deserves no sympathy, only disgust.

[armyowalgreens]

115. If there is no such thing as infinite truth, there is not such thing as "unforgivable" crimes.

Unless you are saying that you personally could never forgive him.

[mamaleah]

120. The only person who could forgive him, he killed.

I do not believe that forgiveness can be extended by proxy.

[armyowalgreens]

133. Are you saying that we cannot forgive him now that he's dead?

[mamaleah]

134. I do not agree with that. 1) I would never forgive a child rapist/murderer

and 2)it is my belief that only the injured party can grant forgiveness. And in this case, that dear little girl cannot because this subhuman monstrosity killed her.

[armyowalgreens]

136. ...

1. That's fine. I'm not going to force you to forgive anyone.

2. One can only forgive another for harm they suffered. That means that the parents cannot forgive the murderer/rapist for the daughter. They can only forgive him for their own suffering and loss.

[Forkboy]

144. You can.

[armyowalgreens]

146. Well I'm asking what you think...

Is it theoretically possible to forgive someone after they are dead?


What is your definition of forgiveness?

[Forkboy]

152. Of course you can, so it's more than theoretically possible.

And whether you should is entirely up to you and your own belief system and your own feelings of what makes you a better person. Personally, I feel no need to forgive anyone just because they're now dead. Death doesn't wipe the slate clean of the actions one does while alive. What specialness does death impart that makes up for his actions?

I felt no sympathy for the likes of Tony Snow, for instance, whose willful lies led to the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and I feel no sympathy for the likes of this man here. Some people are just bad people, and calling them for what they are, dead or alive, isn't wrong for everyone, despite how distasteful you may personally find it.

If you feel this stance makes you a better person then that's fine. It doesn't have to, nor will it, apply to everyone however. For me, forgiving, or even finding sympathy with the likes of this man doesn't make me feel like a better person. Just the opposite. Your mileage may vary, and that's your choice.

[armyowalgreens]

163. I never asked you to forgive him. So please stop implying that I did.

I also never asked you to have sympathy for him. So, again, please stop implying that I did.


I am saying that the maliciousness is wrong. That is separate from sympathy. You can be unsympathetic without being malicious.

[Forkboy]

170. I never said you did. You asked ABOUT forgiveness though, and that's what I commented on.

You can be unsympathetic without being malicious.

One can also say malicious things out of anger and disgust and not be barbaric, insane or primitive. :shrug:

[madeline_con]

122. And piss on it.

Note the lack of sarcasm.

[proteus_lives]

127. Right on time.

Last in line to consider the victims but always first to give hugs and kisses to murderers, rapists and pedophiles.

:eyes:

[armyowalgreens]

135. You are also right on time...

"Last in line to consider the victims"

No.I didn't realize I had to announce to the world that I felt empathy for the victim and victims family before I could comment on anything else. Just because I don't preface every thing I say with it doesn't mean I don't feel it.

Next time, before I comment, I'll start an entire thread announcing my empathy and I will personally message you letting you know that I am empathetic.


Again, please stop smearing me.

[proteus_lives]

173. Again, stop smearing yourself.

And start examining your quest to find purity and goodness in murderers, rapists and pedophiles.

When you grow up you'll realize the foolishness of embracing monsters.

[armyowalgreens]

174. Your premise is weak at best. I do not embrace monsters...

Nor am I on a quest to find purity and goodness in murderers, rapists and pedophiles.


The fact that you believe that leads me to believe that you haven't been paying attention to my argument. You don't know what you're talking about.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

164. You're right

You're such a better person than us. We are such petty, small people. We can't seperate our emotions from such a story. Unlike you, oh wise one, who stands above the fray, grimly turning your nose up at us animals. May the lawgiver bless you in your far superior wisdom.

[armyowalgreens]

176. Yes. I'm glad that someone finally understands my superiority.

I am wise. You are feeble minded.

I am powerful. You are weak.

I am superior in every way.

:hide:

[closeupready]

192. You know something - your lack of empathy is disgusting.

I'm putting you on ignore, and I think I'm going to do that with all of you who pop in and tongue lash those of us who express relief or satisfaction at hearing news of the deaths of serial killers and child rapists.

[City of Mills]

12. Damn, that sucks

He should've lived to 100 in prison :/

[DefenseLawyer]

15. Gloating about being a better person than someone who has done something truly horrible

does not make one a better person.

[eissa]

18. I can say with utmost certainty

that I'm better than a sick, child-murdering mother fucker. And I would gladly dance on his grave...while eating a pizza. And dancing to "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." Oh no, I just judged someone, WWWWAAAAAAA!

[Mixopterus]

21. What is your intent?

It begs the question.

[eissa]

24. To annoy those who constantly

defend and make excuses for pedophiles and murderers. I've seen it far too often here and find it incredibly offensive. There are DUers here who were lucky to survive similar circumstances and reading how we should not judge, and maybe these poor fucks weren't breast-fed by mommy, or it's been x number of years and we should just get over it, etc. is really infuriating.

[armyowalgreens]

27. We aren't defending them. We are countering your barbarism...

You are forcing the polarization of this discussion by acting so illogically.


I'm getting really tired of you guys labeling people "apologists" or "defenders" of rape or murder simply because we refuse to give into your primitive ideology.

[REP]

33. The irony is delicious

It's tastier when it's unintentional.

[Forkboy]

101. Nice post, Spock.

[depakid]

143. They've been listening to too much hate radio

or are around a lot of people who do, because those are the very same sort of labeling tactics that are used on countless shows like that.

I'll have to say though that it's gotten a little better. Time was when posters would try to outdo each other envisioning the worst way to torture people who've committed (or even accused of) horrible crimes.

[Mixopterus]

29. And this accomplishes what?

Beyond a personal satisfaction in being right by making a judgment regarding another human being.

You are using that now deceased "sick fuck" as a means to make yourself feel better, that in of itself is unethical. Let us hope that you never find yourself in a situation where you are portrayed as a villain and people use you for similar purposes. The desire for revenge and moral gratification runs very, very deep but it is the duty of humans to fight that within themselves and others, because it will invariably seep into other aspects of our lives.

[Zebedeo]

88. "portrayed as a villain"?

That's your assessment of Couey? He has been "portrayed as a villain"? What the fuck is the matter with you? Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you??? Do you have no moral compass, no sense of decency at all? What actions does a person have to commit to be considered an actual villain?

[armyowalgreens]

113. I think the point is that "villain" is such an absolute term that no one should be classified as one

It's like calling someone "evil". It's so definitive that it could not possibly apply to any finite being.

[Zebedeo]

138. Villains exist.

Lots and lots of them. So do evil people. Pretending that evil doesn't exist will not make it go away.

[armyowalgreens]

139. Well maybe I'm not understanding your definition of evil or villain...

It would help me if you defined them for me.

Thank you.

[Zebedeo]

140. A villain is a cruelly malicious person

devoted to wickedness. Evil is the opposite of good.

[armyowalgreens]

142. What is your definition of good?

I'm asking how you define an "evil person". Is anyone who commits an evil act an evil person? Or does someone have to continuously commit evil acts?

What if someone commits good acts while also committing evil acts?

Is an evil person completely absent of good?

[Zebedeo]

145. Good is doing God's will.

Is anyone who commits an evil act an evil person? Sometimes, but not necessarily.

Or does someone have to continuously commit evil acts? Not continuously, but maybe continually.

What if someone commits good acts while also committing evil acts? That describes most people.

Is an evil person completely absent of good? No.

[armyowalgreens]

161. Do we know that God exists?

How can you make such judgements based on the will of something that you cannot even prove exists?


What do you mean by "not necessarily" or "but maybe"?

[Zebedeo]

165. Yes.

Do we know that God exists? Yes.

How can you make such judgements based on the will of something that you cannot even prove exists?

I can prove it to my satisfaction. Perhaps not to yours, if your mind is closed on the subject.

What do you mean by "not necessarily" or "but maybe"?

You asked: "Is anyone who commits an evil act an evil person?" I answered: "Sometimes, but not necessarily." A person who commits an evil act may be an evil person or she may not. It does not logically follow that because a person has committed an evil act, the person is an evil person. But neither does it follow that someone who commits an evil act is not an evil person. So, the correct answer is sometimes, but not necessarily.

You asked" "Or does someone have to continuously commit evil acts?" I answered: "Not continuously, but maybe continually." Continuously means constantly, without ceasing. I don't think any person commits evil acts continuously. They have to sleep and they have to perform ordinary day-to-day tasks, such as brushing their teeth and eating breakfast. Continually means repeatedly, over a period of time. I think that it could be persuasively argued that to qualify as an "evil person," a person would have to commit evil acts repeatedly over a period of time. However, it could also be argued that one monstrously evil act, even if not followed by other acts of evil, can qualify a person as an evil person. So that's why I said "maybe continually."

[armyowalgreens]

167. We do not know that God exists. You may have faith that God exists...

But that in no way means that you know God exists.

If faith is personal, you cannot possibly justify using God's will as a part of law or justice. We are entering into the same types of arguments being made by the right-wing christian infiltrators. They believe that God's law is man's laws. Even though there is no way to prove God's existence and therefore no way to prove that a will of God exists.


"I can prove it to my satisfaction. Perhaps not to yours, if your mind is closed on the subject."- I'm a strong agnostic. I believe that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However, my mind is never closed on any subject.


I am simply trying to figure out what your qualifications are in order to consider someone evil. You must be able to demonstrate an objective method of determining if someone is evil. Otherwise, it is purely subjective.

You may believe that someone is evil. But if "evil" nature is subjective, it is of no use to label someone evil in the context of societal justice.

[Zebedeo]

171. I know God exists

The term "know" is used here in the following sense: All of the following statements are true. 1. I believe God exists. 2. That belief is justified. 3. That belief is true.

As an agnostic, you disagree. Fine. But for you to say that I don't know God exists is just you stating your philosophical viewpoint that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. Surely you don't expect me to accept your axiomatic assertion on the subject.

Your discussion of subjectivity is interesting to me, because I have long maintained that those who deny the existence of God have no objective basis for their morality, which leads to the absurd result that no act is objectively more moral than any other act. On that view, helping an injured and helpless person is no better than murdering that person. I think any honest person would reject that absurd view.

In any event, I am concerned that this side discussion concerning religion may be turning into a thread hijack.

[armyowalgreens]

172. There is a fallacy in your argument.

1. You do believe that God exists.

2. Your belief is not supported by empirical evidence. Your belief is not justified through empiricism.

3. Therefore your belief is not "true" in the same way that 2+2=4.


You have faith that God exists. You do not know. To know is to have empirical evidence.

This is one thing that is not opinion. You do not know that God exists.


"Your discussion of subjectivity is interesting to me, because I have long maintained that those who deny the existence of God have no objective basis for their morality, which leads to the absurd result that no act is objectively more moral than any other act. On that view, helping an injured and helpless person is no better than murdering that person. I think any honest person would reject that absurd view."


Yeeeesh. This is the same exact argument used when christians attack non-believers. I am not necessarily saying that you are like those christians. But your argument is very naive.


This is my view and the view of many others. I'm going to condense it because I could take up pages explaining it...

There is no God and therefore there is no such thing as absolute truth. Life is absurd. There is no ultimate purpose to existence or life.

Therefore, life is a blank slate. In order to justify any form of morality or "law" we must presuppose a purpose to humanity or society. It is imperative that a society be largely in agreement on this purpose in order to create voluntary compliance. Without that consensus, society will be in a constant state of conflict ( I believe that much of the conflict that we see around the world is due to a lack of consensus on this subject).

Anyway, if/when society comes to a general agreement on this purpose, that society can construct ethics in order to attempt to reach that purpose(goal).

I'm going to post something that I wrote for a friend of mine...

If the purpose of forming societies is to seek shelter from suffering, we could say that each person has a right to be free from suffering. Unfortunately supposing that something is a right does not necessarily mean it is practical. I can argue that we have a right to be free from suffering and qualify it with mountains of philosophical text. But it is of little importance if the "right" is not enforceable.

I believe that there are at least two fundamental rights. The right to life and the right to be free from suffering.

We have the right to life. Therefore we have a right to those things necessary to maintain ones life (shelter, water, food, life sustaining medical treatment etc.)

We also have the right to be free from suffering. This is intentionally vague because it is a broad concept. We have the right to be free from fiscal, social and intellectual poverty. We have the right to a certain quality of existence. This means that we have a right to health care, education, and all that is necessary to live a "comfortable life". What is a "comfortable life" may be up for debate.

By living in a society, and therefore taking advantage of it's benefits, you are saying that you are willing to contribute to that society in order to sustain it. You have a duty to society to help others in need. Therefore you have a duty to help the injured or helpless person. And it is demonstrably better than murder because murder harms society.


On edit: If you'd like to continue this discussion through PM, I'd be glad to participate.

[Obamanaut]

48. Coming from a dysfunctional family with molestation in the lives of

two of us, I find no fault with your sentiments.

edited to add 'rec'

[eissa]

51. I'd hug you if I could

It's been a couple of decades for me, but the feelings are still raw. That's why I have such a viceral reaction to those who take these matters so lightly.

[Obamanaut]

54. More like several decades for me and my sister (who recently

died.) We spoke of this from time to time, how it still lingers, etc.

Thanks for the offer of cyber hugs.

[Mixopterus]

52. Then I feel

Compelled to question your intent as well.

[Obamanaut]

56. My intent was to find no fault in the sentiments (or actions) of a person

who wants to annoy apologists for pedophiles and/or murderers.

[Mixopterus]

58. Hm

Then people who do not like to see revenge seeking and people indulging in copious amounts of moral gratification are apologists for pedophiles and murderers? I am genuinely confused with your terms.

[Obamanaut]

64. I do not like pedophiles, child molesters, etc. I do not agree with

apologists for pedophiles, child molesters, etc.

I DO agree with people who like to annoy the apologists for pedophiles, child molesters, etc.

[armyowalgreens]

68. Actually, I agree with you.

I would probably get enjoyment out of annoying rape/pedophilia/child molestation/murder apologists.


Let me know when you see one and I will gladly take part in the mockery.

[Mixopterus]

70. Indeed

I haven't seen very many apologists, especially in this thread.

I do see people delighting in the punishment of another on which justice has already been served and desiring more severe punishment, however. Maybe I should label them revenge apologists?

[DefenseLawyer]

39. Knock yourself out.

If pointing out that you compare favorably to a child murderer helps you validate yourself as a "good person", then by all means, dance away. It's quite an accomplishment.

[Thickasabrick]

90. +1 nt

[BreweryYardRat]

25. Goodbye, good riddance, and may he suffer in Hell for an eternity.

Subhuman vermin.

[Zebedeo]

86. +1

n/t

[Blue Diadem]

32. Little Jessica would be about 13 now.

The only thing I can say about Couey being dead is that there is now one less pedophile and murderer in this world.

[ThatsMyBarack]

35. I'm glad I've never heard of that sick fuck before.

Burn in HELL, sick fuck!

[Orsino]

36. There's less vengeance fetishism in that story than I would have expected to find.

It's nice to see the victim's father acknowledge, now, that even the killer's death is sad. It seems a nice evolution from his (understandably) vindictive words to Couey following the sentencing, and a fitter (IMO) tribute to the memory of a beloved daughter.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

75. Too bad it was from natural causes.

Should have suffered the same fate as his victim.

[Beer on a stick]

83. Hey, I'm downtown. Anyone know where I can take a dump?

[Carni]

92. What's disgusting is that piece of shit had health insurance

I mean by the way of being in jail.

How ironic that law abiding non-vile common citizens can't get a public option, but that total waste of humanity was cared for until his demise.

[mamaleah]

106. I hope his last hours were pain filled.

He took the life of a beautiful young girl.

There are some crimes that can never be forgiven.

[armyowalgreens]

114. I have a question. And this is an honest question that I really want an honest answer for...

Why do you wish that his last hours were pain filled?

[mamaleah]

119. That's easy.

I do not believe that those who commit heinous crimes deserve sympathy at all.

Someone who takes the life of an innocent child (especially after raping her and burying her alive) does not deserve peace in his or her last hours. You may not agree, and frankly that's fine.

[armyowalgreens]

137. Okay, I could understand how you would believe that he does not deserve sympathy...

But that doesn't answer my question.


To wish suffering is not simply the result of a lack of sympathy. It is malicious.

[Forkboy]

147. Being a good human doesn't require sympathy for bad people.

You certainly can have it if you so choose, but it's not required. All it does is make one feel good about themselves, nothing more. If that's important to you to the extent that wish to extend sympathy to such a person, by all means, live it up. But you should stop looking down your nose at the ones who don't. Deal with it your way, and others will deal with their way.

[armyowalgreens]

156. It's not that I care about the lack of sympathy...

It's the maliciousness that bothers me.

One can be unsympathetic without being malicious.

[mamaleah]

153. Yes I have nothing but ill will towards child rapists and murderers.

And I am perfectly comfortable with it.

You can go send flowers to his family if you want and cry over how mean we all are.

[armyowalgreens]

155. That's what I was looking for.

I take little issue with someone who does not have sympathy for Couey.


But I have a problem with someone who wishes horrific things on another human.

[mamaleah]

158. Well, enjoy life in your ivory tower. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

159. I will.

But it's sad that you consider me pompous for holding such a position.

[Forkboy]

160. It's not you holding that position, it's your looking down on those that don't.

And you've done it throughout this thread. Go back and look at your choice of words that you've used to describe those who don't agree with you.

[armyowalgreens]

162. If you think my language has been bad, go check out everyone who's been attacking me.

I'll admit that I did got a little angry at some of the responses. And I'm sure that anger was reflected in my posts.

But I'm not really sure what you mean by "looking down" on others. What does that mean?

[Forkboy]

Looking down on others simply means placing yourself above them.

Thinking you're better than they are because of the stand you take, and thinking people who don't agree with you are "barbaric", "insane", "primitive", etc, when none of those people are anything of the sort. We're all guilty of it sometimes, and usually for the same reason, to make us feel good about ourselves. We can dress it up in the guise of wanting to be better people or wanting others to be better people, and sometimes that's even the case. But more often than not it's just a way to stroke our egos, and in those cases we're just kidding ourselves about the reasons. I feel that in your case here it's probably a mix, as I do think you mean well, but what people are feeling is very understandable, and as another poster pointed out above, society's revulsion, and indeed hatred, of such acts serves a vital purpose within our society.

When I was your age I almost murdered a man who had raped a friend's little sister. I was literally starting to torture him, breaking his fingers one by one (and knuckle by knuckle) while he was unconscious. I'd much rather see people vent and say malicious things then act on that anger and actually DO malicious things like I did, and that's all 99.99% of what you're reading is...venting in anger and disgust. Not only does the shared anger and revulsion remind society that this stuff is beyond the pale and can't ever be even remotely tolerated, it's just flat out cathartic. Holding the anger and disgust in on too many things starts to eat you alive. That's more dangerous to an individual, and potentially to society, than anything you're reading here in this thread.

[armyowalgreens]

175. I never said that anyone in here was barbaric, insane or primitive...

I said that their beliefs and thought processes on this subject were barbaric and primitive. I said that people were acting insanely.

That does not mean that I think any of you are barbaric, insane or primitive.


"what people are feeling is very understandable, and as another poster pointed out above, society's revulsion, and indeed hatred, of such acts serves a vital purpose within our society."

I understand why people are acting like this. But I believe that it is wrong. The other poster suggested that instincts like hate and maliciousness benefit society. And I said that reason trumps instinct. We should not be promoting a world that says that it's okay to give into your instincts. My instinct may be to kill a man that I caught raping another woman. That doesn't mean that my instinct is right. Instinct is often nothing more than emotional response.


" I'd much rather see people vent and say malicious things than act on that anger and actually DO malicious things like I did"

I'd much prefer that people learn that these feelings are bad. Why should we live in delusion? I'm not going to sit here and say that these malicious statements are good. By fostering an environment that makes these feelings okay, you are likely conditioning people to think that following through on these feelings is also okay.

If we say that it's okay to wish suffering on another being, you are saying that it is okay to inflict suffering on another being.


It's not okay nor should it be okay.

[Forkboy]

169. Looking down on others simply means placing yourself above them.

Thinking you're better than they are because of the stand you take, and thinking people who don't agree with you are "barbaric", "insane", "primitive", etc, when none of those people are anything of the sort. We're all guilty of it sometimes, and usually for the same reason, to make us feel good about ourselves. We can dress it up in the guise of wanting to be better people or wanting others to be better people, and sometimes that's even the case. But more often than not it's just a way to stroke our egos, and in those cases we're just kidding ourselves about the reasons. I feel that in your case here it's probably a mix, as I do think you mean well, but what people are feeling is very understandable, and as another poster pointed out above, society's revulsion, and indeed hatred, of such acts serves a vital purpose within our society.

When I was your age I almost murdered a man who had raped a friend's little sister. I was literally starting to torture him, breaking his fingers one by one (and knuckle by knuckle) while he was unconscious. I'd much rather see people vent and say malicious things then act on that anger and actually DO malicious things like I did, and that's all 99.99% of what you're reading is...venting in anger and disgust. Not only does the shared anger and revulsion remind society that this stuff is beyond the pale and can't ever be even remotely tolerated, it's just flat out cathartic. Holding the anger and disgust in on too many things starts to eat you alive. That's more dangerous to an individual, and potentially to society, than anything you're reading here in this thread.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

166. He better hope it has a good alarm system for him and anyone he cares about

Lest his pristine world ever be touched by another human being deciding to inflict pain and suffering on someone he loves. Such a thing can spoil one's attempt to be so detached from the weakness of human emotion.

[armyowalgreens]

168. You don't know what I have experienced.

If by "pristine world" you mean a world where no human has ever inflicted pain or suffering on someone I love, I most certainly do not live in a pristine world.

I'm not sure what you mean by "detached". But I am certainly no stranger to the weakness of human emotion.

[proteus_lives]

128. If there's a hell, he's there.

Piss on the corpse, toss it face down in an unmarked grave and forget he ever existed.

[Hannah Bell]

184. george bush is dead? oh, i see, a guy who killed *one* person is dead.

[Hepburn]

188. I am so glad her family does not have to face any of the appeals...

...small comfort with what happened ~~ but if he were granted a new trial, they would have to relive the horror of her death all over again. The world is a better place for him being gone.

RIP Jessica....:cry:

[closeupready]

191. I hope her family can now try to reach some kind of resolution with her being gone.

Such an incredibly sad story. I'm glad this monster is dead.