Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 And post the video on facebook... Article Chicago man had a video of the attack on his cell phone when arrested Saturday, a video he also posted on his Facebook page, prosecutors said Monday. Malik Jones, 16, allegedly was playing a game called "pick 'em out and knock 'em out" when he punched Delfino Mora, 62, in his jaw, sending Mora to the ground, where the back of his head was cracked by concrete, a Cook County, Illinois, prosecutor told a judge during a hearing Monday. Nicholas Ayala, 17, and Anthony Malcolm, 18, used Jones' cell phone camera to record the attack, picking up the "loud crack of his head hitting the cement," prosecutor's spokeswoman Tandra Simonton said. All three teens were ordered held without bail until their next court date August 3, Simonton said. All three were being charged as adults with first-degree murder, prosecutors said. Mora, the father of 12, was collecting aluminum cans and scrap metal to sell in an alley near his north Chicago home when Jones chose him as his victim, she said. "I think I'm going to knock this guy out," Jones is heard saying on the video. All three teens left the alley laughing, leaving the bleeding Mora on the ground, Simonton said. Jones and Ayala returned a few minutes later to take $60 from his wallet, she said. A 64-year-old man was allegedly robbed by the teens of $1 a few minutes later, prosecutors said. Mora died in St. Francis Hospital the next day from cranial-cerebral injury, blunt head trauma and asthma, according to the Cook County medical examiner. Jones posted the beating video on his Facebook page, and it was seen there by someone who said Jones also attacked him on June 30, Simonton said. That man showed it to Mora's youngest son, Emmanuel, who is a friend of his, and that led police to Jones on Saturday, she said. "I want revenge, but my mom told us not to do anything," Emmanuel Mora, 20, told CNN affiliate WGN. "God would take care of him and he's going to pay twice." His older brother, Valentin Mora, told CNN Monday that Emmanuel is too traumatized by seeing the beating video to talk about it. Mora often walked the streets of his neighborhood, his son said. "He don't like to stay home," Valentin Mora said. "He wants to bring in extra money. Social Security is not enough." The family is trying to raise money to pay for the return of Mora's body to his hometown in Mexico for burial. An account for donations was created at Chase Bank in Chicago, his son said. ...So guys, what are your thoughts? And what punishment do think these blights on humanity should face?
thesapien Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Well, it's certainly one reason why I hate it when people talk about our human race as a whole, good or bad. Same race or not, we are not all the same. As to their punishment, I wish it was up to the family.
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Well' date=' it's certainly one reason why I hate it when people talk about our human race as a whole, good or bad. Same race or not, we are not all the same. As to their punishment, I wish it was up to the family. [/quote'] When did I generalize humanity? Unless you're talking about what someone said in the article. If you mean the family of 12 that lost the father, then I agree. If you meant the parents of the teens that killed the man, then I completely disagree.
thesapien Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I wasn't referring to you. Though right after posting it, I was wondering why it crossed my mind at all and then reread your title, lol. Still, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote it. I don't understand why you jumped on the wrong assumption here regarding my last sentence. You went on to argue the same as what I said and meant anyway. I'm not one who excuses behavior based on a person's past, anyway. The difference between a person who is harmed and goes on to harm others and a person who is harmed and goes on to fight against harming others is ALL the difference that matters to me. Edit: Oh, I see you edited your post before I responded and already started to see better what I said. I say "said" and not just "what I meant" because really in the context there is only one correct interpretation to what I said.
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Edit: Oh' date=' I see you edited your post before I responded and already started to see better what I said. I say "said" and not just "what I meant" because really in the context there is only one correct interpretation to what I said. [/quote'] XD My bad! I jumped to conclusions way to early. Sorry about that! I was all fired up >.<
gregathit Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 This is just one more reason I believe in the death penalty. These 3 killers don't act like humans and need to be put down hard.
nonusnomeni Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 This is just one more reason I believe in the death penalty. These 3 killers don't act like humans and need to be put down hard. 10000 times agreed... we kill rabid dogs, foxes, cats so why not this sort of animal (please dear animals forgive my for insulting you)
windpl Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Death is no a punishment for them. 1000 years in quarries, would be.
Kamen Rider Kuuga Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 As to their punishment' date=' I wish it was up to the family. [/quote'] That's the worst possible idea; if such a system were used, nobody would get justice. We'd simply have legally condoned revenge killing because nobody in the victims family can be impartial. Especially if the "criminal" in the case turned out to be innocent and was wrongly arrested and brought to trial. This is just one more reason I believe in the death penalty. These 3 killers don't act like humans and need to be put down hard. All the death penalty does is create more victims. Nobody thinks about the families of the people the state kills, about their own suffering. They just want to legally murder people because of an out dated notion of an eye for an eye, thinking it'll send a message (which it doesn't) or dehumanizing the criminal and writing them off completely, assuming they can never be rehabilitated and made a member of society again.
Guest ThatOne Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I agree with death sentences for such cases, despite the fact it's not implemented in my country.
nonusnomeni Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 @baconminion "assuming they can never be rehabilitated and made a member of society again. " do they?!? i got a neighbor who served 4 times for murder (for murder in my country you get 3-5y, same as for possessing 10g of mary) last kill was 16y kid who was put "wrong" song in jukebox, his cut kids throat with broken bottle...
ToJKa Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 As to their punishment' date=' I wish it was up to the family. [/quote'] It's "justice" system, not "revenge" system. Death is no a punishment for them. 1000 years in quarries' date=' would be. [/quote'] Yeah, and they would be good for something that way too.
idonotlikeusernames Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 All the death penalty does is create more victims. Nobody thinks about the families of the people the state kills' date=' about their own suffering. They just want to legally murder people because of an out dated notion of an eye for an eye, thinking it'll send a message (which it doesn't) or dehumanizing the criminal and writing them off completely, assuming they can never be rehabilitated and made a member of society again. [/quote'] I agree, however I do think that the (families of) the victims should have more of a say when it comes to the prosecution because as it stands now most prosecutors are first and foremost concerned about furthering their own careers or simply doing the bidding of their political masters and seeking justice for the victims usually comes in a distant third, if at all. So while I disagree with granting the victims the right to actually punish the criminals I'd be fine with granting them the right to prosecute them in court. Personally I'd go for financial recompense (since prison does not as a rule produce improved or more productive members of society and criminal records these days have the unfortunate effect of condemning most people to either a life of crime or life in prison). Let the courts set some suitably high level of financial recompense and let the offenders actually work (and hopefully turn into productive members of society) to pay it off by docking a suitable portion of their income (up to say 50% for life if need be).
Paingore Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Chiming in, I believe animals are far better than people. I believe a lot of things like I am not fully human. But acts as these teens have done should go with punishment. Death is to good for them. But sometimes life is as well.
Triratna Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Well' date=' it's certainly one reason why I hate it when people talk about our human race as a whole, good or bad. Same race or not, we are not all the same. As to their punishment, I wish it was up to the family. [/quote'] AMEN~!
gregathit Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 All the death penalty does is create more victims. Nobody thinks about the families of the people the state kills' date=' about their own suffering. They just want to legally murder people because of an out dated notion of an eye for an eye, thinking it'll send a message (which it doesn't) or dehumanizing the criminal and writing them off completely, assuming they can never be rehabilitated and made a member of society again. [/quote'] BaconMinion, dude really? Come on you are better than this. Stop buying into the tree-huger mentality. We have laws for a reason. Without laws society breaks down completely. Sure those who have no regard for the law can break it as laws are really just to keep honest people honest. However, the whole point is that eventually the criminal does get caught and they face the consequences of their actions. Don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. We have all heard this many times so it should be nothing new. As to a member of society....nope. A convicted felon can't really get a decent job the way things stand right now which is why so many turn to crime and end up back in prison. I think the return rate was around 70% last time I checked so your whole rehabilitation theory is flawed and clearly doesn't work in real life. The murder took away something that can never be returned, never be paid for, never be forgiven for. This is not something that they should ever be allowed to walk away from. Now I am talking about 1st degree murder here not an accidental death. In the case above they planned and carried out a crime heedless of the consequences. If a jury finds them guilty of 1st degree murder then I believe they should be terminated. Don't even try to make any comparison between the loss suffered by the wife and children of the victim and any relatives of the murderers. That type of nonsense just won't fly. I don't think you thought this all the way through when you posted. Going soft on crime is never going to be the answer. Criminals don't use logic or reason. They damn sure aren't going to give you a fair shake which is what they get in a courtroom. Rehabilitation for a Murder-for-fun ?? are you joking? That's the problem' date=' heaven forbid anyone should have to take responsibility for there actions, hell no lets call it a disease or phobia or syndrome and pump em full of drugs, spend billions on BS treatments that do nothing. put them in prison for life and send the bill to the tax payer. Or better yet, lets turn them all lose, slap there hands and tell them not to do it again. [/quote'] You are dead nuts right! Give them 1 year after the initial conviction for 1st degree murder for a couple of appeals and to see if new evidence can be found to clear them. If nothing turns up in the 1 year then execute them in a humane way (lethal injection is probably the most humane way I have hear of) and be rid of them. As to the other criminals, I think moving prisons to the deserts like they do in Arizona is an excellent idea. Dress them in old bdu's from the armed forces and feed them mre's. No AC and no TV. Those who have to serve a year or two out in those conditions will be highly motivated not to go back.
thesapien Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 As to their punishment' date=' I wish it was up to the family. [/quote'] It's "justice" system, not "revenge" system. You have no monopoly on such rhetoric, nor do I agree to your terms. You can't just call someone's idea of justice an injustice. Well, you could, I mean, you did, but it's not very convincing when left just as that. I will admit that I'm kind of surprised by myself for having posting that. Not sure if I agree with myself there but am now going with it, seeing where it takes me. Morality has always been one of the most confusing topics for me. As to their punishment' date=' I wish it was up to the family. [/quote'] That's the worst possible idea; if such a system were used, nobody would get justice. We'd simply have legally condoned revenge killing because nobody in the victims family can be impartial. Especially if the "criminal" in the case turned out to be innocent and was wrongly arrested and brought to trial. If the system were completely impartial, it would be unbiased, objective, thus devoid of any morality. Justice would not exist. Ethics cannot be argued purely by logic. You want a cold, calculating system dealing with people? Careful what you wish for. What makes your system more just than mine? Because no one is passionate about what they do? "Revenge" has turned into a bad word with negative connotations. So I prefer using "retribution". Retribution is essential to a just society, as I see it. About prosecuting the innocent, yeah, I'm against that, too. But this is a problem with the trial process, not the penalty. All the death penalty does is create more victims. Nobody thinks about the families of the people the state kills' date=' about their own suffering. They just want to legally murder people because of an out dated notion of an eye for an eye, thinking it'll send a message (which it doesn't) or dehumanizing the criminal and writing them off completely, assuming they can never be rehabilitated and made a member of society again. [/quote'] "Out dated"? Punishment, consequences, morality, out dated? Agree, punishing someone as merely a deterrent for others should never be the primary reason behind retribution toward an individual. Punishment should always be personal. I think you're the one "dehumanizing" this. I suspect you're viewing a criminal's character as something to be reduced to determinism, cause and effect, thinking we're all just made into who we are and shouldn't be judged and should just be remade into someone else. It's very pragmatic, but it lacks... humanity. Rehabilitation for a Murder-for-fun ?? are you joking? That's the problem' date=' heaven forbid anyone should have to take responsibility for there actions, hell no lets call it a disease or phobia or syndrome and pump em full of drugs, spend billions on BS treatments that do nothing. put them in prison for life and send the bill to the tax payer. Or better yet, lets turn them all lose, slap there hands and tell them not to do it again. [/quote'] It kind of seems like because so many people are sick in our society, there has arisen this mindset that bad people are simply good people who are suffering from disease. For instance, an alcoholic is seen as diseased and thus not responsible for themselves. The idea comes from reductionism in philosophy and science, like when a biologist reduces emotions to hormones and then stops believing in love as real, which is as wrong as a physicist reducing hormone molecules to atomic particles and then claiming molecules aren't real. We reduce one level of description, like acting freely, to another level of description, like genetic processes, as if one replaces the other and only one level is correct and right, even though no level of explanation is ever the final one; they are merely different ways of describing things. And where would we be really anyways if all of human morality were reduced to physics or math? So it's refreshing to see some posters not fooled by these misdirections. A person's character, no matter how they came to be that person, is still their character. And explaining away bad people also bothers me because it means good people should also not feel good about being good since their good character is also just determined by some current pop theory in science.
nonusnomeni Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 @gregathit "As to the other criminals, I think moving prisons to the deserts like they do in Arizona is an excellent idea. Dress them in old bdu's from the armed forces and feed them mre's. No AC and no TV. Those who have to serve a year or two out in those conditions will be highly motivated not to go back." :idea:
ToJKa Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 As to their punishment' date=' I wish it was up to the family. [/quote'] It's "justice" system, not "revenge" system. You have no monopoly on such rhetoric, nor do I agree to your terms. You can't just call someone's idea of justice an injustice. Well, you could, I mean, you did, but it's not very convincing when left just as that. The justice system in western countries has been setup so that criminals would get punishment that is approriate for their crime. And to also avoid cruel and usual punishments, even when it comes death penalty it is done as quick and painlesly as possible. If the criminals were given for the families of the victims to judge, i'd bet vast majority those punishments would be excessive and cruel. And not unusually unusual.
thesapien Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 The justice system in western countries has been setup so that criminals would get punishment that is approriate for their crime. And to also avoid cruel and usual punishments' date=' even when it comes death penalty it is done as quick and painlesly as possible. If the criminals were given for the families of the victims to judge, i'd bet vast majority those punishments would be excessive and cruel. And not unusually unusual. [/quote'] Looking back, I think the reason I mentioned the family determining the punishment actually has to do with what you just said. I doubt the judge's deemed punishment will measure up to the crime. "Cruel and unusual punishment"? For me, the main reason our harshest penalty is intended to be a quick and painless death is to spare the executioner from the hardship. Otherwise, people who do cruel things ought to expect a cruel response in kind.
gregathit Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Thesapien, I believe are quite correct on this. The quick and humane death is not for the sake of the criminal. It is for the sake of the executioner. Can anyone remain sane if they chopped up and then danced in the entrails of someone else? I think not. The other function a quick and humane death serves is that it shows that we as society are better than the murderer whose life we are ending.
TheoryoftheDead Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 I seriously think that death penalty should be taken into consideration. Evidently, crime penalty just isn't threatening enough these days - and laughing after beating an old man to death? That's simply not human - that's monstrous. There's a lot of examples of crimes such as these, and their penalty - a few years in jail. The thing is, what's to say that these people won't do the same thing once they're out again? There are plenty of examples where this has happened. And to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't lose any sleep if I knew these idiots were either going into the electric chair, or a good old decapitation. Just my opinion, and you're free to disagree, but this is where I stand in this matter. (Putting it out there because there's bound to be someone going "But death penalties are wrong!")
thesapien Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Thesapien' date=' I believe are quite correct on this. The quick and humane death is not for the sake of the criminal. It is for the sake of the executioner. Can anyone remain sane if they chopped up and then danced in the entrails of someone else? I think not. The other function a quick and humane death serves is that it shows that we as society are better than the murderer whose life we are ending. [/quote'] When you and I agree, it becomes an absolute truth, I think.
nonusnomeni Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Thesapien' date=' I believe are quite correct on this. The quick and humane death is not for the sake of the criminal. It is for the sake of the executioner. Can anyone remain sane if they chopped up and then danced in the entrails of someone else? I think not. The other function a quick and humane death serves is that it shows that we as society are better than the murderer whose life we are ending. [/quote'] why do you think then sane person have to be executioner and don't speak that to loud if my ministry of internal hear you i will never got that job
ToJKa Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 There's a lot of examples of crimes such as these' date=' and their penalty - a few years in jail. The thing is, what's to say that these people won't do the same thing once they're out again? There are plenty of examples where this has happened. [/quote'] I agree that imprisonment does nothing to "rehabilitate" these types, it is very ineffective and needs an overhaul. How? I don't know, i'm just a random poster on the internet Still, i do not approve of vigilantism. Well, until the justice system fails epicly, like it sometimes does.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.