Jake Evans, 17, tells 911 he shot and killed mother and sister

[Xan Krieger]

I mean seriously the facts are he knowingly and willingly killed 2 people. To give those people justice he needs to go.

What is killing him going to accomplish?

Also, why would two corpses need justice? They're dead, one would think they have bigger problems at the moment, like the swarms of carrion insects that will soon be (possibly) munching on their remains . The legal system should be used to put dangerous people away so that they cannot hurt others. It should NOT be used as a means for seeking vengeance for the dead.

Because when someone commits a crime there needs to be some kind of punishment that fits. You kill 2 people, you get killed in turn. Why would you let him live? I can't really see any kind of benefit unless you let him live till you figure out why he did it and then kill him.

 

[DeltaEdge]

I just love all of the "something is deeply wrong with him" reactions. Maybe he just thinks differently than everyone else. I'm not saying he might not just have become very warped, nor am I saying that what he did was by any means justified or okay, but I don't think the usual "something is wrong with him because he doesn't think like me, brainwash him until he can't hurt us anymore throw him into therapy!" reaction is very good either.

Are you joking? Is this some attempt at trolling?I think I may need a facepalm...does anyone have a facepalm I can borrow?

Surely if his thought process is so different from everyone else's then it is what's so deeply wrong with him. If someone does something as abhorrant as what he has done then there is no room for such a leneant approach for what a proper mindset is. Here's the rule of thumb for you; if the way a person thinks causes them to kill another because they were curious then it's safe to say that their thought process is deeply wrong.

It's not about the guy not conforming, it's beyond that. This isn't a story about some guy who's going to be locked up for wearing a dress in public or is being shunned by society for believing in some radical new idea. He has to be locked away and if the justice system is merciful they will give the go ahead for some form of therapy so that he might one day have a chance at living a normal life because as it stands he cannot be trusted to give into curiosity again.

Ok, I admit that I was feeling a bit morbid/spiteful when I made this post, but it still doesn't feel quite to me whenever people just scream "Aah! Psycho!" And assume that everyone naturally thinks the same way at a base level and say that therapy is 'curing' them when it really just brainwashing/training them so that they can live in society without killing people.
But I will admit that there is something wrong with a person if they aren't able to co-exist with others in their society. I'll go back and re-word that a bit more carefully I guess.

 

[Burst6]

Because when someone commits a crime there needs to be some kind of punishment that fits. You kill 2 people, you get killed in turn. Why would you let him live? I can't really see any kind of benefit unless you let him live till you figure out why he did it and then kill him.

Killing someone because he killed someone is only justice when you're 100% sure he's going to do it again and he can't be stopped. Otherwise it's just petty revenge.

The benefit for letting him live is hopefully getting a productive member of society out of him.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Because when someone commits a crime there needs to be some kind of punishment that fits. You kill 2 people, you get killed in turn. Why would you let him live? I can't really see any kind of benefit unless you let him live till you figure out why he did it and then kill him.

Killing someone because he killed someone is only justice when you're 100% sure he's going to do it again and he can't be stopped. Otherwise it's just petty revenge.

The benefit for letting him live is hopefully getting a productive member of society out of him.

The question is does he deserve to become a productive member of society? To me he admitted to killing two people so he's past the point of redemption.

 

[Teshi]

Was home schooled (so probably no bullies right?).

Was homeschooled for about ten months. It was in January that he and his sister (the one he shot) were pulled out of school for full-time homeschooling. While they could have been at least partially homeschooled before, since they were in the general populace it's kind of wrong to say "no bullies," even if "probably" is thrown in as a qualifier. You know, since it's built on the faulty notion that he wasn't in a proper school where such things could happen.

This does raise a lot of questios, most notably why they were both pulled from school. It makes bullying less likely but not improbable, and it may speak to a much more serious issue than already accepted into fact.

It's possible he was pulled from school for the opposite reason, that his parents were concerned that he could do something that would harm a classmate and/or get him into serious trouble. Presumably there were some warning signs before this.

 

[johnnyLupine]

Sounds like a plan, I will admit that I would be interested in hearing more about what you think about this brainwashing thing you mentioned , I can't say that I agree but can't help but wonder if there is more to your arguement than what you have written in your last post Delta.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

I don't think he'll get the death penalty being only 17 but he does live in Texas..

I really hope he doesn't. There is something very, VERY wrong in his head and killing him won't get to the bottom of it. I mean, no sympathy because he did still kill his mother and sister so I hope he's still locked away for a very long time.

That operator gets points for keeping calm the entire time.

The death penalty would be too easy on this monster, he needs to suffer in prison for a long time.

 

[Burst6]

The question is does he deserve to become a productive member of society? To me he admitted to killing two people so he's past the point of redemption.

He's still young and could be rehabilitated with professional help. He even admitted that he hated the feeling of killing people, so that's something.

Most people are not past the point of redemption. It's not about deserving it, it's about practicality. What do we have to gain from killing him that outweighs the chance at rehabilitating him.

 

[Xan Krieger]

The question is does he deserve to become a productive member of society? To me he admitted to killing two people so he's past the point of redemption.

He's still young and could be rehabilitated with professional help. He even admitted that he hated the feeling of killing people, so that's something.

Most people are not past the point of redemption. It's not about deserving it, it's about practicality. What do we have to gain from killing him that outweighs the chance at rehabilitating him.

We gain justice, that's what the police and prison system are all about.

 

[I-Protest-I]

Why are people being so damning of him when they don't know his situation?
He probably has some kind of mental disorder.

Yeah he should be absolved of all the blame if a voice in his head told him to!

 

[Burst6]

We gain justice, that's what the police and prison system are all about.

Justice is very subjective. Many people interpret it many different ways. It's a word that sounds nice but in the end has no real meaning.

Revenge though is pretty well defined, and seeing it is easy. Pure revenge is not a good thing and should be avoided.

The police and prison system are about keeping the peace. The police do their jobs and prison is there to deter anyone trying to commit crimes and to rehabilitate criminals. The many countries out there that focus on rehabilitation instead of deterrence have shown that turning prisoners into active members of society works better than punishing them as hard as possible and trying to threaten others with the same fate.

 

[DeltaEdge]

Sounds like a plan, I will admit that I would be interested in hearing more about what you think about this brainwashing thing you mentioned , I can't say that I agree but can't help but wonder if there is more to your argument than what you have written in your last post Delta.

I hate to break it to you, but there's really not much more to my argument than that. I spend a lot of time lurking the forums, not because I have nothing to say, but because it usually comes out poorly often because my opinions are half-baked and change on a whim(i.e., my last post). I will try to summarize my opinion to the best of my abilities though.
First, about the kid. I feel sorry for the kid because obviously, something about the way he was raised allowed him to become mentally distanced enough from other people that he no longer saw enough of the socially shared relative value in their lives to let them live. I don't think what he did was okay, but I think that he was obviously not raised in a way that would allow him to co-exist peacefully with other humans. For what ever the reason, his though processes have diverged from what is socially acceptable, and now he can no longer live freely because of it.
And on the matter of brainwashing, I consider it to be brain-washing instead of just therapy why someone naturally thinks a certain way, but is forced/trained to think in another way simply because it is socially acceptable. I can see this kind of thing as both positive and negative. In the positive side, now this person can live in society without being at odds with the law. I view it as negative because making them assimilate to society means changing who they are just so that they can fit in. Homosexuality came to mind as an example, in that homosexuality still isn't quite socially accepted among everyone, and you definitely face less obstacles being heterosexual rather than being homosexual, but that doesn't make it okay force them to suppress/deny their homosexuality and try their hardest to be heterosexual just to fit in in my opinion. But my own defining of brain-washing seems to conflict with my earlier statement which acknowledged that he likely became this way rather than being born this way, so the whole brain-washing thing is kind of a dead-point (a prime example of one of my many aforementioned half-baked thoughts on a whim).
tl:dr I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, yet for some strange reason, felt it necessary to share my faulty opinion with the word because I am an idiot, so please ignore me from now on in any thread involving debate.

 

[RicoGrey]

That seems a bit extreme, but something tells me you might be generalising a but.

Honey, virtually any time you talk about a large body of people, you are generalising at least "a bit."

Thing is, as Americans we overwhelmingly support these things. So it doesn't matter if individuals do or don't, the culture, the American culture does. We are quick to cry for blood.

I suspect this might be because we live in a culture that has painted ever street corner, every shadow, every bush with dangerous men ready to take our liberty if we don't have shooty-shooty death sticks. A culture that values the ability to inflict harm above all else. We are a violent, death-loving nation as a whole.

And I say this notwithstanding the fact that I'm one of those hippie pacifist librul commie homer seckuals that is threatening liberty by simply existing. So technically, I'm generalising myself.

YEAH, you are generalizing. In all things, be reasonable. If you are to condone a man to death, let the death be quick, but the condemnation be slow.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

He's still young and could be rehabilitated with professional help. He even admitted that he hated the feeling of killing people, so that's something.

Most people are not past the point of redemption. It's not about deserving it, it's about practicality. What do we have to gain from killing him that outweighs the chance at rehabilitating him.

What do we have to gain? The protection of other people, even after "rehabilitation" who is to say that he won't kill again? Would you rather kill a monster who murdered his mother and sister in cold blood just for the hell of it or let him go free to kill again? Practicality? How is it more practical to rehabilitate him, costing resources and time, when he could just be killed for very little cost? Especially considering the fact that "rehabilitation" is not guaranteed to work, killing him or locking him up for life has a 100% chance of stopping him from murdering more innocents. What do we have to gain from rehabilitating him?

 

[Magikarp]

Why are people being so damning of him when they don't know his situation?
He probably has some kind of mental disorder.

Yeah he should be absolved of all the blame if a voice in his head told him to!

Of course he shouldn't be absolved of all blame, but does that mean he shouldn't be offered a second chance?

 

[Korolev]

At least he confessed.

Some people are just born with emotional instabilities. I strongly believe some people are born dangerous, with a higher chance of committing violent acts.

He needs to be locked up. He's a danger to others. Even he freely admits that he wasn't even angry when he did it. So, that means he's a cold-blooded psychopath, and as a result, a direct danger to all other citizens. If he could just kill his family members, imagine what he could do to others?

 

[Korolev]

He's still young and could be rehabilitated with professional help. He even admitted that he hated the feeling of killing people, so that's something.

Most people are not past the point of redemption. It's not about deserving it, it's about practicality. What do we have to gain from killing him that outweighs the chance at rehabilitating him.

What do we have to gain? The protection of other people, even after "rehabilitation" who is to say that he won't kill again? Would you rather kill a monster who murdered his mother and sister in cold blood just for the hell of it or let him go free to kill again? Practicality? How is it more practical to rehabilitate him, costing resources and time, when he could just be killed for very little cost? Especially considering the fact that "rehabilitation" is not guaranteed to work, killing him or locking him up for life has a 100% chance of stopping him from murdering more innocents. What do we have to gain from rehabilitating him?

Um, execution is actually a costly process in the US. I don't think you'd save that much money if you decide to execute him. But I agree that he should be imprisoned for his life, if he does not have a curable mental disorder. He's a potential sociopath. I strongly believe that there are some people who cannot be rehabilitated, and who will kill again and again and again if set free.