kill 48 = life

Something about getting life in prison for killing at least 48 people for pleasure is just plain wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ess124.xml

 

What, they should only be in prison for 10 years?

 

They should be quartered

 

He's found guilty of 48 murders and the Russians didn't give him a death sentence!He should have played every lottery on the planet instead.

 

48 people!? This guy should have been shot down where a policeman found him!

 

What if police found wrong guy?


Back to the topic: I have to chooce bethween life in Russian prison or getting shot, choice is quite easy...

 

a single death is a tragedy ,63 deaths is merely a statistic ,...

 

I prefer how Eddie Izzard puts it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K9811LaivA

 

lol. this is good. his dress is great. lots of lipstick.

 

He killed 48 people and only got life? Unreal.

 

If the decision were up to me, I'd execute this guy first and ask questions later.

 

Silly question time - does Russia have the death penalty?

 

According to wiki-waki, they have death penalty but it is abolished in practice.

 

If you have a principle you have to stick with it. No death penalty means no death penalty. There can be no exceptions. Lifelong imprisonment then becomes the harshest penalty available, and this man has truly deserved to be locked away for the rest of his days.

As an aside, the Netherlands no longer have the death penalty, but when Saddam Hussein was executed our minister of foreign affairs said this was an exceptional case where the punishment was tolerable. This made me lose every shred of respect for him and for the government he represented. We have abolished this kind of punishment, and therefore it is never tolerable. He should have made a stand for what is right.

 

in my experience there are very few principles that are so firmly held that there are no exceptions. i firmly believe that there are people so evil that their continued existence is both a very real danger and a mortal insult to their victims and society. i will allow that if there was a way to confine them in such a manner as to prevent them from any human contact while ensuring that they could never escape i might then be willing to forgo executions. any guards or other prison personal should not be forced to interact with some people not should they be exposed to danger from them.

 

If he would've killed 100 do you think that he would've gotten the death penalty?

 

Well, that's a good point, but what if this guy escapes? It doesn't matter if the prison he's being held in is the equivalent of Alcatraz, it's always possible, however slim chances may be. If he gets lucky with the throw of the die, more lives would be put at risk! I say just kill him, because dead men can't escape from anything. But then again I am failing to consider all the other factors at stake here.

 

So if Adolf Hitler was captured by the Netherlands Roel, you would let him live?

 

No one seems to think prison can be worse than death, but it can... As Notmi said, in Russia I imagine that the prisons are ALOT worse than the squeaky clean "we-respect-prisoners-rights" institutions in the West...

Quick google reveals that they are full of "systemic abuses and torture"...

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/20 ... ca37a.html

If given the choice, I'd seriously consider death to be the better option...
1) Die panilessly in a chair
2) Die in prison after 30 years of torture and abuse

The way I see it, the Chessboard killer got what he deserved, and the death penalty would have been an underwhelming punishment

 

promise me he will be tortured and you have me.