Vigilante justice has a historical track record of spiraling out of control.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Against_Gangsterism_and_Drugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davao_death_squads

etc.

 

The problem is, as this topic epitomizes, people have different views of how criminals should be punished. For example, Roccodog thinks 11 years is plenty punishment for rape, whereas someone else may think death is the only fitting punishment. If you let the judicial system handle it these opinions will usually be worked out because it passes through several people. In addition, in the United States and I'm sure in other countries there are sentencing guidelines devised by dozens if not hundreds of bureaucrats.

 

Cliffs: let the judicial system do its thing.

 

That said, that's a bad ass thing to do. Wrong, but bad ass nonetheless.

Well, this guy is definitely a spambot, but it looks like the topic has taken off so I'm leaving it public. I did remove the link though, especially seeing as it had nothing to do with the actual article.

True, but this did happen near the end of June 2005. While I'm not saying that this shouldn't be discussed, I'm only saying it is an old story,

I kind of agree with nick here; punishment of some sort must follow crime for society to function which by definition follows the (bad) principle of an eye for the eye. The only thing I see differently is that legally, society as a collective takes the eye rather than an individual, which makes it a necessary evil.

Some argue society's role is to rehabilitate. I'm not sure of that myself, though I don't see what punishment really achieves.

@ Nick - Well, if we just let the people who commit crimes walk around unpunished, people would get the idea that they can commit crimes, and more crimes would be committed. Right? So we have to have some people keep these people in one spot so they can't hurt more people. A person who commits a crime forgoes their right to (can't think of a word for it) "not be in prison". After an allotted time determined in the trial, the person regains that right.

 

What this woman did was wrong because she hurt someone who had paid their debt to society (as I understand the story). As someone who spent eleven years behind bars for his crimes, this was a person who was well within reason to expect to be able to make witty (albeit hurtful) remarks* and sit in a bar without being set on fire.

 

*I believe that this is protected free speech, though I could be wrong. In the case that I am wrong, a much more fair reasoning would be to send him back to prison for whatever amount of time.

If society's role is to rehabilitate, then that remark shows he either didn't learn anything, or is completely hopeless.

Some argue society's role is to rehabilitate. I'm not sure of that myself, though I don't see what punishment really achieves.

Threat of punishment acts as a deterrent to the majority of the people in a society. Unfortunately, there will always be those who are willing to risk something because they either don't care or think the punishment is so light that they're not worried about it.

 

How many of you have downloaded music/movies/games illegally? Come on, you know you have. :wink: The point is that the punishment for that particular crime, while not necessarily light, is so rarely enforced that the punishment no longer acts as a deterrent. Punishment keeps the majority of us in line so that the police can deal with everyone else.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly would have lived my life up to this point very differently if I wasn't concerned about the consequences of my actions.

Some argue society's role is to rehabilitate. I'm not sure of that myself, though I don't see what punishment really achieves.

Threat of punishment acts as a deterrent to the majority of the people in a society. Unfortunately, there will always be those who are willing to risk something because they either don't care or think the punishment is so light that they're not worried about it.

 

How many of you have downloaded music/movies/games illegally? Come on, you know you have. :wink: The point is that the punishment for that particular crime, while not necessarily light, is so rarely enforced that the punishment no longer acts as a deterrent. Punishment keeps the majority of us in line so that the police can deal with everyone else.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly would have lived my life up to this point very differently if I wasn't concerned about the consequences of my actions.

Yeah, except rehabilitation, in any case, is considered a punishment. We're talking about being removed from the rest of society so you can work on not raping people here.

My simple response to both parties: I hate people.

Shouldn't have burned him. Someone needs to step up to be the bigger person in the equation. I may have fought the guy if it ever happened to me, but burn? I doubt it big time.

Someone needs to step up to be the bigger person in the equation.

There's no valid excuse, but there sure as hell is a valid explanation. There are things mere men can't do.

he had it coming

That's kinda hardcore. Didn't quite deserve to be burned like that though, it's a bit over-the-top. A kick in the groin for that or two, fine, but killing is a bit... much.

We have one less gloating child-rapist amongst us. +1

 

As for the the mother, she is of no harm to anyone, UNLESS YOU'RE A [bleep]ING CHILD RAPIST WHO BRAGS ABOUT IT.

 

*I believe that this is protected free speech, though I could be wrong. In the case that I am wrong, a much more fair reasoning would be to send him back to prison for whatever amount of time.

 

There's freedom of speech and then there is harassing and dehumanizing someone who you've already messed with psychologically by committing a heinous crime against them. Rape victims already have a large tendency to be suicidal. If freedom of speech doesn't cover certain areas, it should be things like yelling "fire" in crowded buildings and taunting someone you raped.

The OP is missing some info about what happened to the lady. If anyone is curious...

 

The woman fled to Alicante, where she was arrested the same evening. When she appeared in court the next day in the town of Orihuela, she was cheered and clapped by a crowd, who shouted "Bravo!" and "Well done!"

 

A judge ordered her to be held in prison and undergo psychiatric tests, provoking anger from friends and neighbours, who have set up a petition calling for her release.

 

Soriano suffered 60 per cent burns in the attack on June 13 and was airlifted to a specialist unit. He survived for 11 days before succumbing to his injuries.

 

It is understood that the woman, who cannot be named because of laws safeguarding the identity of rape victims, claims to have no recollection of the attack which took place in the Bar Mary, just 300 yards from the family home.

 

As decorators painted over the blackened walls of his bar last week, Antonio Ferrendez Lopez told how Soriano had walked in at lunchtime.

 

"The place was packed with people eating. I was sitting at a table and Soriano was standing at the bar very close to me when the woman walked in," he said. "She didn't acknowledge anyone but walked up to Soriano, who was drinking a coffee, put her hand on his shoulder and turned him round to face her.

 

"Then she pulled the bottle she was carrying from under her arm and began to tip it over him. At first I didn't realise what was happening, but then I smelt the petrol. I jumped up and tried to grab her, but when she struck a match I got clear.

 

"The petrol was in a pool around Soriano, and she threw the match into it. It ignited with a whoosh, and he screamed and staggered about covered in flames. As people rushed outside to escape the flames, she just looked at him, then turned and walked away."

 

Customers helped Mr Lopez put out the fire with extinguishers and doused Soriano with water until paramedics arrived.

 

Soriano's attack on the woman's teenage daughter took place in 1998. The girl was going to buy a loaf of bread when Soriano snatched her from the street, threatened her with a knife and raped her. Her mother is said to have suffered mental illness ever since.

 

Soriano was convicted of the rape and ordered to serve 13 years in jail. The sentence was later reduced to nine years on appeal.

 

The woman's lawyer, Joaquín Galant, told The Sunday Telegraph last night: "The family has suffered a double tragedy. First the attack on their daughter and now this. Both the father and his daughter would like to express their sadness at the death of Soriano."

 

Earlier, Mr Galant said that the woman did not deserve to be kept in prison. "For seven years she has been deeply affected by what was done to her daughter," he said. "This man, fresh from prison and asking how her daughter was, might be considered to have provoked her."

Source

If this happened in America and I was governor or president, I would pardon her even if it cost me my political career.

Glad to know that after I'm arrested for making a mistake and spend half my life in jail making up for it that you'll allow anyone to murder me because they feel like it.

'A mistake' is a strange euphemism for rape, but it's a damn good post otherwise. You lock them up at considerable expense to the tax payer, only to have them killed afterwards?

Well I agree, but my point was that the time is served, they've paid their debt to society. Certainly a rape is a mistake, albeit a very serious one; I find it hard to believe that everyone who ever rapes anyone sadistically planned it and tortured, and all of that, etc, etc.

 

We all make mistakes; criminals just make more serious ones.

No no, I agree. I hate the way society sometimes has this bloodthirst for people who have served their considerable amount of time in prison.

 

What I don't understand is how people can treat rapists as though they're inherently insane and should be burnt like a witch in feudal England, but pouring petrol over someone, setting them on fire and then watching their flesh burn without even a second thought about calling an ambulance is apparently sane behaviour.

 

As I said in my OP, all I see is insanity vs insanity.

No no, I agree. I hate the way society sometimes has this bloodthirst for people who have served their considerable amount of time in prison.

 

What I don't understand is how people can treat rapists as though they're inherently insane and should be burnt like a witch in feudal England, but pouring petrol over someone, setting them on fire and then watching their flesh burn without even a second thought about calling an ambulance is apparently sane behaviour.

 

As I said in my OP, all I see is insanity vs insanity.

Agreed completely, then.

Well I agree, but my point was that the time is served, they've paid their debt to society.

Well he was still actually serving his time, he was out on a 3 day pass.

Antonio Cosme Velasco Soriano, 69, had been sent to jail for nine years in 1998, but was let out on a three-day pass and returned to his home town of Benejúzar, 30 miles south of Alicante, on the Costa Blanc.

There has been a few people to make that mistake I think. He was still being punished for his crime when someone else came along and punished him again.

Pointless semantic, basically.

We have one less gloating child-rapist amongst us. +1

 

As for the the mother, she is of no harm to anyone, UNLESS YOU'RE A [bleep]ING CHILD RAPIST WHO BRAGS ABOUT IT.

 

*I believe that this is protected free speech, though I could be wrong. In the case that I am wrong, a much more fair reasoning would be to send him back to prison for whatever amount of time.

 

There's freedom of speech and then there is harassing and dehumanizing someone who you've already messed with psychologically by committing a heinous crime against them. Rape victims already have a large tendency to be suicidal. If freedom of speech doesn't cover certain areas, it should be things like yelling "fire" in crowded buildings and taunting someone you raped.

Well, she's quite clearly a danger to society, she nearly burnt down the whole bar, she could've killed 50 people.

 

Yes, true in that sense. I guess a knife to the throat would've been more efficient.

 

As for the freedom of speech part, I only said that I wasn't sure because what he said wasn't explicit in any way, and it could be argued based on who else heard it that he just wanted to know how her daughter was.

 

This part confused me as well. Although my bet is that he was most likely trolling, hardcore style, it's possible that he was being apologetic. The story doesn't really give us enough to work off of.

 

What I don't understand is how people can treat rapists as though they're inherently insane and should be burnt like a witch in feudal England, but pouring petrol over someone, setting them on fire and then watching their flesh burn without even a second thought about calling an ambulance is apparently sane behaviour.

 

It probably has something to do with who you're committing a crime against. I mean seriously, is it that hard to understand the difference between attacking an innocent person and attacking a person who has proven to be an inherent threat to innocent people?

That's not the point I raised, but thanks anyway.

 

She killed someone who posed no threat to her life. That's not rational behaviour, and you'll be hard pushed to convince me otherwise.

That's not the point I raised, but thanks anyway.

 

She killed someone who posed no threat to her life. That's not rational behaviour, and you'll be hard pushed to convince me otherwise.

 

I don't see how my post doesn't relate to your point about society's "contradictory" response towards the two crimes.

 

Society deems the rapist's behavior monstrous because the victim was an innocent little girl - the perpetrator threatened her life and raped her just for the purpose of getting his ding dong wet.

 

Society deems the mother's behavior heroic because the victim was a man who raped her own daughter at knifepoint, caused their family a lifetime of grief, and allegedly bragged about it - she was doing it for the purpose of teaching people not to treat her daughter like that or there will be consequences. The article even said this specific occurrence gave her mental problems for the past seven years.

 

By the look of your oversimplified posts, it looks like the context of the crimes are just being glossed over and treated completely equal when there are some vital key differences between the two. And I'm not arguing to convince you that what she did was justified (although I personally believe so) - just to point out how dissimilar the natures of the crimes are.

That's not the point I raised, but thanks anyway.

 

She killed someone who posed no threat to her life. That's not rational behaviour, and you'll be hard pushed to convince me otherwise.

 

So if I kill everyone you ever loved, tortured and killed your pets, burned down your house, kidnapped, tortured, and release you, killing me is not rational/understandable/explainable?

The law would not seem it a rational or justifiable reaction, and neither would I.

 

End of the day, this guy raped a child, inflicting severe emotional trauma in the process. The courts, representing society's interest to serve justice, have sentenced that man to prison. Killing him isn't going to reverse that, therefore I fail to see how it can be deemed either sensible or 'right'.

 

I'm sorry, I won't be made to feel emotionally guilty about thinking that premeditated murder - a vicious criminal act - is anything other than wrong.