That's a good question! I'm careful to say it, but I think cannot get more than fifteen years. Nonetheless, after his regular jail-time, and he's still living, he will go into preventive detention, that's for sure.
Printable View
That's a good question! I'm careful to say it, but I think cannot get more than fifteen years. Nonetheless, after his regular jail-time, and he's still living, he will go into preventive detention, that's for sure.
Sheesh
Here in UK, he would probably be out after 10 years of a 15 year sentence unless a judge specified that he must serve the maximum term. They get remission for 'good behaviour' which I think is a total farce!
(Actually, for a crime like that, it's likely that he would be detained at a maximum security jail for the rest of his life)
I agree, but someone like him is not a subject for Good Behavior. nothing they can do to him will be good enoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Tufty
Here in the US.......he'll be out in less than 5 because they have to allow space for the guy who was caught with a joint.
It's a shame to keep him in prison...a 9mm round only costs around 30 cents!!
...and if you shoot him just right, you can keep him alive and miserable for quite some time! LOL
Come on - calling for his blood makes you lot no better than he is.
In all probability he'll be deemed insane, and will be incarcerated for the rest of his life. Be content.
An outcome like that won't make anyone feel better, but none of the primitive acts of "righteous vengeance" mentioned above will either. Whoever heard of a lynch mob saying, "Well, I feel a whole lot better now!"?
Of course he'll be incarcereted for the rest of his life...at the expense of the taxpayer. No, I still say the 9mm round would be the best and cheaper solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
how about tweezers.... bit by bit on his balls... smirks
No, way to kindQuote:
Originally Posted by crazy_grrluk
The taxpayer won't notice the expense. If the Austrians choose to imprison their criminals rather than murder them, then that is their choice: the civilised choice.
If a man is insane, it is inhuman to punish him as if he were sane. I admit we don't know whether he is or not yet, but that is part of his defence and we should not prejudge.
The insane are not simply to be liquidated when they can be looked after. Hitler tried that solution, and nobody thought he had hit on the right idea, did they?
It's amazing how many people say that it's civilized simply because it agrees with their own beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
I would find it difficult to believe that an insane person could plan, execute and conceal such an elaborate setup so well. And yet someone who would perpetrate this kind of abomination must, by definition, be insane!Quote:
If a man is insane, it is inhuman to punish him as if he were sane. I admit we don't know whether he is or not yet, but that is part of his defence and we should not prejudge.
No, the question for the prosecution, and for the people of Austria, is whether or not this creature knew he was doing something wrong. Clearly the answer must be yes, or he would not have tried to conceal it.
If the Nazi's had confined their killings to just the insane it's doubtful that the rest of the world would have gotten too excited about it. And for some forms of insanity I would agree, treatment and understanding are more "humane" than simple execution. But there are some people who, though perhaps clinically insane, are so dangerous, so evil, that they should not be allowed even the possibility of returning to society. Sometimes, just sometimes, that bullet through the brain is the best way to insure the safety of innocent people. All it would take would be for some "expert" to come out in a year or two and claim that the person is cured, and lo and behold he's back on the streets.Quote:
The insane are not simply to be liquidated when they can be looked after. Hitler tried that solution, and nobody thought he had hit on the right idea, did they?
In this case, however, the man is not a threat to society in general. The only threat he represents is to his own family, and it's doubtful he will ever again have contact with them. A lifetime of solitary confinement would, in this case, be a more fit punishment, more suited to the crime. My only regret would be that he's not likely to last for 24 years in prison.
First, let me say, I am posting this in the spirit of a friendly discussion, and if I make extreme remarks, it is to emphasise a point rather than to cause offence. Mind you, facts are facts regardless of whom they offend.
1. Death Penalty is Uncivilised.
There are so many reasons why the death penalty should be regarded as uncivilised. Roughly two out of every three countries in the world agree that the death penalty should be abolished worldwide. These countries include most of the European ones (including Austria, of course), Canada and Mexico, Australia, and NZ - all of which can creditably be regarded as among the most civilised nations in the world, and whose criminal justice systems have delevoped to a reasonably high level of sophistication.
Countries which haven't include among their number, Afghanistan, China, Yemen, North Korea and Zimbabwe. Many of these countries can claim to be civilised - Japan, for example - and to have developed legal systems. Most, however, are not the kind of place you'd want to get caught in for committing any crime ... Saudi Arabia or the Yemen, for example. So the balance in favour of "civilisation" tips heavily in favour of the abolitionists.
It is also interesting to note that, of the retentionist countires, just six of them account for more than 90% of the executions, with China being way out in front of them all, but with USA featuring in the list of 6 most bloodthirsty nations. A proud boast for a civilised nation! Especially when you look at which the other ones are.
Even USA'a quasi-colony in Africa - Liberia - has abolished it.
Other reasons why it's uncivilised? It's random. If you're convicted of a capital crime, you may or may not be executed. It costs more (this is surprising at first, but it's cheaper to imprison a person for life than to go through all the legal processes necessary to confirm and carry out an execution - when you consider legal costs in the highest appellate courts, you'll begin to understand). Poor criminals cannot afford good lawyers, which in an adversarial legal system is more important then proof of innocence. It's irreversible. About 10% of people sentenced to death in USA have been found innocent before sentence was carried out. Good for the appeal system (partyly why it's expensive) - but if that many had the good fortune to discover new evidence to prove their innocence, then how many innocent people were unlucky?
OK, there are many more reasons why the death penalty is regarded as uncivilised, but I think I've made my point. I'm sure many readers here will disagree, and I don't want to read reams and reams of rebutals.
2. Mad people cannot plan ahead.
Nonsense!
3. The test for insanity is not knowing what you are doing.
Seung-Hui Cho? Maybe you think he was sane.
Trying to conceal your actions, even if you know they are wrong, is not proof of sanity. Otherwise every disgraced politician is insane (Nixon, Carter?). Maybe I'll get no argument about that!
Fritzl says he knew what he did was wrong, but he couldn't help himself. A plea of insanity. I'm sure the Austrian courts will have appropriate tests that are a little bit more reliable than "Wußte er, was er tat?"
4. The World wouldn't have given a Toss if Hitler had confined his Final Solution to Liquidating the Insane.
I think there are many who would disagree.
5. Fit punishment.
Broadly, I agree, although I would point out that Fritzl was already a convicted sex offender, so he is a danger to all women still. He must be removed from society - in my opinion, forever.
MMI,
I've been involved in this argument before, so I'm going to be brief and not get too involved again. As has been pointed out, this kind of argument is pointless as neither side is likely to be swayed by the arguments of the other. But to your points:
Item 1: Arguing the benefits of something simply because a majority of people, or in this case governments, agree with you is circular reasoning. Just remember: the majority isn't necessarily right, but they usually get their way. And using the argument of "civilized" behavior won't win any prizes, either. It hasn't been all that long, historically speaking, since "civilized" people found it perfectly acceptable to massacre native Americans, or to buy and sell slaves, or to view public hangings as family entertainment. The definition of "civilized" behavior changes with society.
Items 2 & 3: Insanity is a relative term. For every psychiatrist who claims a person is insane, there will be at least one who says he is NOT insane. For my money, if a person knows right from wrong and still does the wrong, he does not belong in a mental hospital but in a prison, at least. This is simplified, but I think you can get the idea.
Item 4: There were very few non-Jewish people in the world who were seriously disturbed by what Hitler was doing while it was happening! It was only after the fact that people screamed for punishment. And it more because of the numbers of people who were killed, and the horrid manner in which it happened, which disturbed people. If he'd instead only executed a relative handful of certified lunatics do you really think the rest of the world would have cared?
Item 5: There is only one absolutely certain way to insure that he will never again threaten another person. Civilized or not, moral or not, it is quite certain. There is no doubt of his guilt, no chance of a mistaken conviction. He did it, he was caught red-handed and he's admitted to it. Game, set and match. In this kind of case the only one's who benefit by a trial are the lawyers.
1. My point wasn't simply that the majority of countries supported abolition of the death penalty, but that it was the more "advanced" nations that tended to support abolition, and the more "backward" ones that didn't. I agree that not so long ago many countries used the death penalty like we use fines today, but most countries have moved beyond that now.
And just as majority approval doesn't make a thing right of itself, neither does historical precedent.
2/3. Insanity is hard to diagnose, and for that very reason the courts have to apply an objective test - to prevent the dispepnsation of justice from being hijacked by individual prejudices or by pressure groups.
4.A "handful" - probably not. Systematic liquidation of 100,000 "insane" or "physically handicapped" and the sterilisation of 300,000 more? Then, yes. No-one would have gone to war over it, but they'd have ostracised him. The USA gave up sterilising people after they'd done it to only 30,000 people, so there's some evidence that it was seen as unacceptable practice back then.Quote:
If [Hitler'd] instead only executed a relative handful of certified lunatics do you really think the rest of the world would have cared?
5. I cannot dispute that death is the only certain way to prevent Fritzl from endangering others. But is absolute certainty absolutely necessary? For all practical purposes, spending the rest of his life behind bars or in a secure mental-health facility will have the same effect.
It is sometimes scary to realise how many people there were in both America and Britain who actively supported Hitler in the run up to WWII. However, I think many of these were unaware of the true extent of the 'final solution' as several sources I have seen indicated that even many staunch Nazis in Germany were unaware of the true nature of his plans. The build up was so subtle and quiet that many did not realise what was going on. It was only after the war (or possibly in the last stages) that much of this information was made available.
The main problem with the death penalty is the irreversible nature of it. All you can do is apologise to the family and that means shit when their son/brother/father etc is dead for a crime they did not commit. I am equally not convinced that prison is the answer - many criminals go into prison and come out just as willing and able to commit crimes. Its not an easy question to answer at all and I am not convinced it is so easily organised into a polarised 'right wing - string 'em up, liberal - lets talk to them and understand them' debate. I do wonder if some 'make the punishment fit the crime' system may be appropriate - rapists get castrated, thieves have to pay back all the money they stole or work as a slave for the person they stole from until it is repaid, murderers get killed - but that is certainly going too far for the larger crimes (i.e. I still disagree with the death penalty).
Insanity... many people think of gibbering, cackling madmen when they hear this term. This is an inaccurate stereotype. There are many forms of insanity where the patient can be incredibly highly functioning on an intellectual level. Sociopaths are the prime exampe. These are usually highly intelligent and can plan to a very high degree. Their 'insanity' manifests in a complete emotional isolation. They do not feel the same way as the majority and therefore see no moral or ethical problems with hurting or killing another person in order to achieve thier own selfish ends. Most serial killers are sociopaths. Many other psychological conditions can cause someone to commit a crime yet maintain their ability to function.
Now here is an interesting question. Although the original crime happened in 1984 (Although ideas like the statute of limitations do not apply, since this was a continuing crime), which was decidedly pre-internet, how long before the various governments (UK especially) start blaming the BDSM community for this. After all, the famous Girl in the Box case drew lots of links to the more violent bondage magazines and the purportrator was said to have been inspired by The Story of O. It is not too great a jump of the vote winning, middle England pleasing, polatician to assume that sites like this one are to blame for such sick b****s.
This, despite the fact that many violent sexual crimes were commited by religious fanatics or ideological zeolots.
I agree, really i do....but damn, isn't it nice to dream! i may never know of this guy's punishment, and i believe that karma (or whatever goes round comes round) will take care of this. i'm not a violent person and would never be able to actually cause harm to someone without feeling threatened to an extreme, but i also know what it's like to be on the receiving end of abuse. Two wrongs don't make a right, but imagining someone acutally having to pay (in an equal manner) for their crime...well, it's quite satisfying.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
I agree, Rubberwolf: that is an interesting point.
There's another thread here where we take note of the fact that the House of Lords regards S/M acts as illegal, and we should all realise we are walking a thin line.
Speaking as Devil's Advocate for just a moment, what's the difference between a father imprisoning and abusing his daughter, and a Dom imprisoning his sub, and abusing her. I could suggest some answers, but I'll leave that to others (but, remember, you cannot confer legality upon an illegal act - such as false imprisonment, or incest - by consenting to it.)
Is it possible that the Father who imprisoned his daughter all those years may have done so while she was a minor at the beginning, but incest is ilegal anyway and depeding on the laws thier he has child molestation charges to face, in addition to incest, and false imprisonmentQuote:
Originally Posted by MMI
You're probably right, mkemse.
You're probably right, mkemse.
Incest I'll leave alone. Lot's of biological reasons for banning that, or at least procreation through incest. Though in this day and age, consensual incest, say between brother and sister or even between father and adult daughter (or mother and adult son) for purely recreational purposes maybe should be acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
But as for a Dom/sub relationship, can it be false imprisonment if the sub consents? What if she had a safeword, affording her the option to terminate her "imprisonment" whenever she feels threatened? And is it abuse if the sub invites it? And what about sex while in bondage? Can that be considered rape, even though the sub consents to it?
No, I think we need to keep the government, and especially the church (any church) out of our bedrooms/dungeons. As long as a relationship is between two consenting adults, with no real harm to anyone, it's nobody else's business.
No, I think we need to keep the government, and especially the church (any church) out of our bedrooms/dungeons. As long as a relationship is between two consenting adults, with no real harm to anyone, it's nobody else's business.
Thorne, could not agree with you more on this, it is no body's business between two consenting adults
[QUote=THorne]But as for a Dom/sub relationship, can it be false imprisonment if the sub consents? What if she had a safeword, affording her the option to terminate her "imprisonment" whenever she feels threatened? And is it abuse if the sub invites it? And what about sex while in bondage? Can that be considered rape, even though the sub consents to it? [/Quote}
I suppose when you think about it a submissive, and more specifically a female, possesses a hugely powerful weapon.
At least three that I know of.:blurp_ani And that doesn't include her mind, something which no self-respecting Dom should overlook!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Bragi
Legally it is impossible to consent to any action which is potentially harmful unless the action is being performed by a medical professional and you sign the correct consent forms (and the medical action in question is approved by the local ethics committee and the government bodies responsible for medical practise). So, yes, it would be considered rape/abuse/sexual assault (depending on the action) even if the Dom has signed and witnessed consent forms. Its a bad thing for us because it makes much of what we do illegal but the law is there for a good reason - to protect victims of domestic abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
The latest news seems to be that Josef F. got public subsidies for building the cellar where he was later to jail his children. He applied for money to "build an underground wartime shelter" (!) and received eq. of about 3.000 bucks. *rolls eyes*
so we all might be able to get the government to fund any dungeon construction we may intend?,,well of course not for the same reasons as the aforementioned
If the governemt there nly realy knew what was going on, lapse in judgement buy the Gov.?? Unless he was under suspition over the years for something, there is no way to know what he was plannig to do, inthis day and age a bomb shelter is not enough to cause suspition apparently. just suprised the governemnt would pay for it, but each country operates differentlQuote:
Originally Posted by gagged_Louise
now we just have to get goverment subsdidies for bondage gear ,,winks
Fritzl's oldest daughter has given an interview today; it will be broadcasted in Austrian television during this or the next week...
It will be interesting to see what she says, how she looks ect
I think this subsidy thing may be something unique to Austria (for bomb shelters?). In Britain you are more likely to get funding if you claim it is for an outsider art project :)
Many of the student fraternities in this town (in Sweden) received subsidies in the fifties and sixties for cellar spaces that might work as bomb shelters (at the time their buildings were expanding overground too). Those areas, of course, have never been used as wartime shelters, but they've found use as cozy, smoky club rooms and student-run discos. ;)
"I agree, Rubberwolf: that is an interesting point.
There's another thread here where we take note of the fact that the House of Lords regards S/M acts as illegal, and we should all realise we are walking a thin line.
Speaking as Devil's Advocate for just a moment, what's the difference between a father imprisoning and abusing his daughter, and a Dom imprisoning his sub, and abusing her. I could suggest some answers, but I'll leave that to others (but, remember, you cannot confer legality upon an illegal act - such as false imprisonment, or incest - by consenting to it.)"
In responce to MMI last week.
Never the less, consent must be central to any defence of the BDSM lifestyle and it is this that separates us from such people who would pick a stranger off of the street and subject them to imprisonment and abuse.
There is no defence as far as incest goes. Even if consent is stated, it is very hard for a family member to argue, with a parental or similar, when they tell you that this is normal, or if you don't do this Mummy/Daddy will go to prison.
However, in BDSM, I feel that the house of lords do not actually understand the nature of the crime. Grissham, from CSI mused about one case where he reasoned, quite rightly, that the apparent sub/victim was actually controling the situation. This being the case, rather than giving consent, the sub is actually using the dom as a means of self abuse.
Damn this is too deep for this time of night. Time to go and ponder this over warm milk and cookies. :)
The differnce of her father and a Dom/sub is that a Dom/sub relationship will have a safe word, and a Dom will not keep his sub locked up in a sound proof room with no windows ect for 24 years, plus there is a fair chace he will not impregnate her, what her father did was incest a Dom/sub relationship usualy does not involve relativesQuote:
Originally Posted by Rubberwolf
However, the legal issue of consent is still murky and it is impossible to consent to anything that will harm you apart from approved medical procedures. So, if a Dom and sub couple were brought under the radar of a police investigation they will rarely assume consent and treat it like any abuse/rape/GBH case depending on circumstances. You can have a contract signed and witnessed by several lawyers, the Queen and god himself and a judge would still not accept it as legally binding.
True but never the less a Dom is probably not going to keep his sub in a windowless sound proof room for 24 years as happened here and they will have asafe word which i am sure her father never gave herQuote:
Originally Posted by fetishdj