Should this man ever be released?

Vivisection is quite effective in these cases, while saving taxpayers shedloads of money.

But that's just me.

Thank goodness he did not actually carry out his planned crimes

But with the possibility of a 27 year sentence I am sure - I hope - he will find life in a US jail very unpleasant ............... too gross for writing in polite company.

27 years is not enough for this vile creature

I guess I've got less tolerant as I've got older but I think this sort of character should be used to find out why people behave this way, no matter what's involved.

And then what?

Wot TomK said

joerand - when you learn what causes this kind of evil you are a step nearer to recognising the early signs. 

He should be studied and never let out. 

Oh come, now everyone.  I am saddened by the reaction of all of you to a person who obviously has some important socialization issues which he simply needs to overcome.  What good does it do to take revenge on the poor man?  I mean, think about it--what he really needs is treatment and rehabilitation--a psychiatrist or social worker is what is required here--not a jailor or executioner.  If we were to kill him or incarcerate him, then we would be no better than he--in planning to kill or imprison a child.  In seizing his computer and its contents, you are talking about depriving him of his civil rights.  I am surprised at all of you!  Best regards.

Russ

You're right Russ, summary execution is wrong. This man needs to give back something useful to society. We could start with his organs.

Jan-Erik: I thought you were a kind and understanding person!  Can't you have a little forgiveness in your heart for someone who is just obviously a nice kid with a rather strange eating disorder? 

You know, I have heard this--and it is probably apocryphal--someone will no doubt correct me if it is just pure B.S. but I hope it isn't.  I have heard that Italy does not impose the death penalty, and in fact, has very low penalties for rape--but that it also has almost no convictions at all for men who execute any man who molests their wife, mother, sister, etc.  Now of course I know we can't have vigilante justice determining  whether someone is guilty or not--but it surely would be satisfying to turn bastards like this loose on the street where the victims or potential victims live and let them see which of those organs you mention he would still have at the end of the gauntlet!  I can think of a couple that would be dragging the ground for sure.  

Best regards,

Russ

There have been such people before, and there will be again. I have no desire to read about them.

We should spend far greater parts of our lives concentrating on what the majority do. A hundred thousand people did good and decent things around the world yesterday. None got in the news.

These appalling people are convenient distractions, they allow us to vent our anger and revulsion and frequently to the detriment of our concentration of the bigger issues in our 'own backyard' (see the terrorism thread).

Public stonings/the stocks, ducking stools and state execution are a well practised socio-political distraction that appeals to our baser instincts. They typically thrive in cultural situations where poverty, division and inequality is rife. Meanwhile we ignore the things that actually matter to us every day.

Bruce

Then what? Sequester those with similar traits so as not  to pose a threat to society? Where are you headed? Measuring brows?

Thank you.

Distancing ourselves from the aberrant is an arse-about-face way of defining ourselves.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

Not that many people see merit in the writings of Nietzsche.

to answer the op, NO!

No, no and no. Try again. 

First Nietzsche on the Forum?

Some kind of prize I think.

He also said something about 'a life without music is not a life' if I recall.

Bruce

Bruce

No - the forum is rife with it.

Along your lines - https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...462#1566878604790462

We are more erudite than I thought!

Russ, I was venting. These little fantasies are simply that and a human reaction to this sort of event. Or perhaps I’ve been watching too much Dexter.

These cases are cancers. The first concern is to prevent them from spreading, by removal from society and, hopefully, rehabilitation. The Norwegian prison system is an example to follow in this regard.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/...tml?iref=mpstoryview

As for understanding how these cases arise, the April 13 issue of New Scientist has an intriguing review of The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime, by Adrian Raine, a criminologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Raine argues that violent criminals are biologically different from the rest of us. Biological factors, it seems, underlie much criminal behaviour (substantially more so than social factors), and as such ‘treating the physical causes will work more quickly and effectively than repairing the complicated social factors that also contribute to criminal behaviour’.

Jan

OK, so the post was somewhat akin to lighting the blue touchpaper...

However, I just wonder if this occurred in 1986 (about the time SAF was starting out with Man Utd.) and he was to be released now, what happens next? And why 27 years? 26 not enough? 28 just too long?

I have no way of knowing whether or to what extent criminal behavior is based in biological factors or in learned behavior.  The same question, of course, arises with many other types of non-criminal behavior.  Assuming, arguendo, that it IS largely biological.  To what extent does that negate free will and with it, the imposition ethical standards on the part of society?  To the extent that biological factors negate free will and thus moral standards (I realize nobody has yet said this), then punishing those individuals is not only useless--but arguably immoral.  There have been, over the course of the centuries, various justifications for legal punishment of criminals: (1) deterrence (this works for some lesser crimes, perhaps, but not for the more heinous crimes; (2) prevention (keeping the bad guy in jail or killing him may not psychologically deter him, but it damn sure does keep him off the street; (3) morality (punishment is the right thing to do  (Kant professed that, even if the world were going to end tomorrow, everyone in prison should be put to death immediately--pretty hard core, that! (4) reform (in fact, prison seems to be a training ground, not for reform, but for building new criminal behavior; and (5) revenge--(very like morality--though Kant would say otherwise.

My own rationale of legal punishment--at least for heinous crimes such as the one under discussion here--I call the "Mad Dog" theory of legal punishment.  Your dog may have been a very good doggy, you may have loved him and let him slobber-kiss you and called him "Puppy Wuppy".  Hell, he may have saved your kid from downing.  But when he gets rabies and runs at you, foaming at the mouth, growling, and trying to inject your veins with rabies from his teeth, you surely don't reach out and try to pet him.  You reach for the nearest shotgun and blow his shit away. 

One might argue that his behavior was biological in nature--to the extent that it robs him of free will, thus rendering the imposition of ethical standards for his behavior pointless.  But, morally responsible or not--he is still capable of inflicting great harm. 

Good reason to have your shotgun loaded, eh?

Best regards,

Russ

Was that somewhere other than where he wrote:

'Even if a civil society were to be dissolved by the consent of all its members (e.g., if a people inhabiting an island decided to separate and disperse throughout the world), the last murderer remaining in prison would first have to be executed, so that each has done to him what his deeds deserve and blood guilt does not cling to the people for not having insisted upon this punishment; for otherwise the people can be regarded as collaborators in his public violation of justice.'

I'm just stunned at you having to explain Google back in 2007...

I'm not into guessing games.  Just say where you are headed, assuming you can "learn" what causes this behavior.