Juvenile killers won't recieve death penalty

[Blackie Malone]

I read the article on the supreme court ruling, then I saw this article.
Just wondering what your thoughts are....discuss.


Girl who lured teen to his death describes murder in court

PHILADELPHIA A Philadelphia girl who was 15 when she lured a neighborhood teen to his death testified about the crime today, describing how three friends killed 16-year-old Jason Sweeney.

Justina Morley -- the star witness for the prosecution -- will serve at least 17-and-a-half years for third-degree murder after agreeing to cooperate.

She says 19-year-old Domenic Coia (COY-uh); his 18-year-old brother Nicholas; and 18-year-old Edward Batzig Junior clubbed Sweeney with a hammer and hatchet while he begged for his life.

After the May 2003 slaying, the four hugged, and used Sweeney's 500 dollar paycheck for a drug binge.

Defense lawyers are expected to cross-examine Morley later this week.

But Domenic Coia got an important break in the case today when the U-S Supreme Court ruled that juvenile killers cannot be sent to death row.

Prosecutors in Philadelphia had been seeking the death penalty for the older Coia, who was just shy of 18 when the crime occurred.

 

[rgraham666]

What does the State killing someone prove except that it's all right to kill someone if you have a good enough reason?

 

[brightlyiburn]

What does the State killing someone prove except that it's all right to kill someone if you have a good enough reason?

Well put.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I read the article on the supreme court ruling, then I saw this article.
Just wondering what your thoughts are....discuss.


Girl who lured teen to his death describes murder in court

PHILADELPHIA A Philadelphia girl who was 15 when she lured a neighborhood teen to his death testified about the crime today, describing how three friends killed 16-year-old Jason Sweeney.

Justina Morley -- the star witness for the prosecution -- will serve at least 17-and-a-half years for third-degree murder after agreeing to cooperate.

She says 19-year-old Domenic Coia (COY-uh); his 18-year-old brother Nicholas; and 18-year-old Edward Batzig Junior clubbed Sweeney with a hammer and hatchet while he begged for his life.

After the May 2003 slaying, the four hugged, and used Sweeney's 500 dollar paycheck for a drug binge.

Defense lawyers are expected to cross-examine Morley later this week.

But Domenic Coia got an important break in the case today when the U-S Supreme Court ruled that juvenile killers cannot be sent to death row.

Prosecutors in Philadelphia had been seeking the death penalty for the older Coia, who was just shy of 18 when the crime occurred.

I personally agree with the dissent written by Sandra O'conner. A blanket age isn't helpful. Each case should be judged by the maturity of the offender on a case by case basis. The blanket age law simply says, if you are going to kill someone, do it before you turn 18.

 

[User_Name]

What does the State killing someone prove except that it's all right to kill someone if you have a good enough reason?

Shame someone didn't tell the killers they weren't allowed to kill while they were battering the lad to death with hammers... but then I suppose they had a good enough reason they needed drug money didn't they... I'd have less aversion to the death penalty if prison meant prison for murderers, like 6 x 4 stone cell and bread and water for life.

 

[Guest]

What does the State killing someone prove except that it's all right to kill someone if you have a good enough reason?

Sometimes there is a good enough reason.

 

[rgraham666]

Do you really think people that stupid would give a flying fuck about whether they would be likely to die or not?

And you're right Dran, sometimes there are.

I just don't think we're wise enough to properly decide good reasons.

And my aversion to capital punishment is personal. As a bona fide weirdo, I've seen to many case where in desperation to 'get someone' for a heinous crime, one of the local weirdos takes the rap.

Unitl we never kill the wrong person, I can't get behind the death penalty.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Do you really think people that stupid would give a flying fuck about whether they would be likely to die or not?

And you're right Dran, sometimes there are.

I just don't think we're wise enough to properly decide good reasons.

And my aversion to capital punishment is personal. As a bona fide weirdo, I've seen to many case where in desperation to 'get someone' for a heinous crime, one of the local weirdos takes the rap.

Unitl we never kill the wrong person, I can't get behind the death penalty.

Take a look at gangs Rob. members are stying in them, far past the age where they used to get out, and violence is increasing, but the average killer keeps getting younger. That's not an accident, it' a policy, driven by the fact very juvenine offenders tend to get more leninet setences.

There is a book out by a jaoiled gang leader in Cali. I'm vexed because I can't remember his name or the name of the book, but I read some excerpts. It's scary stuff. He said even the runners are now armed and are younger by design.

Don't for a moment think the fact that their younger members are now no longer risking their lives to kill is going to go unoticed.

 

[Guest]

When someone bludgeons someone else to death with a hammer and an axe, that's reason enough for me.

And let me go on record as saying I don't care if he was 12 yrs old. It takes intent to beat someone to death. It takes a total disregard for human life to reatedly pummel someone until the die. That kind of disregard has no place in civilized society and should be eliminated.

 

[cantdog]

Pray you're not the one people are crying in the streets for the death of, and stop bringing this sort of matter to the forum.

The fact of a heinous crime means nothing whatever except itself: there has been a heinous crime. They grab the wrong people for them, they set up people they dislike with malice and they make honest mistakes in the prosecution of all crimes. Juries are a wildly loopy phenomenon susceptible to strong personalities on the panel, public pressure, mob ideation, misunderstanding of bell clear evidence or prejudice against persons, just as the rest of the community is.

You're not infallible. Juries are not infallible. Prosecutors are politicians and certainly not infallible. People do not mean well in all cases, either. Cast your mind back over American justice in just the last sixty years, and consider that you could be the next one in the dock. Just because the jury/advocacy system is a good system in some ways, and is in the end the one we have, does not imply that unlimited power to torture and kill ought to be placed at its disposal. Equally, there is nothing whatever about any given government which endows it with some holy glow and the right to kill its constituents.

Too many times in threads like these, I am made once again to despair of my fellows when they come on and say "She ought to be slowly strangled and dropped from a speeding train," "Put him in a stone cell with six hundred bull queers and a drum of K-Y so the queers don't get sore," "They ought to cut off his package," and all that blah blah.

These sentiments, believe me, only reveal how spiritually undeveloped their utterers are. Every wisdom tradition on the planet says the same. The fact that lots and lots of people clamor for retribution only makes it the more imperative to limit the extent to which this childish impulse be indulged.

But you will never be convinced of it. Just as I will never buy into the impulse to torture, maim, and kill some likely person for the sake of revenge.

This is a 'religious' matter; by which I mean, the arguments will change no minds.

Therefore, let's drop it. Let us in fact not bring it up again. There is some sport to discussing the existence of the gods, but this one is a flat and personal argument to no point. It only causes bitterness.

 

[cantdog]

"Closure" my ass.

You're not living in a play or a novel. Life has no satisfying denouement, no script-- this is why it so often fails.

You have a right to expect closure from fiction, I suppose, although even so, you won't always get it. But to expect it in your life is foolishness.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Where is the myth that life in prison is a bouquet of roses and a freindly game of volleyball with the wardens while having conjugal polygomous sex with the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleading staff.

Prison sucks and it sucks in proportion to the crime. Wardens naturally develop a sadistic attitude to the excuses for humanity they guard and feel morally justified to dispense extra justices. Various modern forms of chain gangs also keep the prisoners self-punishing. Shivings, beatings, rapings, and fear are common and even if you can get out the options are limited.

This is not to defend the people who commit crimes, just a point that a life in prison can be far worse than just death.



Overall the whole debate seems to center around the impulse to use vengeance to make up for the fact that there is no way to gain redemption. Nothing will ever make up for the shattered lives, the dead bodies, the scars or bring back those who are lost or driven to suicide or otherwise left to rot. We believe that killing those responsible, making them suffer like they made loved ones suffer will somehow make it up, that if they taste the pain they inflicted that redemption will magically arrive and make things all right again. And the hardest truth is it doesn't.


My own views on it are complicated. On the one hand, executing an innocent man is to bring that deep hate and pain to their loved ones for no reason like what happened to ours. On the other hand, I know the impulse of wanting people to actually feel the pain they so casually dish out, for all the self-delusions to go away.

And that last point is something we'll never get. There is no way to truly strip the self-delusions, force every person to confront the monster without a shield, to force guilt and haunted dreams on those who take a life or an innocence. And that really is the shame that underlies this whole debate, the inability to transfer guilt and pain to those who need to feel it most.



Or was I supposed to rant on absolutist lines? Sorry, I didn't get the memo. I was busy reminiscing.

EDITED to add qualifier: Reminiscing is about losing someone and wanting certain people to feel the pain or weight of it or nearly seeing a friend die and wanting to make their tormentors feel an ounce of the pain they inflicted not about being in prison. I do know a couple of people in prison though (not friends, just random acquaintances).

 

[Lisa Denton]

Shame someone didn't tell the killers they weren't allowed to kill while they were battering the lad to death with hammers... but then I suppose they had a good enough reason they needed drug money didn't they... I'd have less aversion to the death penalty if prison meant prison for murderers, like 6 x 4 stone cell and bread and water for life.

Yes, I would be more against the death penalty, for juveniles and otherwise, if after conviction a criminal was punished.

No one gives a damn if the 16 year old victims rights were violated, as he begged for his life and was beaten to death with a hammer. He became a number, a statistic, another unimportant victim after his death. Now for the rest of the criminals life they will spend my taxes to make sure the young killer gets good food and big screen t.v. and guard his precious rights, make sure his rights are not violated, that he never suffers or feels cold or hunger or pain.

Of course they will also spend my taxes to rehabilitate the little fuck, he will find jesus and some asshole judge will let him out, to move into my neighborhood.

He will never again be convicted of murder, they learn in prison not to get caught, to kill and rape and rob without stupidly leaving evidence.

He will have lots of fun beating your child to death knowing, that even if he gets caught, you will spend your taxes to guard his rights, protect him, make sure he nevers suffers as he made your child suffer, because that would be cruel and unusual punishment. And of course, to deal out cruel and unusual punishment, is the killers right alone.

We, as a civilized loving people, must protect him, pay for his medical care, make sure he does not suffer, feels no pain or discomfort, and that his rights to inflict pain and death are never violated.

 

[cantdog]

When someone bludgeons someone else to death with a hammer and an axe, that's reason enough for me.

And let me go on record as saying I don't care if he was 12 yrs old. It takes intent to beat someone to death. It takes a total disregard for human life to reatedly pummel someone until the die. That kind of disregard has no place in civilized society and should be eliminated.

Many that die deserve life. Yet you cannot give it to them.

Many that live deserve death. But you cannot say which ones.

 

[cantdog]

No one gives a damn if the 16 year old victims rights were violated, as he begged for his life and was beaten to death with a hammer. He became a number, a statistic, another unimportant victim after his death. Now for the rest of the criminals life they will spend my taxes to make sure the young killer gets good food and big screen t.v. and guard his precious rights, make sure his rights are not violated, that he never suffers or feels cold or hunger or pain.

It is not true.

"No one gives a damn..." Not true. Of course they give a damn. What purpose is served by making a ridiculous statement like this? It is a straw man. You impute this made-up position to your opponent. Then you knock the straw man down. Then you claim to have defeated your opponent in argument. It's not that way. No one on any side in this thread has said they didn't give a damn and that a young killer is a precious thing. Never said it, never thought it, never implied it. Put your straw man away.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It is not true.

"No one gives a damn..." Not true. Of course they give a damn. What purpose is served by making a ridiculous statement like this? It is a straw man. You impute this made-up position to your opponent. Then you knock the straw man down. Then you claim to have defeated your opponent in argument. It's not that way. No one on any side in this thread has said they didn't give a damn and that a young killer is a precious thing. Never said it, never thought it, never implied it. Put your straw man away.

She has a point Cant. A point that is no straw man. All too often, the rights of the victim are ignored. He had a right to life and it was violated. The person who did so is now the only one demanding his rights be observed, because the victim can no longer advocate for himself.

Justice is supposed to be served by our legal system. Somepeople, can find justice in such a case without retribution. Some of us, can not see justice being served, where ther is no retribution. I hold that Justice cannot be served, if the state does not have the power to impose the ultimate sanction. Over time, I have come to acept that application of that sanction is at best problematic.

Nevertheless, You cannot argue with the fact that men who have been sentenced to life in prison have killed again. Sometimes in prison, sometimes after parole, sometimes after escape. In every one of those cases, the state, is implicitly responsible for a death that could have been prevented by once and for all, removing the danger to society posed by the killer. In choosing not to, another life was destroyed.

If life in prison, meant life in prison, then there would be a stronger case for doing away with capital punishmnet. But many of those same people who oppose capital punisment, oppose long sentences. They buy into the idea that rehabilitation is the responsibility of the penal system. Those who buy into the idea that retribution and protection of society is the goal, will always be at odds with them.

At heart, the question becomes one for which there is no real answer. What is the worth of a human life? Can you take someone else's life and still have claim to the right to your own? Can any amount of incarceration allow you to make up for the life you snuffed out? Or, in making yourself final arbiter in someone else's life, have you placed your own in the hands of the state as final arbiter of your life?

On a theoretical level, I have no qualms. If you premeditate and kill someone, you need to lose your own life. On a practical level, I have concerns in the way such a sentence is reached and caried out.

Lisa has put forward no strawman. She has put forward real concerns, concerns that are worthy of debate and of addressing. If my brother has been killed and you are out there demanding his killer's life be spared, you need to explain to me why. Why he deserves life, where my brother's is gone. Wheter you can explain it to me or not, you owe an explanation, not dismissing my loss as a straw man. If you wouldn't do that in a hypothetical one to one situation, you shouldn't do it in a debate. And I can't see you being that callous one to one.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

She has a point Cant. A point that is no straw man. All too often, the rights of the victim are ignored. He had a right to life and it was violated. The person who did so is now the only one demanding his rights be observed, because the victim can no longer advocate for himself.

Justice is supposed to be served by our legal system. Somepeople, can find justice in such a case without retribution. Some of us, can not see justice being served, where ther is no retribution. I hold that Justice cannot be served, if the state does not have the power to impose the ultimate sanction. Over time, I have come to acept that application of that sanction is at best problematic.

Nevertheless, You cannot argue with the fact that men who have been sentenced to life in prison have killed again. Sometimes in prison, sometimes after parole, sometimes after escape. In every one of those cases, the state, is implicitly responsible for a death that could have been prevented by once and for all, removing the danger to society posed by the killer. In choosing not to, another life was destroyed.

If life in prison, meant life in prison, then there would be a stronger case for doing away with capital punishmnet. But many of those same people who oppose capital punisment, oppose long sentences. They buy into the idea that rehabilitation is the responsibility of the penal system. Those who buy into the idea that retribution and protection of society is the goal, will always be at odds with them.

At heart, the question becomes one for which there is no real answer. What is the worth of a human life? Can you take someone else's life and still have claim to the right to your own? Can any amount of incarceration allow you to make up for the life you snuffed out? Or, in making yourself final arbiter in someone else's life, have you placed your own in the hands of the state as final arbiter of your life?

On a theoretical level, I have no qualms. If you premeditate and kill someone, you need to lose your own life. On a practical level, I have concerns in the way such a sentence is reached and caried out.

Lisa has put forward no strawman. She has put forward real concerns, concerns that are worthy of debate and of addressing. If my brother has been killed and you are out there demanding his killer's life be spared, you need to explain to me why. Why he deserves life, where my brother's is gone. Wheter you can explain it to me or not, you owe an explanation, not dismissing my loss as a straw man. If you wouldn't do that in a hypothetical one to one situation, you shouldn't do it in a debate. And I can't see you being that callous one to one.

From what I can understand of the anti-death penalty forces, it's about the innocent rather than the guilty. If the man is conclusively 100% no-room-for-doubt guilty, many anti-dp people would say go hog-wild and have vengeance on the bastard. If not, if the man turns out innoent, then the vengeance becomes murder in the same way as what happened to your brother.

Some raise the issue of souls. Is giving into the same level of the murderer, of taking the lives of those we find deserving of death, not going to stain our soul with some of the same brush?


Personally I don't know. I'm sort of lost between the poles on this debate. I've felt the great desire for fuckers to feel the pain they've inflicted, for the delusions to disappear, but at the same time, I feel bad about feeling such, of gaining pleasure through the misery of others as at the basest, that's what they did. It's all complicated I think and heavily emotional.

 

[Lisa Denton]

It is not true.

"No one gives a damn..." Not true. Of course they give a damn. What purpose is served by making a ridiculous statement like this? It is a straw man. You impute this made-up position to your opponent. Then you knock the straw man down. Then you claim to have defeated your opponent in argument. It's not that way. No one on any side in this thread has said they didn't give a damn and that a young killer is a precious thing. Never said it, never thought it, never implied it. Put your straw man away.

Defeat my opponent in arguement?

I have no opponent, I am not argueing. The first post invited me to discuss my opinions and views. I made no direct reply to anything you said.

You wish to call my statements ridiculous? I am not upset.

No one on this thread said it, thought it, implied it, except me, I freakin said it.

Don't imply that I have no right to think about these things, or state my views on them. I had a relative beaten to death in jail, does that give me a right to state my opinion?

I have the deepest respect for you and just will not get upset, unless you really try. Everyone here has an opinion, be vocal, be assertive, but do not slap me down because my views do not mirror yours.

I wish to win no arguements, I stated my opinion, I stand by it..

 

[Colleen Thomas]

From what I can understand of the anti-death penalty forces, it's about the innocent rather than the guilty. If the man is conclusively 100% no-room-for-doubt guilty, many anti-dp people would say go hog-wild and have vengeance on the bastard. If not, if the man turns out innoent, then the vengeance becomes murder in the same way as what happened to your brother.

Some raise the issue of souls. Is giving into the same level of the murderer, of taking the lives of those we find deserving of death, not going to stain our soul with some of the same brush?


Personally I don't know. I'm sort of lost between the poles on this debate. I've felt the great desire for fuckers to feel the pain they've inflicted, for the delusions to disappear, but at the same time, I feel bad about feeling such, of gaining pleasure through the misery of others as at the basest, that's what they did. It's all complicated I think and heavily emotional.

It is in the possibility of taking an innocnet life, one that can't be pardoned if we discover we have made a mistake, in short the application of the penalty I find questions I cannot answer.

In theory, I have no doubts.

But most anti-death penalty people I have argued with, I would hardly call most discussions of the subject debate, are against it no matter what degree of certainty exists over guilt. They are against it on the theoretical level as well as the practical. Their contention is that allowing the state to become a murderer is not acceptable. The standard rejoinder is the state isn't commiting murder, it's dispensing justice. Very much like solders aren't taught to murder, they are taught to kill. The distinction being in the motive as far a I can discern.

The state as killer, is abhorent to some. The killer enjoying life when his victims do not is just as abhorent to others. The line is drawn along the question of retribution. I seriously doubt anyone will ever be able to devise a punishment, that satisfies both sides. Cant dog wants him inprisoned. Dran wants him dead. In a situation where the distinction between wants is in no way semantic or fuzzy, wehre there is no gray area, it seems a lock the arguments will go on forever.

 

[cantdog]

Okay, then. I saw it as a debate, for which I apologize. I like you pretty well, anyway. Sorry I stepped on it. Or in it.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

It is in the possibility of taking an innocnet life, one that can't be pardoned if we discover we have made a mistake, in short the application of the penalty I find questions I cannot answer.

In theory, I have no doubts.

But most anti-death penalty people I have argued with, I would hardly call most discussions of the subject debate, are against it no matter what degree of certainty exists over guilt. They are against it on the theoretical level as well as the practical. Their contention is that allowing the state to become a murderer is not acceptable. The standard rejoinder is the state isn't commiting murder, it's dispensing justice. Very much like solders aren't taught to murder, they are taught to kill. The distinction being in the motive as far a I can discern.

The state as killer, is abhorent to some. The killer enjoying life when his victims do not is just as abhorent to others. The line is drawn along the question of retribution. I seriously doubt anyone will ever be able to devise a punishment, that satisfies both sides. Cant dog wants him inprisoned. Dran wants him dead. In a situation where the distinction between wants is in no way semantic or fuzzy, wehre there is no gray area, it seems a lock the arguments will go on forever.

Yeah, I know the debate is pretty polarized on this subject which is why being where I am in it is very lonesome. I understand the feelings, the desires. I also understand the desires aren't really what we want. Justice, vengeance, and redemption are all different concepts mixed together on this one and I'm not sure where I stand on it. There are so many questions and instances where I know I'd lean in two directions on.

Like what's the moral judgement on a person who kills the person who killed their family member or loved ones? What about avenging someone driven to suicide? Or avenging yourself driven to madness? How do I feel about this and how do I feel about these same people being brushed as murderers and given the same end as people who had no excuse other than the twisted justifications of their soul and is there a difference?

Anyway, it's a complicated issue for me, but there's no place for that with the lockstep one way or the other tone prevailing.

 

[cantdog]

Meanwhile, Colly, I just don't see why you think there's an answer to your question.

How do I redress the victim's rights? I can't do it any more than you can. I'm not superman, either. That's exactly the problem.

You seem to believe that by throwing away the rights of a person whom the testimony says is guilty-- the testimony of a complete moral vacuum, a participant in a gruesome pointless nihilistic murder of the most abandoned kind-- is in some way going to cause the rights of the victim to be changed in their state.

Fine then. I am not accomplished in this kind of ethical gymnastics and moral calculus in the plane of the unreal. For me, that cause is lost. You seem to have a handle on it, and I think you personally ought to kill them.

The state is an ass. If that construct of bloated self serving powermongers, engaged for the most part in extorting taxes from poor people to build some kind of glorious empire and oppress certain poeple for reasons of sexual preference, ethnicity and religion-- if that, the state, is worthy to have the right to kill for retribution, then certainly you should. Certainly I should. My record and yours may not be spotless. We may be weak and mortal and venal. But for damn sure we have a better record than the state.

I do not trust the motives of the representatives of the state. I am proven right in this every day. You, I trust. So kill him. Your right to impose ultimate sanctions is better established than the state's or its minions'.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Okay, then. I saw it as a debate, for which I apologize. I like you pretty well, anyway. Sorry I stepped on it. Or in it.

Like I said, I'm not upset.

Its o.k. We don't agree on this, lots of things we do agree on.



I am against the death penalty being used on an innocent person, and innocents will be convicted, and I do think the innocent victim is left out of the equation when it comes to the death penalty.

My uncle was a veteran of combat for his country, he was injured in an accident and lost sight in one eye, then he lost work as a house painter due to that. He had little money and was a single father raising two children. He was beaten to death by two men in jail, a trustee held him while the other man beat him to death. Because he had a candy bar the police had not taken from he and the men wanted it.

I loved him, in the trial it never came out that he was in jail for not paying a traffic ticket.

The man who held him was given probation, the man who took his life was given two years.

I am not bitter, I don't demand vengeance, but no one seemed to think about him during the trial. They never told me if he suffered, was he begging for his life, was he scared and alone and hoping the guards would save him.

He was gone, so I realized the courts could not protect him. I am not sure they even thought about him, the men who took his life were important, because they were alive.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yeah, I know the debate is pretty polarized on this subject which is why being where I am in it is very lonesome. I understand the feelings, the desires. I also understand the desires aren't really what we want. Justice, vengeance, and redemption are all different concepts mixed together on this one and I'm not sure where I stand on it. There are so many questions and instances where I know I'd lean in two directions on.

Like what's the moral judgement on a person who kills the person who killed their family member or loved ones? What about avenging someone driven to suicide? Or avenging yourself driven to madness? How do I feel about this and how do I feel about these same people being brushed as murderers and given the same end as people who had no excuse other than the twisted justifications of their soul and is there a difference?

Anyway, it's a complicated issue for me, but there's no place for that with the lockstep one way or the other tone prevailing.

I've always been a death penalty proponent. Only recently have I found problems with it that give me serious pause.

But even when a full advocate of the fry em, gas em & stick em community, I had and still hold a very narrow definition of a crime where it's warranted. It's the murders without mitigating circumstacnes, the thrill killings, the serial killings, the killings for money or selfishness that I feel deserve it.

When there is no mitigation, no recourse to questions of rage or fear. When the death brought about was done so with planning and methodology, for no purpose other than the killers desire to see them dead, that's wehre I feel the only response of the community can be to end the life of the perpatrator.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I've always been a death penalty proponent. Only recently have I found problems with it that give me serious pause.

But even when a full advocate of the fry em, gas em & stick em community, I had and still hold a very narrow definition of a crime where it's warranted. It's the murders without mitigating circumstacnes, the thrill killings, the serial killings, the killings for money or selfishness that I feel deserve it.

When there is no mitigation, no recourse to questions of rage or fear. When the death brought about was done so with planning and methodology, for no purpose other than the killers desire to see them dead, that's wehre I feel the only response of the community can be to end the life of the perpatrator.

That sounds like a pretty good starting point.