- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
On July 23, 2007, at about 3 a.m., two men broke into the home where Dr. Petit, who was 50 at the time, lived with his wife, Jennifer-Hawke-Petit, 48, and their two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. Jennifer Hawke-Petit had multiple sclerosis.
The men -- identified by police and prosecutors as Steven Hayes, 47, and Joshua Komisarjevsky, 30 -- allegedly beat Dr. Petit with a baseball bat while he slept, bound his wrists and ankles, then took him to the basement of the family's home and tied him to a pole as he drifted in and out of consciousness.
They stand accused of sexually assaulting Jennifer Hawke-Petit and one of the girls, tying them up, setting the house on fire, and fleeing as it burned. They are accused of first forcing Jennifer Hawke-Petit to go to a bank and withdraw $15,000 for them, with the promise that if she did, she and her family would be permitted to live.
Instead, the men are accused of killing her and the two girls. Hayes and Komisarjevsky are each charged with multiple counts of murder, rape, kidnapping and arson.
Both men -- they were caught by police as they drove away from the burning house -- offered to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences instead of the death penalty. But prosecutors believed that the appropriate punishment for Hayes and Komisarjevsky was death. Dr. Petit -- who on that day in 2007 managed, while bleeding profusely from his wounds (he lost as much as seven pints of blood), to free himself from the basement where he was tied up and crawl to a neighbor's house to plead for help for his family -- agreed with the prosecutors.
Which brings us to these weeks in 2010, with Hayes on trial, and Dr. Petit in daily attendance at the proceedings.
Frankly, lethal injection is too civilized a response to this animals.
Yeah, that's about as clear a case for the death penalty as any I've seen. It's a shame the victims didn't have the opportunity to administer it themselves, on the spot.
Yeah, but what are we going to do? Hurting them ain't going to undo the damage or even make us feel better about it. Better to rid ourselves of this human garbage as quickly as possible so that the rest of us can move on.
I don't see the point in wasting taxpayer money on the penalty. Obviously, the are too dangerous to ever be allowed back into society, but there is no practical reason to kill them.
Very much agreed. They deserve to be put to death, but it should be done quickly and humanely.
Home invasion victim's ordeal goes on - CNN.com
Frankly, lethal injection is too civilized a response to this animals.
A lot of Internet Toughguy going on up in here.
Cutting off their arms, legs and then setting them free with no state aid.
Yes, if I were king, I'd probably commission that as punishment.
It makes you wonder how many people could actually pull the trigger, doesn't it?
I think blood atonement will be required in this instance.
Home invasion victim's ordeal goes on - CNN.com
Frankly, lethal injection is too civilized a response to this animals.
Very much agreed. They deserve to be put to death, but it should be done quickly and humanely.
A lot of Internet Toughguy going on up in here. There's no reason to invent cruel and unusual punishments to satisfy some sort of inhumane quota. Just kill them humanely. It accomplishes nothing to draw it out and make it inhumaen on purpose other than show you're sadistic.
Home invasion victim's ordeal goes on - CNN.com
Frankly, lethal injection is too civilized a response to this animals.
Yah we can kill them, torture them, give them the exact amount of pain they gave that family but in the end what would it accomplish? Nothing, We would just be the killers just like them. Nothing will change unless we can fix the underlying societal problems which cause this madness. Nothing will change unless the proper rehabilitation be given to all criminals no matter what their crimes are.
Maybe they can or maybe they cannot. It should be based on each particular case. A sociopath is a person with serious psychological and mental illness. All illness can and should be healed. A person with HIV or AIDS has a serious illness but does that mean we lock them away and quarentine them so we do not have to live in fear. No we do not. How about if they got another person infected and killed them, Would they have committed a crime? Not in our society because they have no control over it. Just like if a sociopath killed someone beacause they themselves had no control over it. But yet we judge the two cases very differently.
Maybe they can or maybe they cannot. It should be based on each particular case. A sociopath is a person with serious psychological and mental illness. All illness can and should be healed. A person with HIV or AIDS has a serious illness but does that mean we lock them away and quarentine them so we do not have to live in fear. No we do not. How about if they got another person infected and killed them, Would they have committed a crime? Not in our society because they have no control over it. Just like if a sociopath killed someone beacause they themselves had no control over it. But yet we judge the two cases very differently.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?