Honeymooners' killers jailed for life

[Jimbuna]

After reading the detils in this article I couldn't help but thik that the death penalty would have been a more fitting sentence.

Two men who murdered a Welsh couple on honeymoon on Antigua have been given three consecutive life sentences but have escaped the death penalty.
Avie Howell and Kaniel Martin shot dead Ben and Catherine Mullany, who were 31 and from Pontardawe, Swansea Valley.
Justice Richard Floyd said the "cold-hearted killers" had acted with "extreme violence" but the murders were not the "worst of the worst".
Martin, 23, and Howell, 20, also shot dead a shopkeeper two weeks later.
The pair now face two more murder charges but Justice Floyd said the crimes they have been found guilty of did not justify the death penalty because they were not the "rarest of the rare or the worst of the worst".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-s...wales-16214772

[vienna]

It makes you wonder about what exactly is the "lower limit" for considering the death penalty. How bad, ruthless, or callous regarding human life must the convicted be to merit the death penalty. The mian thing that bothers me in cases like this is, if the judge's family or loved one had been the victim(s), would the judge have been as particular about the criteria. Some time ago, I had a conversation with a friend who is quite against the death penalty. I put forth a scenario very horrific and graphic of a murder. I asked if he would still not consider a death sentence in the given situation; he said he would not consider adeath penalty. I then reiterated the scenarion placing a dear family member of his as the victim; his opinion immediately changed. It is amazing how minds can be changed when the harm is happening to them...

[steve_the_slim]

Yes, because it's totally a good thing to sentence people to death based on emotion rather than hard facts.

[Jimbuna]

It looks like they may end up with convictions for as many as five murders....at least three being head shots.

I also wonder at what point they will meet said criteria.

Well geez.
So by useing this standard?
Any anti-death sentence nut case could raise the bar!


Ah... Never mind.
Seems an anti-death sentence nut case did with His ruleing.

[vienna]

The argument of "it's just an emotional reaction" is false. There are people who have committed horrific crimes, who are quite aware of what they did, and, in many cases, a bit satisfied with their actions. These people have demonstrated they are beyond empathy for their victims and are never going to be "rehabilitated", no matter how much the bleeding hearts may wail. These people are no longer of any use to society and should be expelled permanently from it. Do you really think there is any purpose to keeping Charles Manson alive? Is there any benefit to be gained in the continued existence of Gary Ridgway (who stated that murdering young women was his "career")? What about the gretest of all: Adolph Hitler? If he had survived the war, was caputured and tried, what would be the greater justice: terminating his life as he had terminated so many, many others or keeping him alive for who knows how many years, feeding, sheltering, clothing, and caring for him in a way he never cared for others? Several years ago, in Long Beach, California, a group of gang members went out looking for the sister of an opposing gang member to murder her in retaliation for some slight her brother had committed. They drove around until they spotted two young girls; they believed one of the girls was their intended target. They got out of their car and gunned down both girls, in broad daylight. Neither girl was the intended target and neither girl was affiliated in any way with a gang. They were just on their way home from school...

The gang members were found, arrested, and tried. The mother of one of the victims went to court every day of the trial, trying to make sure no plea bargains were made, no "sob stories" of "deprived childhoods" of the gangsters would erase the memories of the victims. The judge and the prosecutors took note of the mother's efforts and looked very hard at the nature of the crime, its effects on the victim's families, and the utter lack of remorse by the defendants. The gangsters were found guilty and the time for the sentencing had come; however, the trial was held at a time when the death penalty was temporarily unavailable due to court challenges. The most the the guilty would get was life in prison without parole, The judge did som research and found, in California, life with out parole was actually only a sentence of 40 years after which there was the possibilty of parole. Troubled by the unrepentant, callous nature of the gangsters and knowing they were in their early twenties and could be out in their early 60s, she decided to impose a sentence of consecutive life without parole sentences meaning, even if they served out the 40 years, the next life without parole sentence would kick into effect. IIRC, they were given each 3 consecutive life without parole sentences meaning they would have to serve out 120 years before they could be paroled. During the sentencing, the gangsters laughed, joked and made gang signs with their hands and laughed openly at the victim's mother. As they were being led away after the sentencing, they shouted out gang slogans and "Gangsterism Forever!". That was several years ago; I can think of better use for my tax money and state resources than keeping that bunch of murderous, heartless, inhuman thugs alive for no purpose whatsoever

[BossMark]

I have always said "a life for a life" you take someone else's life you should pay with your own, and the so called pc brigade and do-gooders should go and take a running jump. Maybe they would think differently if it was there son\daughter that was murdered in cold blood.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree. The problem arises when someone has been executed and it later turns out he was innocent. That is my only objection to the death penalty. The proof needs to be absolute, and it often isn't.

[Jimbuna]

I reckon the proof in this case was 'absolute' so the death penalty may have been more appropriate.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I reckon the proof in this case was 'absolute' so the death penalty may have been more appropriate.

Well but otherwise spending the remainder of your days in an Antiguan prison surely is much harder for them as beeing sentenced to death.
Hanging or shooting someone is a matter of seconds, but taking a shower with your butt against the wall and not dare to bend over for the soap the next 40 or 50 years....well....

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

Well but otherwise spending the remainder of your days in an Antiguan prison surely is much harder for them as beeing sentenced to death.
Hanging or shooting someone is a matter of seconds, but taking a shower with your butt against the wall and not dare to bend over for the soap the next 40 or 50 years....well....

Yes quite possibly....I know I wouldn't want to be imprisoned till the day I die.