Famous finns: Aileen Wuornos
Ari J.
J. Anderson
Ari J. <jo...@enef.fi> wrote in message news:3DA4A3...@enef.fi...
> Aileen Wuornos
> http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial4/wuornos/2.htm
"Wuornos's father, Leo Dale Pittman, was a child molester and a sociopath
who was strangled in prison in 1969."
So apparently the homicidal tendencies were inherited from him, and there's
no reason to put her in your Famous Finns Gallery. Pittman doesn't sound
Finnish at all, but it could be a (rather vulgar) Swedish surname...
But it was an interesting story. I'll have to stop picking up female
hitchhikers right away ;~)
John
Timo Salo
> So apparently the homicidal tendencies were inherited from him, and there's
> no reason to put her in your Famous Finns Gallery. Pittman doesn't sound
> Finnish at all, but it could be a (rather vulgar) Swedish surname...
Wuornos doesn't sound very Finnish either, but it (Vuornos) is a real
Finnish name presumably of Sami origin.
--
Power is the greatest weakness of mankind.
Eugene Holman
> J. Anderson wrote:
>
> > So apparently the homicidal tendencies were inherited from him, and there's
> > no reason to put her in your Famous Finns Gallery. Pittman doesn't sound
> > Finnish at all, but it could be a (rather vulgar) Swedish surname...
>
> Wuornos doesn't sound very Finnish either, but it (Vuornos) is a real
> Finnish name presumably of Sami origin.
Whatever her origins, it is pathetic that a woman who had more than her
share of misfortune in life and was no longer "all there", was disposed
of like so much human garbage.
--
Best,
Eugene Holman
J. Anderson
Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:101020022255568350%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi...
> Whatever her origins, it is pathetic that a woman who had more than her
> share of misfortune in life and was no longer "all there", was disposed
> of like so much human garbage.
I love to discuss capital punishment - especially with Americans - but in
this case there's not much point in that, since I suspect that we're both on
the same side ;~)
John
Electric Avenue
"Eugene Holman" wrote re Aileen Wuornos:
> Whatever her origins, it is pathetic that a woman who
> had more than her share of misfortune in life and was
> no longer "all there", was disposed of like so much
> human garbage.
She was convicted of multiple killings and she said
that she would definitely do it again if set free. There
comes a time when laws of nature must set in and
society must protect itself from killers in its midst.
Principles of personal responsibility must apply to
all, including "nut cases".
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»
.....Electric.....
«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Jussi Jalonen
> share of misfortune in life and was no longer "all there", was disposed
> of like so much human garbage.
You _could_ think of it as a euthanasia...
Cheers,
Jalonen
Lumi Adela
> "Eugene Holman" wrote re Aileen Wuornos:
> > Whatever her origins,
She may have had some Finnish ancestors - so what? She is an American
and that's it. I think it is so peculiar to say that this or that
person is a Finn/Swede just because 100 years ago the family lived
here. Maybe I should then stop calling myself a Finn and be German
instead, because my family has German roots. Insane.
> it is pathetic that a woman who
> > had more than her share of misfortune in life and was
> > no longer "all there", was disposed of like so much
> > human garbage.
I agree. While I admit that her actions were impossible to accept, I
feel for her victims and their families, still.. too much is too much.
She was a criminal and she got her punishment, that should be enough.
>
>
> She was convicted of multiple killings and she said
> that she would definitely do it again if set free. There
> comes a time when laws of nature must set in and
> society must protect itself from killers in its midst.
> Principles of personal responsibility must apply to
> all, including "nut cases".
I do not believe in death penalty. What good is going to happen when
society starts to act like criminals? We have no right to take a human
life. And anyway, in these days death penalty is often very very easy,
piece of cake. If one wants REAL punishment, then I think it should be
whole lifetime spent in prison. No possibility to get free.
Lumi Adela
>
>
> «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»
> .....Electric.....
> «¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Electric Avenue
"Lumi Adela" wrote:
> I do not believe in death penalty. What good is going to happen when
> society starts to act like criminals? We have no right to take a human
> life. And anyway, in these days death penalty is often very very easy,
> piece of cake. If one wants REAL punishment, then I think it should be
> whole lifetime spent in prison. No possibility to get free.
I understand your feelings and your argument. Yet, is it economically
feasible to imprison all killers for the rest of their lifetimes? Isn't it
making society a victim as well by having to pay for that imprisonment?
And if the imprisoned criminals were forced to labor to earn their keep,
how do you keep that from becoming just slavery? And how do you
punish prisoners who kill while in prison for killing?
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»
.....Electric.....
«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Carol Anne Davis
going to be executed circa 2007. I profile her in my book Women Who
Kill: Profiles Of Female Serial Killers and 2007 was her expected
execution date when all of her appeals would have been exhausted. But
she decided recently that she wanted to die and refused to let her
lawyers make further appeals.
- Carol Anne Davis http://www.tellitlikeitis.demon.co.uk
jussi_...@aktivist.fi (Jussi Jalonen) wrote in message news:<d1a4595a.02101...@posting.google.com>...
Electric Avenue
"Carol Anne Davis" wrote:
> ...I profile her in my book Women Who
> Kill: Profiles Of Female Serial Killers...
Interesting. From your research, do female serial killers
have motives different from male serial killers?
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»
.....Electric.....
«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Stein R.
>
> I understand your feelings and your argument. Yet,
> is it economically feasible to imprison all killers
> for the rest of their lifetimes? Isn't it making
> society a victim as well by having to pay for that
> imprisonment?
Umm, hate to rain on your parade, but the death penalty,
as done in the US of A, is not particularily cheap. A
convicted inmate spends years and years on layer and
layers of appeals before finally executed.
An american court trial where the death penalty is
sought by the prosecution is on average 5-7 times more
costly than a murder case where the death penalty is
not sought by the prosecution.
By 1988, the state of Florida had spent $57 million
on trying and executing 18 persons. That's roughly
3.1 million US dollars per convicted and executed
killer.
If we assume you can keep people locked up pretty
tight for $100 000 per year, you could keep a person
locked up for 31 years for what it costs to execute
him or her.
If you can keep the cost at $50 000 per year, you
can keep people locked up for 62 years for what it
costs to execute them.
I can't really see that the taxpayers are saving
that much money by executing murderers in the US
style.
> And if the imprisoned criminals were forced to
> labor to earn their keep, how do you keep that
> from becoming just slavery?
>
> And how do you punish prisoners who kill while
> in prison for killing?
How do you punish death row prisoners who kill
while in prison for killing ?
Resurrect them just before they croak and schedule
a second execution ? :-)
Preventing prisoners from killing wardens is the
job of the prison administration. If they need to
use lethal force in self defense, then so be it.
If they have to kill a murderer to prevent him from
killing others, then that is pure self defense. No
problem.
If a murderer kills another murderer, who cares ?
They were both locked up for life - you bury the
dead one, and you now have one free cell you can
use for someone else. Plus one person who should
be kept in a small cage for the rest of his or her
life, since he or she seems more likely to try to
attack a prison employee.
Executing prisoners instead of locking them up
isn't about cost. And it seems to do no better
in deterring others from killing than long im-
prisonment.
So basically it boils down to a question of how
you want to take your revenge on the murderer.
And it is hard to say what would be worst for
a convicted murderer - being killed by a lethal
injection after say 5 years on death row, or
knowing that you'll be locked up for maybe 30,
40 or 50 years before dying in prison.
If you guys want to kill people for revenge,
that's okay - each society must choose it's
own system of metering out justice.
Only don't claim that executing murderers is
cheaper or a better way of deterring others
from comitting murder than locking up murderers
until they die of natural causes.
That turns out to not be the case.
Stein
Electric Avenue
than to put him away for life, but what about the endless
appeals that follow? The "trial", in effect, goes on for
the life of the prisoner. But I really can't argue with your
statistics since I don't have any myself. I guess it comes
down to philosophies. Is one personally responsible
for one's actions, regardless of one's personal history
as a victim of abuse or as a mental case, or is one to
be treated as a child?
I also have the feeling that there would a stack of
"individual rights" issues brought up about the "inhuman
conditions" of prison and the "right to redeem oneself"
and the "right to decent health care" and the "right to
communicate" and the right to "conjugal visits" and
anything else that a "prisoners' rights" activist could
dream up.
A problem that always comes up in any punishment
debate is the value of certain and swift punishment
for a crime, and conviction beyond a shadow of a
doubt. We, as a society, daily hear of people getting
out of prison on parole after only a few years, and we
see the years long process of appeals and re-trials
that end in hung juries, and we hear of convicted
criminals being found innocent by DNA evidence
after years of imprisonment. Maybe what we need
is better police work and a streamlined justice
system. Or maybe the solution lies in free childhood
education and family counseling. Where does one
put the money for a solution? Perhaps we should look
to the most efficiently organised systems that have
appeared on our planet after billions of years - biological
systems. What happens when some cells in a body
misbehave? What happens when an individual animal
in a herd or flock misbehaves? Are we so removed
from such systems that we can say that we can function
without the efficiency of death? Are we able to support
criminals, or even try them, for the duration of their lives?
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»
.....Electric.....
«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
"Stein R." replied:
Stein R.
>
> It may cost more to try a prisoner for a capital crime
> than to put him away for life, but what about the endless
> appeals that follow? The "trial", in effect, goes on for
> the life of the prisoner.
Umm - that is what happens in a death row case. There are
normally about 10 or 11 (can't remember exactly) different
places where an appeal can be lodged. Your system do not
have that many places where you can appeal a sentence of
life imprisonment.
So you get fewer appeals with a life imprisonment case than
with an execution case.
> But I really can't argue with your statistics since I
> don't have any myself. I guess it comes down to philo-
> sophies. Is one personally responsible for one's
> actions, regardless of one's personal history as a
> victim of abuse or as a mental case, or is one to be
> treated as a child?
Ah, that is a different question. And an interesting
question at that.
Not *directly* related to whether you get locked up
for life in prison or executed, since *both* of those
reactions are based on the same philosophy - that you
*can* be held responsible for your actions.
There is no particular point in locking up in *jail*
or executing a person who is demonstrably insane or
of so low intelligence that he or she cannot be ex-
pected to understand that their actions hurt others.
Put them in a psychiatric hospital for life. *Not*
as a punishment, but to keep other members of society
safe. We don't let insane dogs who have bitten some-
one run around loose among people. Neither should we
let insane people who have shown that they will attack
or kill run free.
And by all means - be really sceptical about claims
by the shrinks that an insane person is now "cured",
and should be let out again.
Stein R.
arguments>
Stein R. wrote:
>
> Electric Avenue wrote:
> >
> > I also have the feeling that there would a stack of
> > "individual rights" issues brought up about the "inhuman
> > conditions" of prison and the "right to redeem oneself"
> > and the "right to decent health care" and the "right to
> > communicate" and the right to "conjugal visits" and
> > anything else that a "prisoners' rights" activist could
> > dream up.
Quite probably. And ?
It's not like a race between you and "the evil and immoral
liberals" (*), which you can only win by executing all the
prisoners before the others get there.
(*) or whatever is your favorite label for the people you
describe above as "prisoners' right activists"
It's a free world. You can campaign for anything you
like. If you want to campaign for prisons being "less
comfy" (or some such thing), go right ahead.
To me, it is an entirely separate debate than "death
penalty vs life imprisonment".
>> A problem that always comes up in any punishment
>> debate is the value of certain and swift punishment
>> for a crime, and conviction beyond a shadow of a
>> doubt.
Aye, and again I suspect that we agree more than you
would think initially.
I have spent enough time as a lay judge in court to
share your annoyance with people who do not understand
the difference between "justice" and "law".
Laws aren't necessarily just. And in particular,
process laws - the laws that governs the way the
courts work, need a major overhaul (IMO, YMMV) in
many countries, including Norway.
They make for delays and procedure technicalities
that does not serve the cause of justice.
Sweden has a far better system for dealing with
criminal cases than Norway has, where the trial
will follow the crime at a *far* brisker case than
in Norway.
And the US of A has some really archane systems
too, more suited the needs of lawyers to make money
than suited to the needs of society to do justice.
That should be fixable in the US, if you guys
stopped electing lawyers to fill public office,
and instead started electing people impatient
with trivial details.
>> We, as a society, daily hear of people getting
>> out of prison on parole after only a few years,
>> and we see the years long process of appeals
>> and re-trials that end in hung juries, and we
>> hear of convicted criminals being found innocent
>> by DNA evidence after years of imprisonment.
>>
>> Maybe what we need is better police work and a
>> streamlined justice system.
People getting out on parole after a short time
can be fixed pretty easy : just set rules for how
soon someone can get out. 1/4 of the time served,
50% of the time served, 90% of the time served,
no chance of parole or whatever.
Just remember that you might want people who are
in prison for non-life sentences to have an incen-
tive to improve themselves in prison, since they
will need to fit into society again somehow when
released.
Overly long processes of appeals can be fixed
pretty easy: cut down on the number of appeal
instances, and be more specific about what one
can appeal, and what cannot be appealed. There
is no point in having multiple levels of courts
if all cases are appealed to a higher level any-
ways.
Hung juries can also be fixed pretty easy :
just change the requirement from "everybody
has to agree" to "a qualified majority has
to agree". Say 2/3rds. If less than 2/3rds of
the jury members vote for conviction, then the
accused has been aquitted.
As for new techniques changing verdicts - ie
proving that someone was innocent of what he
or she was convicted of. That is not a problem.
That is a good thing. We do not want people to
be executed or left in jail if they are innocent
of the crime they have been convicted of,
But conversely, maybe you would want to have
the option of retry someone who was found "not
guilty" in their first trial, if new evidence
prove that this person indeed was the perpentra-
tor of the crime.
But basically, what you are frustrated about
is not "death penalty vs life imprisonment".
What you are frustrated about is poor *proce-
dures* that give the criminals too many chances
to get away with crime.
Which delay the metering out of justice to the
point where there is no "swift and certain punish-
ment for a crime".
And we *do* agree on the value of "swift and cer-
tain". Quick and certain reaction works far better
than severe sentences for a few, after years and
years of appeals, in deterring crime of all kinds.
>> Or maybe the solution lies in free childhood
>> education and family counseling. Where does
>> one put the money for a solution?
Good grief. No. Or at least - no to "free raising"
of kids. Kids need limits. And they need to learn
that swift and certain reactions will follow some
types of actions.
But there is no "either/or" situation here. Some
money must be spent on trying and locking up people,
and some money must be spent on trying to gently
steer kids who are heading the wrong way back
towards society.
For all practical purposes, society pay *twice* for
people we end up having to lock up - it increases the
cost to society and it lowers the contributions to
society from those who are in jail instead of helping
the rest of us build society.
It is worth it to spend some money on both prevention
and retribution.
>> Perhaps we should look to the most efficiently organised
>> systems that have appeared on our planet after billions
>> of years - biological systems. What happens when some
>> cells in a body misbehave? What happens when an indivi-
>> dual animal in a herd or flock misbehaves? Are we so
>> removed from such systems that we can say that we can
>> function without the efficiency of death?
Yes, we are able to function at a higher level than
more primitive animals.
If you were to take Social Darwinism to it's logical
conclusions, then we shouldn't have hospitals - sick
animals die out there in nature.
We certainly should not provide any kind of medical
care for the old or the handicapped - they would die
out there in nature.
And we wouldn't have anything called a "criminal
justice system" - in nature might make right.
Social Darwinism style of arguments are not valid
arguments in a debate on "death penalty vs life
imprisonment".
>> Are we able to support criminals, or even try them,
>> for the duration of their lives?
Yes.
The "cost savings" of executing people instead of
locking them up for life is either tiny or negative
(ie it may cost you *more* to try and execute people
than it would have cost you to lock them up).
But in either case, the cost of keeping some people
locked up for life (or executing them) is a minuscule
part of the cost of your court system, which in itself
is a fairly minor part of the costs of running your
society.
That argument is also a non-starter in the "death vs
life imprisonment" debate.
Stein
Carol Anne Davis
writers have focused on the Black Widows who ostensibly kill for
money. eg marry sequentially and kill each husband off for the
insurance money. But if you look at these cases more closely there's
usually a power motive as well.
I concentrated on the Thrill Killers, who kill as part of a team and
often capture sex slaves to liven a failing relationship. They go
through the exact same pattern as the male serial killer - previous
violence in relationships, cruelty to animals, a long fantasy phase
where they imagine killing humans, then the serial killing begins.
- Carol Anne Davis http://www.tellitlikeitis.demon.co.uk
"Electric Avenue" <Elec...@OperaMail.commerce> wrote in message news:<VDGp9.22544$lV3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Electric Avenue
"Carol Anne Davis" wrote:
> writers have focused on the Black Widows who ostensibly kill for
> money. eg marry sequentially and kill each husband off for the
> insurance money. But if you look at these cases more closely there's
> usually a power motive as well.
>
> I concentrated on the Thrill Killers, who kill as part of a team and
> often capture sex slaves to liven a failing relationship. They go
> through the exact same pattern as the male serial killer - previous
> violence in relationships, cruelty to animals, a long fantasy phase
> where they imagine killing humans, then the serial killing begins.
Mmmm. Yes, tell me about the sex slaves. (Only kidding.) :-)
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»
.....Electric.....
«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»