Murderer of Baby P burned in prison

TheHermit wrote:

All the cheering in this thread makes me wonder whether any of you even care whether "torturous pain and lifelong scarring" were part of his sentence.

Speaking for myself: nope.

Quote :

All the cheering in this thread makes me wonder whether any of you even care whether "torturous pain and lifelong scarring" were part of his sentence.

haw haw you think i care about other people

JOKES ON YOU, I'M AN ASSHOLE

Torturous pain and lifelong scarring may not have been part of the sentence, but given the nature of the crime they're rather appropriate afflictions.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Don't try to tell me that, even if you don't beleive something like this should've been allowed to happen (I don't), you're crying a river over this guy.

I don't feel bad about this particular guy, nope. You sure got me there. I was more lamenting the overwhelming focus on "justice" over rehabilitation in the public (and therefore our corrections system). Even I can't feel bad for bad people all the time.

Glad I'm starting to be known as "the prison guy", though. My multiclass into Issues is going swimmingly.

Quote :

Steven Barker, who is serving a life sentence for his part in the
infant's death, was reported to have been scalded by a burning mixture
of sugar and boiling water hurled by another prisoner.

Too bad those burns weren't fatal.

Actually, it's great that he's scarred for life because now wherever he goes he'll be recognised, even with a name change.

Quote :

Boiling water and sugar is known in prison circles as "napalm". The improvised weapon sticks to the skin and intensifies burns, one of the principal effects of jelly-like napalm bombs.

I did not know that, now I do. Luckily for the journalists, I'm not going to put this information to irresponsible use, I wonder how many people are.

TheHermit wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Don't try to tell me that, even if you don't beleive something like this should've been allowed to happen (I don't), you're crying a river over this guy.

I don't feel bad about this particular guy, nope. You sure got me there. I was more lamenting the overwhelming focus on "justice" over rehabilitation in the public (and therefore our corrections system). Even I can't feel bad for bad people all the time.

Glad I'm starting to be known as "the prison guy", though. My multiclass into Issues is going swimmingly.

1) As a prospective psychology student, I've learned there are some people simply beyond rehabilitation. Judging by the information I have regarding to what he did to this kid (barring that voices in his head told him to do it, or something like that), I have to say this guy would probably be one of those people.

Now what is the answer to people like that? What do we do with them? Do we just lock them up for the rest of their days? Do we put them down like sick dogs? Either way, "justice" makes people happy. It's only natural for us to want a just universe, and when something like this happens to someone like that, it's only natural for us to go [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] .

2) It's not so bad to be "That Prison Guy". You back up your opinions well, so I don't mind you in the least.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

1) As a prospective psychology student, I've learned there are some people simply beyond rehabilitation. Judging by the information I have regarding to what he did to this kid (barring that voices in his head told him to do it, or something like that), I have to say this guy would probably be one of those people.

Now what is the answer to people like that? What do we do with them? Do we just lock them up for the rest of their days? Do we put them down like sick dogs?

I find myself fascinated by moral and ethical quandaries like the ones you mentioned, which I'm starting to believe makes me a strange person since very few people I know actively seek them out the way I do.

And the questions which defy easy answers start even earlier. How do we reach the conclusion that they cannot be rehabilitated? What criteria do we use? Who makes that call and how do we prevent bias or conflict of interest? Is there a practical difference between "cannot be rehabilitated" and "might, but it would be long, expensive, and with a high risk of failure"? If there is, what do we do when the specter of recidivism rears its ugly head? This isn't really the place or time to discuss it (and I hardly think I'm qualified to answer even if it were), but these are the kinds of questions that excite me.

Fairlight wrote:

Quote :

Boiling water and sugar is known in prison circles as "napalm". The improvised weapon sticks to the skin and intensifies burns, one of the principal effects of jelly-like napalm bombs.

I did not know that, now I do. Luckily for the journalists, I'm not going to put this information to irresponsible use, I wonder how many people are.

It's even referred to as "napalm" by cooks and such, and the potential damage it can cause is definitely emphasized. Because, yeah, it sticks and burns like hell if you don't/can't do something about it right away (amateur [me] + boiling sugar = gratuitous profanity at full volume in four languages).

If they wanted to mess this guy up without killing him, they used the right weapon for it. Not saying I condone the action or anything, but they certainly knew exactly what they were doing with it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] And even depending on the severity and percentage of the burns, he may well get infections that could prove life-threatening.