Troubling how? Well now here's the thing....in1989, Dahmer went on trial for the molestation of a 13 year-old boy. "At his trial for child molestation, Dahmer was the model of contrition, arguing eloquently, in his own defense, about how he had seen the error of his ways, and that his arrest marked a turning point in his life. His defense counsel argued that he needed treatment, not incarceration, and, astonishingly, the judge agreed, handing down a one-year prison sentence on "day release"—allowing Dahmer to work at his job during the day and return to the prison at night—as well as a five-year probationary sentence. Lionel Dahmer later stated in an interview with CNN that, while his son was incarcerated, he wrote a letter to the court that issued Dahmer's sentence, asking that he get psychological help before being released from prison. However, Jeffrey Dahmer was granted an early release by the judge, after serving only 10 months of his sentence" So the consensus was that he needed psychological help. Even his dad urged the judge. But, he got an early release and went on to rape, murder, cut up, and eat 12 more victims. Sure he was sentenced after that and yet somehow, justice wasn't served IMO because those 12 people might still be alive if the legal system had done the right thing in 1989. I didn't advocate anything. I provided an instance were a case of vigilantism could be justified. I consider myself a Constitutionalist. The current process of dissecting the Constitution via the federal and appeals courts is what is hurting this country IMO.
Troubling because too many seem to advocating bypassing the rule of law and taking personal action. Too many questions to answer. First the justice system is limited and rightly so. Justice can be served and still fail to prevent future crimes as it did here. Even with psychological help Dahmer may have done the same thing. We don't know. Was there more that could have been done to stop him? I somehow doubt it as it is and was then very hard to keep people off the streets if they have served enough time and committing them for possible future acts is not possible. [QUOTE uscvball said I didn't advocate anything. I provided an instance were a case of vigilantism could be justified.[/QUOTE] Come on now justification like you did is advocacy. I agree to a great degree. Likewise allowing for bypassing the constitution and laws is also very harmful.
No matter what anyone says you and @red55 are never going to admit to condoning taking the law into ones own hands for an act of revenge no matter what atrocity the offender has committed. Would you condone taking the law into your own hands to protect a member of your own family? I have no way of knowing whether any thought process other than the desire for revenge went into Gary Plauche's decision to kill the pervert who molested his son but Plauche was certainly aware of how the system works. Due to his job with the TV station he was aquainted with police, lawyers, public officials, ect. For Doucet to have his fair trial he would have the right to be confronted by his accusers. I would think that Jody Plauche wasn't Doucet's first or only victim but since I have never heard anyone else come out about it the accuser and star witness at a trial would have been 11 year old Jody Plauche. Young Jody would have been forced to recall and testify to every sordid detail of his multiple molestations by Doucet. He would have had to relive that trauma in open court and tell his story to a courtroom full of people. No doubt the prosecuting attorney would have been as gentle as possible but he would still have had to elicit the facts from Jody. After that Jody would have faced a vigorous cross examination from Doucet's attorney. The defense would have used every trick in the book to discredit Jody's testimony. He would have tried to make him seem delusional, forgetful, stupid or just an outright liar, or all of the above. A skilled defense attorney trashing every last vestige of the self respect of an 11 year old boy. If Doucet would have spent the rest of his miserable life in Angola with his BFF Bubba that would have been great but you know as well as I do that he wouldn't have been sentenced to life without parole. I'm not an attorney or a judge so I don't know for sure what his sentence would have been but a first offense charge of child molesting reduced to something like "improper touching" with a charge of non aggravated kidnapping and Doucet is back on the streets in 5 years. 8 years tops. The percentage of pedophiles who are successfully rehabilitated is almost zero. Doucet would have learned to be a better pedophile and not get caught so easily in the future. How many children and young men are there who were never molested because Gary Plauche splattered the warped brain of a pedophile across the Ryan Airport concourse? Its likely he did a big favor for a lot of people who will thankfully never know about it.
I might get angry enough to kill someone without thinking, anybody could. It happens all the time. But I would never condone taking the law into my own hands. Understand? I would surrender to the police and plead guilty . . . just like Plauche did. He was wrong and he knew it. People who defend his actions are worse than wrong, since they are not acting in the heat of anger.
I was once told that this would never happen. lmfao. http://www.click2houston.com/news/j...ad-accused-of-killing-drunken-driver/27754042
Lack of evidence as opposed to sympathy though, wasn't it? I just skimmed an article earlier today. I wonder if the dead man's family will now try to extract their own justice by killing the father.
