Five horrific serial killers who are free right now

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.cracked.com/article_16998_5-horrific-serial-killers-who-are-free-right-now.html

Ignore the black humour of the article for a moment, and focus on the point being made. These people all killed in horrific ways (personally, I would have put Metal Fang and Pedro Lopez as 2 and 1, but that's just my opinion) and are out there, free. It still happens, even today; a lot of killers convicted have killed before. If Arthur Shawcross hadn't been released from prison after his murder of two children, there are a lot of women who'd still be alive today.

[DesignFox]

Please tell me they made this up? :eek:

[IDrinkaRum]

DesignFox - you can find Pedro Lopez, Mr. Sagawa, and Karla Homolka all written about at Crime Library (http://www.crimelibrary.com). The articles there are much more in detail and they go through the trials and any updates if there are any.

Also, there is the serial killer index (can't remember the website). If you type in serial killers, you can find a whole slew of websites dedicated to and just about serial killers. It's fascinating if you're into that sort of thing.

[Slytovhand]

Well, now you see, that's this thing called the 'justice system'. While you don't have a death penalty, and 'life' sentencing has a maximum value... any criminal is likely to get out at one stage or another...

[Bloodsoul]

They never did find the Zodiac, did they?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Nope; just think, next time you serve a customer... it could be him. O.o

[Flyndaran]

Hypothetical rehabilitation could help most criminals. But serial killers are almost all incapable of controlling themselves and that sounds more like mental illness than willful disobedience of laws.
I really wish the human governments were more about fixing problems than revenge punishments.

[DesignFox]

I don't know. Seems like a pretty simple solution with regards to serial killers- dispose of them.

If we don't have the balls to dispose of them, at least lock them up permanently.

Why are these monsters out walking the streets?

[Greenday]

I really wish the human governments were more about fixing problems than revenge punishments.

You really sound like my criminal justice teacher. I never really thought about it quite so much until this class. Look at how we still judge people from over a century ago for their actions. 100 years from now, they could quite possibly be looking at how we are dealing with criminals and they'll say, "Wtf were they thinking?" Sticking people in jail isn't doing crap. Rehabilitation needs to occur to actually make a difference.

[AdminAssistant]

Rehabilitation needs to occur to actually make a difference.

How do you rehabilitate Jeffrey Dahmer? The BTK killer? And IF you could rehabilitate them and release them back into society, they will not live long. A family member or loved one of one of their victims will likely see to that. That's one of the reasons that the Westside shooters (the 11 and 9 year old who committed the premeditated murder of 5 people and were both released at 18 with clean slates and new identities) were ordered upon their release to leave the state and never come back. One of them was stupid enough not to follow that advice and now whines about how nobody will hire him.

Sorry, back on topic. Can these people be changed or cured? I doubt it, honestly. Killing dozens of people, saving their heads, eating the rest...if that's not justification for the death penalty I don't know what is.

I'm more concerned about how the prison system affects non-violent offenders.

[anriana]

I kind of think that celebrity is the best status for a serial killer to have, in terms of public safety. I'm sure that most people in Japan know what that serial killer looks like and as he's so much in the public eye it would be much harder for him to kill someone again unlike a serial killer who fades into society after release.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Issei Sagawa isn't technically a serial killer (he only ever killed one person) so he's not really as dangerous as the likes of Metal Fang and Pedro Lopez.

I don't really know why cracked.com put him in the number one spot; I'd have picked Pedro Lopez cuz his crimes were worse. He raped and murdered several hundred young girls; and he's walking around free. O_o

[Sylvia727]

Jeffrey Dahmer, if I'm remembering my criminology classes correctly, was cracked from the beginning. As a teenager, he fantasized about knocking out a jogger so he could cuddle with the unconscious person. His cannabilism and lobotomies were crude attempts to have another human being stay with him. All of his pathologies were rooted in a desire for human contact that had no healthy way to express itself. Sad and horrific, yes, psychologically broken, yes, but I can't say that he's evil. Pure evil, in my mind, is the person who kills to see what it's like, just to watch their victim die. Perhaps in one hundred years, society will pick up on the symptoms of the next Jeffrey Dahmer and fix him before he injures others. Unfortunately, no one was able to help Dahmer when he was younger, and people died for it.

[Boozy]

I don't think every criminal can be rehabilitated. Hell, maybe most criminals can't be rehabilitated. I don't know.

But I don't understand why you'd kill someone when throwing them in prison for life solves the problem. How is someone in a super-maximum security prison a continued threat to society?

I suppose capital punishment is done for revenge. That's a disturbing thought to me; that a supposedly unbiased and rational justice system is swayed by emotion.

[Lace Neil Singer]

The primary concern must be to protect the public from these people. I cited Arthur Shawcross in my first post; he murdered two young children for sexual purposes, was convicted and put in prison. Years later, he was released; only to start murdering prostitutes. Had he been kept in prison for his first murders, he wouldn't have been able to do this.

Several serial killers have severe trauma in childhood; for example, sexual abuse, and/or blows to the head. I think, if I remember rightly from the book I read about Shawcross, that he was found to have a genetic problem; XYY chromosome.

If we're citing serial killers who were doomed from the start, I'd mention Carl Panzram. If you're interested in this kind of thing, you could read his autobiography. It's pretty disturbing in parts, but is a real eyeopener as far as delving into the mind of a serial killer goes.

[Gerrinson]

But I don't understand why you'd kill someone when throwing them in prison for life solves the problem. How is someone in a super-maximum security prison a continued threat to society?

I suppose capital punishment is done for revenge. That's a disturbing thought to me; that a supposedly unbiased and rational justice system is swayed by emotion.

Personally, I consider a $0.85 bullet much more cost effective that keeping a murderer locked up for life in super-max. Not that we shoot them, anymore, but that's the simple version.

Besides, if you locked me up in a tiny room with nothing to do but stare at the walls for the rest of my life, I'd be begging for death. The way I see it that's crueler by far, than simply killing them.

Honestly, I think keeping them alive is the more emotional response. A quick clean death is cheaper and far kinder than locking them away forever.

The only problem with capital punishment is that the justice system clearly locks up innocent people. Thus, you could only really apply in cases where overwhelming evidence, and ideally a confession, are present. While I believe in capital punishment, I can see the flaws that would lead to killing an innocent person. And I can't come up with a good fix for it.

But in cases like all of these proven serial killers? Just put a bullet (or several) in their brain. Problem solved, and there is no chance of parole or repeat offenses.

[Boozy]

I can see the flaws that would lead to killing an innocent person. And I can't come up with a good fix for it.

I can. Don't kill people.

[DesignFox]

<snip>
Honestly, I think keeping them alive is the more emotional response. A quick clean death is cheaper and far kinder than locking them away forever.

<snip>
But in cases like all of these proven serial killers? Just put a bullet (or several) in their brain. Problem solved, and there is no chance of parole or repeat offenses.

This is how I think, too.

I don't think the death penalty should be used lightly. But in the cases of some of these people that were listed in the article? Hell yes.

The thing that disturbs me most about the Japanese guy is that he's out there being celebrated for his crime. I mean, I guess it's good that everyone in Japan knows who he is. His fame may keep people wary since they know what he is capable of...but running free? Making money? There's something seriously wrong with that.

Do I think the woman who assisted her husband should get the death penalty? No. She didn't commit the atrocity herself, and likely was co-erced given the extreme circumstances. Should she be free? I'm not so sure about that.

The guy that murdered, ate and even fed parts of women to his unsuspecting friends? Fuck yes, he should be dead.

The guy from Ecuador who murdered HUNDREDS of children? Death penalty.

That other guy that killed the family? He was caught stealing and shot them all...I'm on the fence on that one. I'm not certain his crime warrants the death penalty (I don't see that he PLANNED to murder those people), but I don't believe he should be released from prison, either.

It disturbs me that these people are out there and free, when they are indisputably guilty of their crimes. It really unsettles me that anyone would defend keeping these threats to society alive. Didn't the article mention that some of these psychos ESCAPED while they were imprisoned? Sure. Let's let those guys live...

To my mind, there are just some cases where the only appropriate thing to do is put the person down.

[Evandril]

Idealy, a death sentance isn't 'punishment', it's removing someone from society who has proven they cannot live within it. Keeping them locked up until they die is STILL a death sentance, just a far slower one.

As far as rehabilitation goes, I feel it is dependant on the crime. Certain crimes are 'bad' enough that if you did manage to 'reform' the person...Living with the knowledge of what they had done would, in *my* opinion, have a good chance of being unbearable.

[AFPheonix]

Many people in prison are there because of socio-economic reasons or mental health issues. The system we have now only serves to keep these people in the loop of crime, since they have a hard time getting legitimate work after they've served time, and they have quite a few things they are required to do after release that can prove difficult for someone with little to no resources to do them.

If we could administer the death penalty in a way that only truly guilty, non-fixable people got it, then fine. However, history has shown that we are not yet capable of that. We've managed to execute quite a few innocents, and it's been given disproportionally to non-whites.
So, until we can get to a point where our forensic ability is far superior to what we have now, and when we as a society can manage to not judge people by their skin color, and we have better mental health care available to all, then maybe I would support death penalty.
Until then, life in prison without parole is far less expensive to us as taxpayers than death penalty and it keeps our hands free of potentially innocent blood.

[Evandril]

We've managed to execute quite a few innocents, and it's been given disproportionally to non-whites.

Can you show a source for that, please? Last I'd heard, noone had shown anyone who'd been excecuted as anything less than guilty...But quite possible that's not true anymore, so I'd love accurate information :) The non-white, unfortunatly, is still almost a given...Keep hoping it'll change *sighs*

[linguist]

[QUOTE=AFPheonix;17504] We've managed to execute quite a few innocents, and it's been given disproportionally to non-whites. [QUOTE]

Can you show a source for that, please? Last I'd heard, noone had shown anyone who'd been excecuted as anything less than guilty...But quite possible that's not true anymore, so I'd love accurate information :) The non-white, unfortunatly, is still almost a given...Keep hoping it'll change *sighs*

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

the above link gives just a few examples of those executed whose guilt was in doubt. unfortunately, proving innocence after execution becomes a difficult ordeal, as those who were responsible for the execution don't want to admit to making an irreversible mistake. there have even been cases where the prosecutors have destroyed or attempted to destroy all associated evidence after execution that may prove innocence.

however, given the sheer number of convicted death-row inmates who've had their convictions overturned, it becomes increasingly likely that at least some of the inmates actually executed were in fact innocent.

[Boozy]

It's easier to hunt down examples where the death penalty has been unfairly and arbitrarily handed down. For example, it's far more likely that a black man will get the death penalty than a white man. The odds are worse still if said black man has killed a white person.

Odds of a white guy getting executed for killing a black guy? Almost zero.

Here's a link:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blacks-who-kill-whites-are-most-likely-be-executed-13844.html

[IDrinkaRum]

For those interested, here is a link to the story of Carl Panzram (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/history/panzram1/1.html).

[Lace Neil Singer]

For those interested, here is a link to the story of Carl Panzram (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/history/panzram1/1.html).

And if you want the book, it's called "Panzram - A Journal Of Murder" and is by Thomas E Gaddis and James O Long. I would really recommend it.

Panzram wanted his own death at the end; he understood that he could never be rehabilitated and deliberately provoked the authorities into giving him a death sentence. At his hanging, he even cursed the hangman for not being quicker.

[DesignFox]

For those interested, here is a link to the story of Carl Panzram (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/history/panzram1/1.html).

That is a twisted story. :(

[Tanasi]

Frankly I'd be a lot more liberal with the use of the death penality. Serial rapists and serial drug dealers are at the top of my list along with murderers. I'd also apply the DP to habitual drug users and drunk drivers. Make rehab mandatory and if after the 5th or 6th try they're still offending then IMO they've demonstrated they will not stop and therefore are of no use to society and need to be removed permanently.
Here locally 5 young adults car-jacked two more young adults and over the course of two days raped, sodomized, tortured, murdered and in one victims case was burned. These crimes were/are horiffic all are career criminals and while some have had periods of actual good behavior IMO they everyone deserve the death penality. The current defendent on trail lawyer has been trying to get his confession thrown out of court because defendent is an admitted liar and shouldn't be held to his so-called "word". No any other punishment is too good for them and besides if they were all convicted tomorrow it'd be 20 years or more before the sentence was carried out.

[the_std]

Serial rapists, murderers, drunk drivers, I can understand. But why drug users and drug dealers? Their actions are completely voluntary, whereas the victims of murderers, rapists and drunk drivers have no choice.

[blas87]

While I do think laws and punishments regarding drunk driving are far too lax in the US, I really don't think it warrants the death penalty. They need to go to jail/prison for longer than just a few days/months at a time. Once they are out, they just take their keys back and hop in their car again, regardless of if they are revoked or not. Stick them in prison for years and years, especially if they are way past their 1st OWI......take away their freedom to roam the roads drunk and they will go stircrazy.

I believe the death penalty should only be reserved for people who murder in cold blood and commit heinous sexual crimes, like rape.

[Flyndaran]

...
I believe the death penalty should only be reserved for people who murder in cold blood and commit heinous sexual crimes, like rape.

Absolutely not in the case of rape. If that were the case, then every rape would end in death.
I'm an atheist, so killing anyone is far too final. The few innocent people murdered in the name of society deserve more than an "oops we goofed" to their relatives.

[Tanasi]

Serial rapists, murderers, drunk drivers, I can understand. But why drug users and drug dealers? Their actions are completely voluntary, whereas the victims of murderers, rapists and drunk drivers have no choice.

The fact that their actions are voluntary is the point, no one makes them use or deal they made that decision and everyone else be damned. While a lot of users hold down a job and are functional druggies a lot more are theives and worse. The dealer prey on these folks and even more guilty because of the methods they use to keep or expand they place in the chain.
I'm all for helping those that want help and are willing be helped the others not-so-much. Now I'm not saying one chance and off to ride the lighting but when they're caught put the users in mandatory rehab and after 5 or 6 chances they're still using then it's off to ride the lighting. Dealers personally I'd give one chance and then off with their head. It's real simple just don't sell. And before we start on the socio-economic situation I call bull-shit. There's nothing but minimum wage entry level jobs out there, well you gotta start somewhere. I worked for minimum wage for years until I worked my way up.
IMO there's no excuse to be a dealer, a druggie or a drunkard.

[Boozy]

The fact that their actions are voluntary is the point, no one makes them use or deal they made that decision and everyone else be damned.

I think the_std means that the so-called victims of drug dealers are volunteers. They choose to buy the drugs and use them.

[Scamper]

I'd apply the DP to habitual drug users

:eek: Are you seriously proposing that coffee drinkers be put to death??!!
or did that not occur to you? It doesn't occur to most people that caffeine is a drug, and that when they take Tylenol for a headache they're "self-medicating".

[the_std]

IMO there's no excuse to be a dealer, a druggie or a drunkard.

Okay, what exactly do you mean by "druggie"? Someone who is caught with pot? Smack? Meth? What's your limitation there?

Being a drunkard is legal, by the way. There is nothing illegal about alcohol, just driving under the influence. You might want to change your terminology to be less wide-spread, there.

And yes, I did mean that the victims of drug-dealers are volunteers. I think that that definitely lessens the severity of their crime.

[anriana]

While a lot of users hold down a job and are functional druggies a lot more are theives and worse.

You yourself acknowledge that not all druggies are horrible leeches on society yet you still want them all put to death?

And yes, you need to clarify exactly how you are defining a drug user. Is the Native American who uses peyote in a religious ceremony deserving of the death penalthy? The cancer patient who uses marijuana their doctor prescribed them? The cancer patient who lives down south and can't get a medical prescription yet has the same symptoms? Someone who got an overdose of morphine after a hospital visit and is now addicted?

What about salvia? Should everyone who uses that be put to death as well?

[Evandril]

If you want to deal with the problems of drug use, and not blanket punish everyone using them, no matter the reason...Legalizing it seems a more reasonable route, to me. People kept talking about how horrific it would be when Nevada legalized prostitution...and I've yet to see that come about. The only practical reason I've ever found for pot not being legal was how easy it is to grow your own....So the tobacco companies wouldn't make a profit, and have been VERY adamant in stopping it's legalization.

[Tanasi]

:eek: Are you seriously proposing that coffee drinkers be put to death??!!
or did that not occur to you? It doesn't occur to most people that caffeine is a drug, and that when they take Tylenol for a headache they're "self-medicating".
No AFAIK caffeine is legal and while somewhat addicting generally doesn't cause normal folks to wig out and hurt others. Tylenol is a legal OTC medication and I have no problem with people using it in a legal manner. I've read of folks buying cough syrup and drinking it in an illegal manner to get high and that's wrong. If the user was addicted then I say put them in rehab if they keep offending well then....


Okay, what exactly do you mean by "druggie"? Someone who is caught with pot? Smack? Meth? What's your limitation there?

Being a drunkard is legal, by the way. There is nothing illegal about alcohol, just driving under the influence. You might want to change your terminology to be less wide-spread, there.

And yes, I did mean that the victims of drug-dealers are volunteers. I think that that definitely lessens the severity of their crime.

I define a druggie as someone that habitually uses illegal drugs. Again I'm not saying get caught one time and off to the chair but put them in mandatory rehab and make it very known you've only got so many chances before it's too late.
AFAIK being a drunkard isn't illegal if so then the majority of the precious Kennedy clan wouldn't be with us I just don't like being around drunkards. I just said there's no excuse for being a drunkard I didn't say it should be a punishiable offense beyond the current punishments of drunkard offenses (except for drunk drivers.)
IMO the user isn't a victim at all they're willingly breaking the law by the actual purchase and the conspiricy of illegal drug trafficing. Did the dealer make they buy from them??? I'd say no. While many would like to claim victimhood you can't claim that and then knowingly and willingly break the law.

You yourself acknowledge that not all druggies are horrible leeches on society yet you still want them all put to death?

And yes, you need to clarify exactly how you are defining a drug user. Is the Native American who uses peyote in a religious ceremony deserving of the death penalthy? The cancer patient who uses marijuana their doctor prescribed them? The cancer patient who lives down south and can't get a medical prescription yet has the same symptoms? Someone who got an overdose of morphine after a hospital visit and is now addicted?

What about salvia? Should everyone who uses that be put to death as well?

IMO the vast majority of druggies are leaches upon society and if after several failed attempts to sober and clean up then yes. If you know going into the usage of drug that after being put through rehab 5 or 6 times and you're still using then you are committing suicide and the state will just hurry that along.
An indian using peyote isn't illegal there is specific exceptions in federal state laws but if I remember correctly that's only for certain tribes.
IMO for cancer patients in states that allow it then I'd don't have a problem if it's legally obtained. I'd even so far as to legalize it from a federal standpoint and make it free to prescribed patients. But those patients should know if they harm others while high then they'll face consequences short of the death penality.
Currently the parts of marijuana that "relieve" cancer pain and retards glocomma can be extracted and produced in various amounts and is available for prescription without the mind altering effects. Let's say the drug is available free to prescribed users. I say the vast majority of those that currectly smoke it for medicinal purposes will continue to smoke it because they're in reality smoking it to get high and would continue to illegally obtain it.
If someone was legitimately addicted to opiates in a medicinal setting through no fault of their own then that's a whole different set of circumstances. I say they should be helped. Again I'm not heartless.
Saliva please.


If you want to deal with the problems of drug use, and not blanket punish everyone using them, no matter the reason...Legalizing it seems a more reasonable route, to me. People kept talking about how horrific it would be when Nevada legalized prostitution...and I've yet to see that come about. The only practical reason I've ever found for pot not being legal was how easy it is to grow your own....So the tobacco companies wouldn't make a profit, and have been VERY adamant in stopping it's legalization.


OK lets legalise drugs, make the current illegal recreational drugs only available for free from federal government sources. The drugs will be purified and made safe. Any doseage will be available as often as the user wants. If you're caught in the poccession and/or distribution of illegal drugs then upon conviction immediate death penality no appeal. If you harm someone under the influence of legal drugs then 20 hard labor no parole. If you kill someone while under the influence then upon conviction immediate death penality no appeal. Also any health problems that occur from the abuse of drugs isn't covered by insurance (you're on your own.)
Before you're given any legal drugs you are made aware of the penalities and you sign off on that and you're can not reneg your understanding at a later date. How's that for a dose of reality??? Harsh punishment for needless crimes. Sooner or later you gotta step up and be woman or a man and accept you responsibilities, this bullshit of endless victimhood has to stop someplace and I just picked a spot. I'm not sayiny my plan is by any means perfect and could possibibly use some tweaking but I think it's a danged good first step.

[Greenday]

I just want to point out that the use of the death penalty as a deterrent doesn't work. So making the penalty for illegal drugs death won't do crap.

[anriana]

An indian using peyote isn't illegal there is specific exceptions in federal state laws but if I remember correctly that's only for certain tribes.

So is it worth the death penalty for non-Indians then?


I say the vast majority of those that currectly smoke it for medicinal purposes will continue to smoke it because they're in reality smoking it to get high and would continue to illegally obtain it.

That's a nice sentiment. All you cancer victims, you're really druggies trying to get high who would have no problems breaking the law to do so?

If someone was legitimately addicted to opiates in a medicinal setting through no fault of their own then that's a whole different set of circumstances. I say they should be helped. Again I'm not heartless.

How would they be helped? Sent to rehab a few times then killed if it doesn't help them?

Saliva please.

Please elaborate. And I'm not sure if this is a typo, but I am referring to Salvia, not saliva.

[AFPheonix]

IMO for cancer patients in states that allow it then I'd don't have a problem if it's legally obtained. I'd even so far as to legalize it from a federal standpoint and make it free to prescribed patients. But those patients should know if they harm others while high then they'll face consequences short of the death penality.


Marinol is pretty darn expensive and is rarely covered by insurance. We hardly ever dispense it. Further, it has a pretty narrow temperature range to keep it potent. Frankly, a potted pot plant would be a heckuva lot easier and cheaper to deal with than the prescription version.
As an added bonus, there is not a higher risk of lung cancer due to smoking marijuana as some recent studies have determined.

[Lace Neil Singer]

This is getting a bit offtopic; can we discuss drug use and what punishments to give to drug users/dealers in a new thread please?

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/shawcross/life_1.html

Read. It's a story of shocking government incompetance in that they let out a convicted killer to kill again for no good reason. This guy even married this woman in jail who believes baselessly (ie, cuz she wants to believe it) that her husband is innocent of all crimes.