What will be done to people like this in anarchy?

[Agent provocateur]

It is a fair question to ask what will the anarchist society do to people like this because they will inevitably turn up more often than you think. We should have all such offenders cut off!

Albert Fish was a child killer. He even wrote a letter to a parent explaining himself.


"My dear Mrs. Budd,

In 1894 a friend of mine shipped as a deck hand on the Steamer Tacoma, Capt. John Davis. They sailed from San Francisco for Hong Kong China. On arriving there he and two others went ashore and got drunk. When they returned the boat was gone.

At that time there was famine in China. Meat of any kind was from $1 to 3 Dollars a pound. So great was the suffering among the very poor that all children under 12 were sold for food in order to keep others from starving. A boy or girl under 14 was not safe in the street. You could go in any shop and ask for steak -- chops -- or stew meat. Part of the naked body of a boy or girl would be brought out and just what you wanted cut from it. A boy or girls behind which is the sweetest part of the body and sold as veal cutlet brought the highest price.

John staid there so long he acquired a taste for human flesh [sic]. On his return to N.Y. he stole two boys one 7 one 11. Took them to his home stripped them naked tied them in a closet. Then burned everything they had on. Several times every day and night he spanked them -- tortured them -- to make their meat good and tender.

First he killed the 11 year old boy, because he had the fattest ass and of course the most meat on it. Every part of his body was Cooked and eaten except the head -- bones and guts. He was Roasted in the oven (all of his ass), boiled, broiled, fried and stewed. The little boy was next, went the same way. At that time, I was living at 409 E 100 st., near -- right side. He told me so often how good Human flesh was I made up my mind to taste it.

On Sunday June the 3 --1928 I called on you at 406 W 15 St. Brought you pot cheese -- strawberries. We had lunch. Grace sat in my lap and kissed me. I made up my mind to eat her.

On the pretense of taking her to a party. You said Yes she could go. I took her to an empty house in Westchester I had already picked out. When we got there, I told her to remain outside. She picked wildflowers. I went upstairs and stripped all my clothes off. I knew if I did not I would get her blood on them.

When all was ready I went to the window and Called her. Then I hid in a closet until she was in the room. When she saw me all naked she began to cry and tried to run down the stairs. I grabbed her and she said she would tell her mamma.

First I stripped her naked. How she did kick -- bite and scratch. I choked her to death, then cut her in small pieces so I could take my meat to my rooms. Cook and eat it. How sweet and tender her little ass was roasted in the oven. It took me 9 days to eat her entire body. I did not fuck her tho I could of had I wished [sic]. She died a virgin."

[Cognitioned Kazak]

This person was obviously mentally deranged in nature. I believe in any society this man should be punished in a compassion manor. Regardless of what anyone may think this man is a human. To simply lock someone up for the duration of his life will acomplish nothing but effectively drain the resources of his countrymen. I feel that one thing countries are in dire need of are extreme rehabilitation centers but even then some cases..such as this one may present a problem. A problem that may only be resolved by ending this poor tortured man's life so as to preserve the safety of others.

[Hate Is Art]

Ready, Aim, Fire *bang*

One problem sorted :D

Seriously though, the guy is a nut-job and if released will kill again. I'm not sure how much re-habilitation could do!

[h&s]

No, surely a true leftist should say that (unless in revolution) killing people is always wrong.
i'm not saying he'd ever be let out, but killing him takes you down to his level.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Death is better than people like this deserve.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Agent [email protected] 8 2004, 10:59 AM
It is a fair question to ask what will the anarchist society do to people like this because they will inevitably turn up more often than you think. We should have all such offenders cut off!
What can be done other than have the offender(s) be put through due process? Any action concerning the offender(s) would be decided in the non-hierarchical institutions put in place to deal with such matters.

The resulting consequences would differ in different anarchist societies, depending on the attitudes and expectations of the people.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I took this quiz one time, I think it might have been on these forums. It was "What Serial Killer would you be? And it told me I would be him and I was deeply disturbed... by that

[Danton]

It is our sick society that creates such individuals, perhaps in a distant future when we have learned enough about this kind of disorder we can effectivley treat it and prevent these circumstances..

Until then they should be excluded from society..

[Agent provocateur]

Here is Grace Budd who was killed by this monster.

http://born2lose.host.sk/serkil/albert.htm


Albert Fish (http://roswell.fortunecity.com/seance/500/killers/fish.html)

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Cognitioned [email protected] 8 2004, 04:42 AM
To simply lock someone up for the duration of his life will acomplish nothing but effectively drain the resources of his countrymen.
And to let him out when he is addicted to eating people is even worse. Plus, I bet some one would kill his crazy ass on the street the minute he gets his fork out on them.
He is sick, and he should be institutionalized.

[DaCuBaN]

And to let him out when he is addicted to eating people is even worse. Plus, I bet some one would kill his crazy ass on the street the minute he gets his fork out on them

If it was the will of the community, under anarchism would it not technically be justified for them to kill him?

I understand your point: things like the sex offenders register in the UK are a patent absurdity, but I don't think there's a doctor on the planet could help this man, and quite frankly I would be rather hesitant to pay for his continued survival, especially considering if locked up he would doubtless resent it.

I'm sorry to say it, but I've got a nasty feeling that the answer to the question is that nutjobs such as this man would by summarily executed under anarchism.

[h&s]

I'm sorry to say it, but I've got a nasty feeling that the answer to the question is that nutjobs such as this man would by summarily executed under anarchism.

That goes against your human rights - everyone has a right to life, no-one has the right to take it away.

[DaCuBaN]

I am hypothesising... I know not what is in the mind of every man. Taking the example of the UK, and the reaction that people over here tended to have to the cannibalism case in germany, or to resettlement of paedophiles is in my mind justification that following the anarchist model of going head-on into communism with no intermediate stage would result in the death of this man and others if similar ilk.

I'm no anarchist, so this is not my viewpoint, but merely my thoughts on how it would turn out.

[gaf]

yeah i know one thing people can do weird thing to survive,and mosly it will stay as a trauma for life........who knows.how this trauma could change you .read war story,hunger story,survival story from all other this world you'll see,it goes somes really "bizaar".no denied men is the worst beast of them all
btw,papou people from new guinee said that white men flesh was the sweetest they never tasted.wonder what they would say now with all this mc do shit.and did you saw "soylent green" say..... civilised canibalisme fiction.

[Don't Change Your Name]

There's not much we can do against this kind of people.
That's up to how people would organise themselves in such a society. My vote goes for isloating them from society but not completely and making them do forced labour, since that's the most productive way for everyone. Keeping them jailed is not productive and drains resources. Killing them is usually too barbaric and it can also waste a lot of resources. So I say either we keep them into some kind of jail where they work too, or we try to treat them, which wont always work.

On the other hand that letter made me kinda hungry. Maybe we should occasionally cook them in a simmilar way if they are such disgusting people. :P :lol:

[Raisa]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 12 2004, 12:25 AM
There's not much we can do against this kind of people.
That's up to how people would organise themselves in such a society. My vote goes for isloating them from society but not completely and making them do forced labour, since that's the most productive way for everyone.
This is what I believe. We wont kill you but if you want to eat you have to work like the wrest of us. I dont think there should be specific jobs prisoners are for though, beacause then society may develop a reliance on prison labor.

[MiniOswald]

but whos gonna be the authority runnin these prisons.
me personally i would have em work somewhere, i mean with this man his problem is not caused by an actual physical disorder he is just crazy and disturbed. so make him pay by working

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:52 AM
but whos gonna be the authority runnin these prisons.
me personally i would have em work somewhere, i mean with this man his problem is not caused by an actual physical disorder he is just crazy and disturbed. so make him pay by working
I'd take it a step further. Put him on a hard labour detail with his prison overalls proclaiming "child killer", and if he even stops for an instant, have the overseers of the detail shoot him.

Oh, and you'll all be ecstatic to note that Albert Fish was executed at Sing Sing Prison, New York state, in 1936, by electric chair. :)

[resisting arrest with violence]

He should have all his limbs cut off and fed intravenously so he won't starve himself to death.

[BitchBrew]

Put him away in a nut house of some sort, where he can be both isolated from sociatey and treated for his ilnes. The nut house will ofcourse be run and taken cared of by a collective. Whats wrong with that?

[NONSENSO]

FUEGO!!!....BANG,BANG.....BANG(late, guy left safety on.)

[Alexknucklehead]

He would have to be detained somewhere of course, to say a person like this (who is obviously mentally ill) is a product of our capitalist society is naive and dismissive. People like that can't be rehabilitated or changed, the make up of their brain wouldn't permit it.

[violencia.Proletariat]

executed.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

against the wall.

or my personal favourite, indescribably gruesome torture (hey man, im not the sick one).

[Rissen]

Well, my theory about people who commit the worst kinds of murder, or genocide etc, is that surely they should be removed from society in the least expensive way possible. They should not be allowed to drain the public's money - there are more deserving people out there who would benefit from those resources. Ideas I have had are locking them in a secure room with a knife and not opening it until a month or so has passed, throwing them off of a cliff, off of the side of a ship and other things following a similar trail of thought. Perhaps they could be fed to animals?

[EJP]

Its a very good job im not leftist or communist
I have my own plans for the revolution, this man can be killed and or tortured if all goes well :D
We could practise medicine on them, see the effects certain things would do with new chemicals

Of course this will most likely go against most of your beliefs, which i can get over :P

[Gnosis]

If a man can kill a girl and eat her flesh, then it is okay for him to kill and for her to be eaten.
He doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it at all, she's small, easy to catch because she trusts him, easy to kill because she has no chance against him.

She obviously didn't want it, but what animal species could survive in the wild if it was being attacked but wasn't designed to fight for its life?

She acted her part, she fought for her life, but she was not strong, and she did not have the sense to not follow this guy into that house, she was an easy kill and died for food. The stongest and smartest survive, thats the natural balancing device.

You want him in jail, you want him dead, you want him to suffer for what he has done, pay for what he has done, you want doctors to cure his "disorder", you want justice and law.

And what exactly did he do?
He killed to eat, that's all he did.
He killed the food he liked to eat, and then he cooked her and ate her.

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it?

It wasn't a cow he hunted and ate, it wasn't a chicken, or a deer, or a fish, or one of the hundreds of other species "normal" men hunt, kill, slaughter, keep in warehouses, store in freezers, sell to consumers, you and your parents probably eat them for dinner at night, they eat them for dinner at night.

Since it was a precious, little, innocent "GIRL", and not a McDonalds hambuger like the rest of us passionless drones, then its a "crime", right?

Since she had a name, and a mama, and a dolly, and since we can remember being young, or maybe we have little children around us, since we can so directly relate to this event with such feeling, we can't accept the reality of the situation, we need a lable, something which can take reality's place, something rational, simple, a lable for this event which makes it more understandable,
easier to formulate an opinion based on, easier to make fit the mold we depend on for the happy illusion of security and safety we have come to rely on in order to function properly.
"She" is a symbol, the way you interpret that symbol shows what conditioning you have been present for and how you use your disiplined, limited energy when it comes to analyzing your environment and the things you are told exist within it.

We need to depend on lables and symbols like "crime" and "insane", for example, because we are in denial about the reality of our world and the possiblities which are made manifest within that reality. We cannot grasp something and so we lable it in order to make it easier to grasp, to relate to, to manipulate, and if it be our intent, to destroy or create. Lables make what was once uncontrolable more real, more within reach, tangible and expressable in the simplest fasion.

We've never been taught to accept this nature in man.

We've been carefully taught, conditioned, to deny this activity, to retaliate, to get angry.
When we get angry, the system feeds off our power, the system allows us to want to kill the killer, and the kills the killer for us, to make us happy, to make us "right".
Why does it do these things for us? Because if it keeps us happy, we'll keep working at our jobs, we won't ask any questions, we'll teach our kids work towards the goels of the system, we will be the system.
We create this pacifier, this temporary fix, this excuse to walk blindly through life, holding on to false ideals and common promises of faith.

At least this man was evolved in his consumption of the girl. He didn't just beat her over the head with a big stick, smash her to pieces with a sharpened rock and eat her raw with his hands.
This man is no savage, this man is no "disorder", he cooked her and used spices and forks and knives.
He's an intelligent, calculated, competent being with every right to eat what he kills.

He is a man who knows what he likes and knows how to get it and is unafraid to be himself and perform the actions he finds most satisfactory even if he knows that none of the judges around him will ever understand his soul.
Is that not an honrable description? Isn't he just like you? Don't you want to be like that?

You object to his actions because you have been programed to do so.

Accept the reality and see it for what it is, not what it "should be", then you will see exactly how to deal with the problem.

If it is natural for a man to kill, whatever his prey may be, be it a little girl or a little girl eater, then it is "allowed" by the powers of the universe and should not be "punished" because to punish an action is to lenghthen the lifespan of that action.
If your intent is to rid the world of what you call "freaks", then "punishment" or "rehabilitation" or "prevention" of that freakishness is contradictory to your cause and will only work toward the energy of that which you don't wish to experience.
If you are thinking about this topic, you are giving life to this topic. If you act as a consequence of this action taking place, if you react to it in any way, you give life to the energy which caused the action you've reacted to.
If you are giving energy to an event which you are "trying to destroy", you are in essence working against yourself, wasting your time on a distraction which is wholly unnecessary.

So you're "allowed" to get angry at him. You're allowed to want to kill him for what he did, but you're no more allowed to do as you wish then he was. He was no less allowed to eat her then you are allowed to kill him. What makes either act unspeakable and wrong is only your opinion of the events which took place, your opinion based on your learned perspective and your conditioned perception of your apparent environment.

That man was percieving the same dimension of space and time you are.
He lived under the same system you do.
He was taught the same things you are, but he rebelled and since you haven't found rebellion, you act within the perameters of the personality you have chosen from the options that were placed before you by your parents, your teachers, and your local and federal politicians/clergymen.

You disagree with his actions because you have been programmed to do so by the events and experiences you've collected as your conciousness since before you were born. If you had lived the life that man lived, you would've done the same thing.

How can you judge him "insane"?
You are just as "sane" as any homeless skitzophrenic you care to pick up on the street. The difference is in your conditioning and how you continue to respond to it.

You see yourself in him, you get angry because you don't want to be that and so you wish to kill him. That's the way it should be, eliminate the weak, he is weak, he doesn't control his urges.

I think its okay to kill the man who ate the child, but I also think its okay for him to eat her if he wishes and can pull it off, which he has.

If I am to allow for one killing, then I must allow for the next.

They are in essence the same action, the apparent difference is a clever illusion set up by a society, culture, family, government, SYSTEM which prefers to not face reality as it is untainted because it is non-controlable and therefore a threat to order and control, power and slavery, the dominion.

Justify the movement and you've got something tangible.

Sure this man is a danger, but only to the little girls and boys. Don't leave your children with him, but don't freak out when he eats them because its a part of life whether you chose to "allow" it or not.

Sometimes people should die, best if you get them when they're young, before they have a chance to reproduce or otherwise fuck this world up.
That way there's less to clean up after they're gone.

Love.

[OleMarxco]

Of course...it's just "nature's law". She -was- foolish and trusted him, but how much
can you ask? A total stranger...hmm...well, still, it's not benefiting our society,
we don't need to indulge them, but torture them I don't say.

Surely he can be rehabiliated, but a punishment's of sort's may still be necessary, to, shall-we-say, "Get the point across". It could be arranged? ;)

Y'see, Cannibalism is just not "'nother culture" - it's a CRIME to HUMANITY. Point taken? The end.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

to that guy who wrote that really long message about how its ok to eat people:

i see your point, i.e. he was killing to eat, we do the same. i.e., but there are a few things i must point out:
1. when we eat a hamburger in McDonalds (which i dont anyway, coz mcdonalds suck, but thats not the point) we dont write a fucking letter to the cows mother and tell her all about it (again, the fact that cows cannot read is not the issue here).
2. if you use that "natures law" stuff, you should know that no species that is even slightly advanced actually eats its own kind, at least none of those species on the same lines along which humans evolved. it is reasonable to believe that there is a food chain in nature, and that we are on top of it, so why did this man go and eat a goddamm girl? next time, TRY A FUCKING BURGER!
3. we are the people, and this is our society, and i think we can safely say we dont want anybody going around eating girls. or at least not until theyre older, and not in that way. so if you pose a threat to the freedom and/or safety of an anarchistic people, then they will have no chice but to kill your ass. nothin personal...

[kurt]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 8 2004, 03:01 PM
No, surely a true leftist should say that (unless in revolution) killing people is always wrong.
i'm not saying he'd ever be let out, but killing him takes you down to his level.
Don't presume to claim what a true leftist would or would not condone. If you condone killing in revolution, then you are condoning killing when the situation is necessary. This is indeed a situation where the killing of another human being is necessary. Leaving him in jail for the entirety of his life is not practical, nor humane. A quick execution is all that is required, and would most likely be the popular choice for a situation like this.

[Zero]

For the most part I see killing someone as a waste of time. Since mass murderers just want to get their point across. Or become so infamous that thier crimes will follow them wherever they go.

But people so fucked up as that just need to be delt with.

I like George Carlin's idea for capitol punishment. "Why don't we roll a guy in cookie dough and lock him in a room with a wolverine whos high on angel dust."

[Patchy]

Eh, you know, hit him with H.E.

[closetcommie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:28 AM
For the most part I see killing someone as a waste of time. Since mass murderers just want to get their point across. Or become so infamous that thier crimes will follow them wherever they go.
Some mass murderers do enjoy the prospect of fame, but this can be controlled. While the murderer is awaiting his just punishment, deprive him of any sources of mass media. Deprive him of any validation he might receive from it, and when he dies, and assurance that he's a world-reknown monster will only be by the work of his imagination.

It's kinda funny how I've evolved on the death penalty. As I moved further left in my politics, I became against it. I still have a problem with it with how it is used in the US -- where a person can be executed just because of a confession (which can be coerced), or because of a single witness (reliance on one person's memory is NOT good "proof") with no other evidence. Here in TX, when Bushie was Governor, he signed the execution order for a guy where the sole witness saw him kill a person in a car across a darkened parking lot in the middle of the night. The guy had an IQ of about 80, yet left no other evidence that he killed this person. He had violent priors, but had never murdered anyone, but that was enough for the TX criminal system. It also helped that he happened to be black. I was against that execution, and remain against such executions where there is shakey evidence. Under such a system, innocent people may be routinely executed -- and that's just evil.

However, I'm turning on such cases as described above. For a civil society, people like that are a complete danger to the system. For people like that to roam freely would create chaos and destroy civilization. It's hard to rationalize a situation where it's "okay" for someone to eat children, but not "okay" for society to protect itself from him.

Mass murderers who've been convicted by irrefutable evidence . . . yeah, they should be executed quickly, and deprived of receiving any notoriety from their actions.

[Tap]

I think the point a lot of people got, but some people missed, is simply this: that murder and death are a part of the human experience. As much as we may be be repulsed by it, and rightly so, we must understand that it is ultimately going to happen. Not everything is a psychological ailement which the society can heal - that is a fallacy of the inquistion, really; that all problems can be solved by accepting Jesus. We can see that that's bullshit, but it's harder to see through whatever fundamental belief systems dominate our day.

It's important to remember that when you judge someone for a "crime", you're judging them within the context of the ethics of that particular society that you're living in.

And I just had a whole conversation about this with my friend, so I'll excerpt what I said to him and put it here.

People are against killing without thinking about why they're against it. You're not doing him a favor [by keeping him alive]. To assume that humans don't have the right to kill is parallel to assuming that people wouldn't die otherwise. Anyways, the fact is that people die. It's not FUN to think about, but you need to understand that no one is being cheated out of anything when they die. If I die, I'm not going to sit around going, "Man, those jerks, I could be alive right now", am I? No. I'm going to be dead. I mean, I can't be sure about that, but it makes more sense than anything else. Or, at least as much sense as anything else. Regardless, we can't sit around worrying about what happens to someone after they die, if anything. From where we are, there's just as much a chance that everyone has some lovely eternal orgy when they die, and keeping people alive is a disservice - as there is a chance that people stop existing when they die, or go to Hell, or are reincarnated, or whatever. Death isn't something people should be afraid of. The only people afraid of death are the ashamed - the Christians. Most humans throughout most of our history have had more important things to worry about than dying today or tomorrow. Anyways, up to the very last second that you die, you're still alive. You have no time to worry about being dead when you're still alive. It's not something we should be so concerned about. Don't look at it as cutting off their life before it should've been over; that's bullshit. Look at it as deciding that a person's whole life will end here or there. They still lived a full life. They just died sooner than everyone else expected. If I died now, I wouldn't give a damn. Everyone else might be terribly upset about it, but I wouldn't be done any disservice. Anyways, most people when given the choice would rather live, because that's what they know. People would rather death come on it's own than bring it artificially. I'm going to die. I don't know when, and I don't care when, really. I'm interested to see death, but it can wait. When it comes, it'll come. Anyways, though, executions aren't a matter of "should" and "shouldn't". You either kill the guy because he's a problem, or you let him live because he's not. It's not romantic, but it's true.

People aren't upset that some little girl stopped existing - except for the people who knew her. They're upset because some little girl or those two little boys or whatever in the story were tortured. The people who knew these people who died are the same as anyone who knows a person that dies - it changes them forever, but their face doesn't rot off over it. Life goes on. I'm a kid, and some day my parents will die, and it will be unpleasent and possibly traumatic, and I'll carry it with me for the rest of my life. But that's a part of life - and not in the way school or work is. You know what I mean. It's a fundamental part of life as a human. It's an experience that of course not everyone has, but a lot of people do have it, and it's something they live with.

The dude who wrote the really long post a couple posts up, I agree with him totally, and he said a lot of what I was going to. He identified that ultimately it has nothing to do with "rights", because the idea of a "right" is completely invented and has no basis in reality. "You have no right to do this or that or whatever", but that's based on a system of "justice" which only ever existed in the abstract, and only then to serve the purposes of the State.

Not everything is rehabilitable. If we kill a person, it's not because we think that person is a freak; but because that person is PHYSICALLY DANGEROUS. All you who wish to kill a person because they are sick and twisted: you are very, very susceptible to becoming that which you despise. Killing a person because they are scary is bigotry, and is EXACTLY the same as lynching a person because they are black. I say that because what you are doing is looking at them as an ideological threat, a lifestyle threat, an imagined threat, a label, an object.

We hid away the lepers because they scared us. We killed the natives because we believed them to be uncivilized, wretched heathens. We lynched the blacks because we thought them physically inferior, and because they scared us. And now we aim to kill the gays because we don't understand them. Be careful when you decide what should be done with a group of people: understand that everytime that us-against-them fear boils up, every time that disgust and terrified ignorance shows its' ugly face, it's that same thing that drives patriotic fervor and religious zeal, and it can be and is more dangerous than any group of people could ever be.

Someone rapes or cannabalizes or serial murders: rehabilitate if you can, kill if you can't. They'll understand. Be angry, be unforgiving, but DON'T BE SCARED - terrified labeling will send you on witch hunts and lynchings, and we've been down that road before, comrades.

[closetcommie]

I certainly understand the sentiment to avoid "witch-hunting," and obviously, we're aware that each of our lives are finite, but in one of the posts on this thread, the sentiment seemed to be that because death is imminent, no one should think twice about someone else killing and eating a child. If people were allowed to run around and kill and eat whomever they wanted, society would cease, and we'd be a bunch of wild animals.

I'm for the evolution of human society -- not the return to the wild.

Back to topic -- it does seem that there are some disorders where the assailants are generally non-rehabitable (sp?). Child molestors come to mind -- they have a very high rate of recidivism. Just because violence is "natural" doesn't mean it can be tolerated in an evolved, civilized society. If eating children were "normal," I'd move my family to a mountain and become a hermit, I wouldn't participate in a society that valued your right to eat my children.

Obviously, unfettered cannibalism is a detriment to society.

[poster_child]

Gnosis:

you are saying that this behavior is okay, but what if that was your daughter? Would you think it was just as okay then?

I personally think tha people like that should be given the worst jobs in society, and monitored. Death isn't an option- 1-everyone has a right to life and 2- death is too easy, he diserves to be unhappy, like her family is.

[tunes]

Behaviorism. I think if you look into this guy at all, you can see his childhood played a huge role in his later behavior. "Fish grew up in an orphanage where he was ruthlessly whipped and beaten"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish). Condition people in such a way(extinction rather than coercive punishment) to not even allow for these kinds of atrocities. I think once we stop attributing his behavior to some mystical mind inside him and start observing his behavior since he began learning, we can find a way to prevent this from happening entirely.

[Clarksist]

He ate a human, not that different than eating meat! :P

Well, one thing that should be noted about Albert Fish, is that he had a hard background as a child. If we could help children's growing up be better and more nurturing, we could get rid of a lot of these same problems.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 8 2004, 11:01 AM
No, surely a true leftist should say that (unless in revolution) killing people is always wrong.
i'm not saying he'd ever be let out, but killing him takes you down to his level.
No. Killing is sometimes justified. For people like this, it is justified.

One rifle round to the head should do it. Hell, maybe even chopping him up and throwing him to the fishes? Dunno, but he deserves hell worse.