Child murderer Subhan Anwar found dead in his cell at high-security prison

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by brookster18
I am a firm believer in capital punishment for most deaths including manslaughter, however, I really get annoyed when people called these murderers evil etc.

They are just humans, and had problems. This guy had problems.

Are you for real.

He tortured the child over a period of a month. He inflicted 107 separate injuries. Her arms and legs were broken. Note the plural. The girl had been battered with a pole. She had been put in a tumble drier. She died after fat deposits from her broken bones got into her bloodstream.

Unbelieveably I think he is indeed for real.......sick isn't it? How he can say that doing all the above is "not evil" is beyond absurdity and fathoming.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by brookster18
I am a firm believer in capital punishment for most deaths including manslaughter, however, I really get annoyed when people called these murderers evil etc.

They are just humans, and had problems. This guy had problems.

Are you for real.

He tortured the child over a period of a month. He inflicted 107 separate injuries. Her arms and legs were broken. Note the plural. The girl had been battered with a pole. She had been put in a tumble drier. She died after fat deposits from her broken bones got into her bloodstream.

Im not denying what he did. But its quite common. People are constantly being jailed for kiling their children. For every death theres countless case studies of people that abuse their own children but dont take it all the way. The reason being is that they dont want to kill, they just want to punish or teach their children. A recent example includes a woman that beat her child to death for failing to memorise pages from a religious text.

The fact that he did it over a month is a clear indication that it was an excalating condition, during which he probably began to beleive he was right in doing what he did, whilst all the time, with each assault he believed he would not take it too far.

As said, these people dont realise how delicate children are. They loose touch with reality.

Regarding his death. Personally im quite nuetral on it. I certainly wouldnt praise the killers, but I wouldnt loose any sleep over him. **** happens.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by brookster18
I am a firm believer in capital punishment for most deaths including manslaughter, however, I really get annoyed when people called these murderers evil etc.

They are just humans, and had problems. This guy had problems.

Are you for real.

He tortured the child over a period of a month. He inflicted 107 separate injuries. Her arms and legs were broken. Note the plural. The girl had been battered with a pole. She had been put in a tumble drier. She died after fat deposits from her broken bones got into her bloodstream.

Unbelieveably I think he is indeed for real.......sick isn't it? How he can say that doing all the above is "not evil" is beyond absurdity and fathoming.

I think thats my point. The endless view that this is evil.

What is evil?

The Moors Murderers could be defined as evil. The consioulsy took children to a far off place, tortured them and recorded it. This would be a fair description of evil. Ina Brady would argue that he has an unalienable right as a human to carry out such actions. If you cant understand his argument then you are lacking, in my opinion. But what he did was evil.

This guy progressivly lost control over an extended time. How often did he repent and treat the child, try to make it better? The time probably went by quite quickly. He probably began to not care, but subconciously hoped the child would not die.

The court ruled. Justice was done.

Perhaps if he was sent to Iraq to bomb children his 'evil' would have been seen in a better light?

reply to post by ollncasino


Finally, some good news!

I think thats my point. The endless view that this is evil.

What is evil?

The Moors Murderers could be defined as evil. The consioulsy took children to a far off place, tortured them and recorded it. This would be a fair description of evil. Ina Brady would argue that he has an unalienable right as a human to carry out such actions. If you cant understand his argument then you are lacking, in my opinion. But what he did was evil.

This guy progressivly lost control over an extended time. How often did he repent and treat the child, try to make it better? The time probably went by quite quickly. He probably began to not care, but subconciously hoped the child would not die.

The court ruled. Justice was done.

Perhaps if he was sent to Iraq to bomb children his 'evil' would have been seen in a better light?

You need a description of evil? really?

23 years being coddled and seperated from violent people in jail is not justice in response to the month long torture and eventual death of an innocent child! WTF planet do you live on?

and no, if one's intent is to bomb children it would indeed NOT be looked upon in a better light.

For your benefit, This is from Merriam Webster's Dictionary.

Evil

Definition of EVIL


1

a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked

b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct

2

aarchaic: inferior

b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive

c: disagreeable

3

a: causing harm : pernicious

b: marked by misfortune : unlucky


It kind of seems to me that what he did actually fits several definitions of evil on LOTS of levels. To argue otherwise is either ignorant, illogical or both.

reply to post by ollncasino


I'm with you. Evil does walk in this world, and this gent was the embodiment of it. He was not "misunderstood" or "frustrated" or "unaware of his own strength against the frailty of a child". the sumbitch was evil, pure and simple.

"Human" my ass. He was a monster, not a human. I've always told my kids that monsters are real, and they walk around amongst us in human skin.

There's no need to look under the bed or in the closet.

reply to post by brookster18


I don't care if they feel justified about killing a child. I don't give a damn about what their reason for doing it is or was. That's what self righteous apologists like yourself will never comprehend.

And you're wrong about people who harm children not being targeted by the general population while in prison. Hell, I even seen it first hand when I was younger in the County Jail. You miss the fact that a lot of those guys have children of their own.

I would give the two who executed that puke bag reduced sentences for good behavior. Again, I don't care why, and I don't care how. Just as long as his evil seed is wiped from this planet. How's that grab yuh? ~$heopleNation

reply to post by brookster18


What I got out of your post. He just took it too far....too far, in torturing for over a month, a toddler, who couldn't run nor hide from his torture. Too far...in *killing* no, beating to death, a toddler, over a hideously long period of time.

You say he just took it....TOO FAR....

How far would have been OK by your standards...huh....

The fact, that you empathize with this...evil monster...I can't wrap my head around that...

Des

I hope he got ass raped before they stabbed him. Love stories like these, vigilante justice!

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by brookster18

 

What I got out of your post. He just took it too far....too far, in torturing for over a month, a toddler, who couldn't run nor hide from his torture. Too far...in *killing* no, beating to death, a toddler, over a hideously long period of time.

You say he just took it....TOO FAR....

How far would have been OK by your standards...huh....

The fact, that you empathize with this...evil monster...I can't wrap my head around that...

Des

edit on 17-2-2013 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

Its actually pretty simple.

Too far in that he caused DEATH.

Thats opposed to people that abuse their children and dont cause DEATH and as such dont get caught and as such are otherwise described as normal respectable parents.

Asuse happens alot, and most of it doesnt get punished as they dont result in DEATH.

Should be pretty simple to understand something like that.

Originally posted by brookster18

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by brookster18

 

What I got out of your post. He just took it too far....too far, in torturing for over a month, a toddler, who couldn't run nor hide from his torture. Too far...in *killing* no, beating to death, a toddler, over a hideously long period of time.

You say he just took it....TOO FAR....

How far would have been OK by your standards...huh....

The fact, that you empathize with this...evil monster...I can't wrap my head around that...

Des

edit on 17-2-2013 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

Its actually pretty simple.

Too far in that he caused DEATH.

Thats opposed to people that abuse their children and dont cause DEATH and as such dont get caught and as such are otherwise described as normal respectable parents.

Asuse happens alot, and most of it doesnt get punished as they dont result in DEATH.

Should be pretty simple to understand something like that.

So what are you saying?? Child abuse is in your opinion ok as long as the end result is not death?

Do you even realize how warped that sounds?

reply to post by brookster18


Please, tell me you don't have children......

Des

reply to post by luciddream


yes. yes it is .

Originally posted by brookster18
Too far in that he caused DEATH.

Thats opposed to people that abuse their children and dont cause DEATH and as such dont get caught and as such are otherwise described as normal respectable parents.

Asuse happens alot, and most of it doesnt get punished as they dont result in DEATH.

Should be pretty simple to understand something like that.

He broke all of the child's limbs. He put the child in a tumble drier. He beat the child with an iron rod. He tortured the child for 1 month.

The child was 2 years old.

I'm sure that you agree that he was evil.

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by brookster18

 

Please, tell me you don't have children......

Des

Holy hell am I with you on that boat Des!

I find that viewpoint just a wee tad bit disturbing! By wee tad bit I actually mean "someone for the love of God please get the little white coat ready!!"

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

I think thats my point. The endless view that this is evil.

What is evil?

The Moors Murderers could be defined as evil. The consioulsy took children to a far off place, tortured them and recorded it. This would be a fair description of evil. Ina Brady would argue that he has an unalienable right as a human to carry out such actions. If you cant understand his argument then you are lacking, in my opinion. But what he did was evil.

This guy progressivly lost control over an extended time. How often did he repent and treat the child, try to make it better? The time probably went by quite quickly. He probably began to not care, but subconciously hoped the child would not die.

The court ruled. Justice was done.

Perhaps if he was sent to Iraq to bomb children his 'evil' would have been seen in a better light?

You need a description of evil? really?

23 years being coddled and seperated from violent people in jail is not justice in response to the month long torture and eventual death of an innocent child! WTF planet do you live on?

and no, if one's intent is to bomb children it would indeed NOT be looked upon in a better light.

For your benefit, This is from Merriam Webster's Dictionary.

Evil

Definition of EVIL


1

a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked

b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct

2

aarchaic: inferior

b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive

c: disagreeable

3

a: causing harm : pernicious

b: marked by misfortune : unlucky


It kind of seems to me that what he did actually fits several definitions of evil on LOTS of levels. To argue otherwise is either ignorant, illogical or both.

Not sure cutting and pasting vague nouns relating to the definition of evil really do much.

I fear that whilst I employ a personal encyclopedia of conciousness you are simply reffering to a phamphlet of life experience and thought.

I think the most applicable defination inferred is that of morality.

tsk tsk.

really.

morally reprehensible

did you define morality? His actions were throughout to punish the child. Ergo, to instill a sense of what what right and wrong. He didnt do it for pleasure or self gain. His mind was as mentioned before, in a 'piosoned' place. He acted as he felt fit to instill correct behaviour. At the age of 21 was he perfectly suited for that role? Did he understand the true and fuller result of his actions?

I think rather, a man that accepts a system of justice that represents his moral stand point and then contradicts its without having changed it is more morally compromised. What i mean by that is that I dont recall asking the governemtn to define morality for me or you. I recall government being responsible for enacting a degree of punishment upon those that cross certain boundries, morality not being one of those. hopefully you can see your concept oof evil and morality going out the window here.

The governemnt employed servants to investigate, arrest, prosecute and imprison a human being for infringing on legal boundries, namely causing the loss of life, in this case wilfully, murder not manslaughter. At no stage was morailty on the charge sheet.

I really dont see how you can leverage concepts of morality to dtermine that he was evil.

He was a superior force educating a weaker one.

Whilst I dont believe the child was his, if it was, he would under the light of a natural order have the right to take what he had created. Thousands of children are killed before, at or after birth by mothers.

I dont imagine for a moment that this was not a tight call between manslaughter and murder. To be convicted of murder you need premeditation and most incidents of this nature actually result in manslaughter, not murder.

I actually refute your and all others claims that he was evil or morally compromised.

The only truth that matters here are that he carried out a chain of actions that were the direct cause of of the childs departure from this plane of existence.

For this WE as a society must determine a course of appropriate action.

You can make yourself feel confortable if you want to bring morality into it and try to define more than is not, but myself, I preffer to deal with it in a matter of fact way.

I cant say exactly what I recommend as a punishment, but lets assume that i decided a death sentence was appropriate. That would be the course of action. Years ago most cases would have resulted in the death sentence. And ballads would be sung. And he would have a chance to repent, to give a warnign to all those that felt like he did. He would be described as an unfortunate soul that had suffered the misfortune to have lost his way. And then he would hang.

I see these to ways mine and yours as wholly seperated in all ways.

reply to post by brookster18


You can't change the definition of something just because you don't like the definition, that isn't how reality works......

reply to post by brookster18


Just wanted to let you know. Reading that reply you wrote...made me sick to my stomach.

I can see you being a lucrative defense attorney. For the likes of Casey Anthony....

Des

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by brookster18

 

Just wanted to let you know. Reading that reply you wrote...made me sick to my stomach.

I can see you being a lucrative defense attorney. For the likes of Casey Anthony....

Des

Great, lets just bring emotivism into it.

Are you easily sickened or is this based on a hardened constitution used to seeing dead bodies day in day out?