Adopted children tortured, murdered in Florida

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,970
Reaction score
2,154
This may be national news by now, absolutely sickening.

Panel hears chilling tales from Nubia’s short life
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/28/2 ... -from.html

The adoption would turn tragic. On Valentine’s Day, Victor Barahona, was discovered in the cab of his red pickup truck along Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County, soaked in toxic chemicals and suffering seizures. Next to him, passed out, was Jorge Barahona, who runs a pest control company. Hours later, Nubia’s decomposing body was discovered in the bed of the pickup, shoved in a bag. Like her brother, she was 10.
 
State seeks death penalty for Barahonas

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/28/2 ... y-for.html

Jorge and Carmen Barahona pleaded not guilty Monday to charges they murdered and tortured their 10-year-old adopted daughter, as prosecutors announced they would seek the death penalty against the couple.

Thank God for the death penalty in Florida! Truth be told death is too good for this slime of the earth. They should receive extended torture follow by death. :firedup:
 
redrumloa said:
Thank God for the death penalty in Florida! Truth be told death is too good for this slime of the earth. They should receive extended torture follow by death. :firedup:
No matter how harsh the punishment, it wont bring back the dead child.
 
Glaucus said:
redrumloa said:
Thank God for the death penalty in Florida! Truth be told death is too good for this slime of the earth. They should receive extended torture follow by death. :firedup:
No matter how harsh the punishment, it wont bring back the dead child.

No, but her brother who is still alive was doused with chemicals, put through hell on earth and almost died might get closure.

-Edit-
I am not a religion man, but people like this prove the existence of evil. Anyone who can abuse and murder children in their own care are evil and don't deserve any dignity in their own life/death.
 
redrumloa said:
I am not a religion man, but people like this prove the existence of evil.

That reads as though you think the existence of evil somehow validates religion.
 
Death Sentence won't fix the adoption system. Nor will it fix anything else except satisfy the publics lust for vicarious vengeance.

Put them away for a couple of decades and that should be enough - unless it can be shown that they would continue to be a danger to the general populace after that.

I'm not a religious person either but I feel that the cold emotionless machinery of the state killing people is as evil as people killing people based on their strange passions.

If I WAS religious then I imagine I should be satisfied that these two will be horribly tortured for the rest of eternity after they die.
 
Robert said:
That reads as though you think the existence of evil somehow validates religion.

No.

The existence of evil validates the death penalty.

-deleted blasphemy-
 
redrumloa said:
Robert said:
That reads as though you think the existence of evil somehow validates religion.
No.

The existence of evil validates the death penalty.
An eye for an eye would result in everyone in the world being blind. IMO death is too easy an out for these people. They should remain in prision without parole until a natural death. The State should have no dictatorial rights over the existence of a person.

And be careful here that we don't assume we know what the victims feel is justified. For example, some parents have indeed felt death of the killer of their child is the only recourse. For other parents they are able to realize the emotions with loss they feel are too being felt by the family and friends of the killer. Death doesn't always bring closure. ... There's been court cases where the families of the victims have requested no-death penality because they didn't want the killer's family to go through the anguish and grief of loss.

EDIT -- Red if memory serves you stated you weren't religious? I think here you've given indication that religious philosophy has strongly influenced your personal philosophy. You might not be 'religious' but I don't think you've shook off it's teachings.
 
redrumloa said:
Robert said:
That reads as though you think the existence of evil somehow validates religion.

No.

The existence of evil validates the death penalty.

Oh.

And I thought the first premise was illogical.

Now I'm not sure which is sillier.

Deary me.
 
faethor said:
EDIT -- Red if memory serves you stated you weren't religious? I think here you've given indication that religious philosophy has strongly influenced your personal philosophy. You might not be 'religious' but I don't think you've shook off it's teachings.

No, I am not religious. I am not claiming some diety named satan possed these parents.

•morally objectionable behavior
•morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
•that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare
•having the nature of vice
•the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world"
•malefic: having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


I don't think you need to worship anything to believe in a concept of evil. I don't see evil as supernatural.
 
No death penalty you say.

OK lets try this.

Said killer gets life in a UK prison.
Most murders are subject to a 15 year minimum sentence, but a double murder will get you 30.

Said killer gets life in a Canadian prison.
Life imprisonment in Canada means that an offender will be under state supervision, whether in prison or in the community, for the rest of his or her life. High treason and first degree murder carry a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years, but in the case of high treason or first-degree murder (where the offender has been convicted of a single murder) could have their parole ineligibility period reduced to no less than 15 years

Said killer gets life from International Criminal Court.
The International Criminal Court stipulates that for the gravest forms of crimes (e.g., war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide), a prisoner ought to serve two thirds of a fixed sentence, or 25 years in the case of life imprisonment.

Said killer gets life in a US prison.
There are many states in the United States where a convict can be released on parole after a decade or more has passed. For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an "indeterminate life sentence'", while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence".[1] Even when a sentence specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials may have the power to grant amnesty or reprieves, or commute a sentence to time served.

So a life sentence does not necessarily mean "A Life Sentence".
But that is OK with you, because nobody should ever receive a death sentence.


Now for all you bleeding heart liberal wimps, I put to you a scenario.

Your 21 year old son has just received a 5 year sentence for drunk driving, where a person died in an auto wreck.
He is put in prison into the general population, exposed to daily contact with said killer. Yes, said killer is in the general population because he only received a life sentence. He is not locked away in a separate cell for killers, he is not put in a prison for killers only, he is put into the general population right next to your good looking sexy bleeding heart liberal wimpy virgin son.

But that is OK with Glaucus, because no matter how harsh the punishment, it wont bring back the dead child.

And that is OK with McDeath, because it will not fix anything else except satisfy the public's lust for vicarious vengeance.

And it is entirely OK with Faethor because, The State should have no dictatorial rights over the existence of a person.

I wonder; is it OK with your imprisoned son?
 
Fade said:
Your 21 year old son has just received a 5 year sentence for drunk driving, where a person died in an auto wreck.
He is put in prison into the general population, exposed to daily contact with said killer.

Why do you not consider the scenario in which your 21 year old son does not have to share a prison with the "killer" because he, like the other killer would also receive the death penalty. Is that OK with your son? Once we've said the death penalty is fine it's pretty easy to move the line around about what kind of crime is worthy of death, and there's many a moral purist who would happily cry that the devil's drink is no excuse and your kid should hang with the rest of the killers.
 
Fade said:
So a life sentence does not necessarily mean "A Life Sentence".
But that is OK with you, because nobody should ever receive a death sentence.
Surely by now you understand that laws and sentences are subject to change. Perhaps a more friendly manner would be to request if or what changes we'd recommend to fix this problem.

Now for all you bleeding heart liberal wimps, I put to you a scenario.

Your 21 year old son has just received a 5 year sentence for drunk driving, where a person died in an auto wreck. He is put in prison into the general population, exposed to daily contact with said killer. Yes, said killer is in the general population because he only received a life sentence. He is not locked away in a separate cell for killers, he is not put in a prison for killers only, he is put into the general population right next to your good looking sexy bleeding heart liberal wimpy virgin son.
In Minnesota and in the Federal system there is seperation of offenders on type of crime and expected conduct of the inmate. My DUI killing son is a non-violent offender. By 'killer' I'm assuming you mean some sort of premediated planning sort of multiple homicides type of person. They'd be a violent offender and would be seperate from each other. Again is this something we could not change? Non-violent non-repeat homicides with a drug could be seperated from Charles Manson, for example.

But to answer your question I'd be sad that my son killed someone with such a reckless abandon of others and himself. I'd also be sad if anyone killed my son in prision no matter what the crime was of that other person.

In short I view your questions here as the prision system is imperfect so instead of working to improve the system we'll throw in the towel and kill more people. As you view liberals as wimpy. I see you as wimpy as you are failing to do the hard work to improve an imperfect system.
 
Its not just liberal wimps. Conseratives too are seeing the failed gov program, high costs, and libertarian valves support abolition of the Death Penality. link
 
Faethor guessed:
"In Minnesota and in the Federal system there is seperation of offenders on type of crime and expected conduct of the inmate."
---------------------------------------
Faethor it's too bad that's not true.
Good concept, but not practiced in Minnesota or elsewhere.
Minnesota has only 1, level 5, maximum security prison. Oak Park Heights only holds approximately 450 inmates and it is full. Based on the number of beds available, inmates are sent to which ever prison has a bed open. If a new Jeffery Dahmer type of person gets sent to your level 5 prison, he has to have a place to be housed. So they make room for him by sending one of their old Jeffery Dahmer types to bunk next to your son.

You need to explain to your son's mother, why that is OK with you!

Don't hold Minnesota's prison system up as an example, because it is a poor one. As is nearly every state prison system in the US. They are all forever being sued for being overcrowded.

Take your pick of 756,000 links if you don't believe me.

And BTW, I am doing my part by paying my taxes, unlike half the people in the US who don't.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Fade said:
And BTW, I am doing my part by paying my taxes, unlike half the people in the US who don't.

"People" like General Electric don't pay tax. That's for the "little people".

And along with GE there are these other guys.

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
 
Fade said:
Faethor guessed:
"In Minnesota and in the Federal system there is seperation of offenders on type of crime and expected conduct of the inmate."
---------------------------------------
Faethor it's too bad that's not true.
Good concept, but not practiced in Minnesota or elsewhere.
Minnesota has only 1, level 5, maximum security prison. Oak Park Heights only holds approximately 450 inmates and it is full. Based on the number of beds available, inmates are sent to which ever prison has a bed open. If a new Jeffery Dahmer type of person gets sent to your level 5 prison, he has to have a place to be housed. So they make room for him by sending one of their old Jeffery Dahmer types to bunk next to your son.
It's an incorrect assumption that a serial killer would be sent to some minimum security area because the prisions are full. And again would I feel better if my son was in prision and was killed by a 'killer' or by a petty car theft? It simply wouldn't matter. By your logic we should kill car theives.

And is the world out of mud or something so no more bricks and therefore no more prisions can be built? In reality violent crime is at one of the lowest levels in the last 40 years. If you exclude drug convictions our prisions would be fairly empty.

And BTW, I am doing my part by paying my taxes, unlike half the people in the US who don't.
I assume you mean federal taxes as anyone who spends any money besides food or clothes in Minnesota sees a tax. Of course what's even worse is non-people, aka corporations, who fail to pay taxes. Fluffy did a good job at posting that data so i need not do that again.
 
Red, what would you have done to these parents: Vegan parents on trial in death of baby fed only breast milk

The child was fed only breast milk, no solids. She was also suffering from deficiency of vitamins A and B12, which may have left her susceptible to infection, experts have suggested. She died of a pneumonia-related illness.

Although the prosecution is reportedly treading lightly around the question of lifestyle, a lawyer on the team told the paper, "The problem with a vitamin B12 deficiency could be linked to the mother's eating habits."

But the parents also had a mistrust of traditional medicine and preferred to treat their children's complaints with advice from books, the Guardian reports. It may have led them to ignore signs that the baby was in distress.

"The couple did not follow the doctor's advice to take the baby to hospital when they went for her nine-month checkup and found she was suffering from bronchitis and was losing weight," said their lawyer.

"Instead they treated her with cabbage poultices, mustard and camphor and washed her with earth and clay instead of giving her baths, the court heard."
Can we lump stupid people in with evil people and just kill them all?
 
Back
Top