Yet another case demonstrating the need for the death penalty.

Link.

A Kirkwood man arrested by the FBI on Thursday was one of four Missouri men who paid a fifth to either watch him torture a mentally disabled woman online or torture her themselves, prosecutors said.

The 20-page federal indictment, unsealed with the men's arrests Thursday, contains accusations of sexual and physical torture lasting five years, acts that U.S. Attorney Beth Phillips called "among the most horrific ever prosecuted" in the Western District of Missouri.

The alleged torturer, Edward "Master Ed" Bagley Sr., 43, of Lebanon, Mo., tattooed the woman to mark her as his slave, convinced her that she was legally "bound" to him and threatened her, prosecutors said. He also is accused of forcing her to work as a stripper.

Bagley tortured the woman for five years, until he induced a heart attack while suffocating and electrically shocking her on Feb. 27, 2009, prosecutors said. She was hospitalized.

Her hospitalization sparked an 18-month investigation that led to the charges.

Those alleged to be customers for the woman's forced services included Bradley Cook, 31, of the 11500 block of Big Bend Road in Kirkwood; Dennis Henry, 50, of Wheatland, Mo.; Michael Stokes, 62, of Lebanon; and James Noel, 44, of Springfield, Mo., prosecutors said. Henry's occupation was listed as postmaster general of Nevada, Mo., but that could not immediately be confirmed Thursday evening. Cook, according to state records, is a licensed real estate broker associate.

The indictment alleges that Bagley met the woman when she was 16 and a runaway and persuaded her to move into his trailer with promises of a "great life" and a future as a model and dancer.

She got her own room, furniture and TV, and Bagley began giving her drugs, showing her pornography and sexually abusing her, prosecutors said.

When she turned 18, he persuaded her to sign a 'sex slave contract," which he said bound her to him for life, prosecutors claim.

Bagley "beat, whipped, flogged, suffocated, choked, electrocuted, caned, skewered, drowned, mutilated, hung and caged" the girl "to coerce her to become a 'sex slave,'" the indictment says. It adds that he tied her up and hung her in the air, locked her in a dog cage and used staples, nails and a sewing needle and thread during torture sessions too violent to describe.

In 2005, Bagley began boasting online that the girl was his slave and could be tortured during online sessions or in person, the indictment says.

Henry, Stokes, Noel and Cook gave Bagley cash, cigarettes, computer equipment, sadomasochism videos, coats and meat in exchange for access to the girl, the indictment says.

If she cried out or tried to stop the torture, it only got worse, prosecutors said. Bagley threatened her by claiming to have buried other bodies behind his trailer home and shooting animals that she cared for in front of her, prosecutors said.

Bagley also performed abortions on the girl, the indictment says.

The indictment says Cook, the Kirkwood man, downloaded pictures and videos of the girl being tortured, gave Bagley a computer hard drive containing sadomasochism and torture videos downloaded from the Web, watched the torture live and had sex with the girl.

Court documents allege that Cook has a long history of violent behavior, sadomasochistic conduct and drug abuse and that "he tortured and sexually mutilated at least two other female victims in the past."

A call to one of Cook's former addresses was answered by someone who declined to answer questions about Cook and referred a reporter to Cook's lawyer, but declined to provide a lawyer's name.

The men could face life in prison.

why again...?

there are bad people so we should do bad things to them?

I don't see how this counters any of the arguments against the death penalty. It's not as though even the most ardent pacifcits deny that there are sick, horrible people in the world.

Originally posted by inimalist
why again...?

there are bad people so we should do bad things to them?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because some men deserve death.

even if you could convince me of that (which is unlikely), you'd still have to convince me that there is a man who deserves the power to take a life from another

i believe that the law should be just but it isnt...

saying that how can you be sure who dies and who doesnt... how do you know who is innocent and who is guilty or being wrongly accused.

now, i believe some ppl deserve to die but it shouldnt be decided by random ppl in a court of law that is suppose to represent justice.

one man's justice is another man's tyranny...are you willing to kill that man yourself and let yourself be judged? if so have at it.

Ultimately the goal of society/government/whatever should be to try and bring about the best possible result from an already horrible situation.

Will killing this man accomplish that?

Originally posted by Lucius
Ultimately the goal of society/government/whatever should be to try and bring about the best possible result from an already horrible situation.

Will killing this man accomplish that?

Originally posted by King Castle
nope. also like the society reference.. very ala star trek...

The difference, is that in practice society is rarely interested in trying to bring about the best result as opposed to simply getting revenge.

EDIT - Of course you have to ask what lenses you are looking through when you try to bring about the best possible result.

Are we trying to bring the best possible result through the victim's eyes or through society's and do either even know what would be the best result?

Utilitarianism is difficult.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but if this guy got it I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep.

Originally posted by inimalist
why again...?

there are bad people so we should do bad things to them?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because some men deserve death.

This doesn't demonstrate the need for the death penalty. Nothing has convinced me that the death penalty stops things like this from happening, so in this case what's done is done.

Some people. Personally, he should be tortured in kind, I'm certain there's some sick **** out there would would love to torture him as he did that girl, probably for free too.

What will this accomplish you ask? It will teach the prick a lesson that torturing others doesn't feel good and that he shouldn't ever do it again; isn't that the point of the penal system?

Originally posted by Robtard
Some people. Personally, he should be tortured in kind, I'm certain there's some sick **** out there would would love to torture him as he did that girl, probably for free too.

What will this accomplish you ask? It will teach the prick a lesson that torturing others doesn't feel good and that he shouldn't ever do it again; isn't that the point of the penal system?

the punishment is removal of society not the torture that may and probably will occur as ppl in charge in prison are there to make sure those things dont happen... which they will be ignore which is also illegal even in prison.

I feel the point of incarceration is to prevent crime from happening, not to punish. Rehabilitating someone, or keeping them for life if they can't, will stop them from doing the same thing again. Punishment also serves as an aversion to people committing the crimes in the first place. I don't see the death penalty as serving any of these purposes.

Originally posted by King Castle
no.. it is suppose to rehabilitate ppl and remove them from society till the rehabilitation is done and he is a functional member of society after finishing his mandatory incarceration.

the punishment is removal of society not the torture that may and probably will occur as ppl in charge in prison are there to make sure those things dont happen... which they will be ignore which is also illegal even in prison.

Considering jailing someone for 'X' amount of time doesn't do much to rehabilitate a criminal, my way makes more sense.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I feel the point of incarceration is to prevent crime from happening, not to punish. Rehabilitating someone, or keeping them for life if they can't, will stop them from doing the same thing again. Punishment also serves as an aversion to people committing the crimes in the first place. I don't see the death penalty as serving any of these purposes.

Except of course it will accomplish the same thing as keeping them in for life. A dead criminal can't commit more crimes, same as a lifer. Though a lifer can (and do) commit more crimes while in jail.

So logically, the death penalty makes more sense than giving someone life in prison.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course it will accomplish the same thing as keeping them in for life. A dead criminal can't commit more crimes, same as a lifer. Though a lifer can (and do) commit more crimes while in jail.

So logically, the death penalty makes more sense than giving someone life in prison.

ppl should just get an option A you wanna go to prison?
do your time and rejoin society or

be removed from society permanently with no hope of returning?

Originally posted by King Castle
no.. it is suppose to rehabilitate ppl and remove them from society till the rehabilitation is done and he is a functional member of society after finishing his mandatory incarceration.

It's original purpose is was to rehabilitate (that's why its called "corrections"😉, but we now know it doesn't work. So today, prison still exists due to tradition, monetary reasons, lack of willingness to change, and the philosophy of "Out of sight, out of mind".

Originally posted by Robtard

So logically, the death penalty makes more sense than giving someone life in prison.

And from an econimc standpoint too. Why should we tax-payers house and feed some lowlife for 30-odd years, when it would be a lot cheaper to kill the fool once and for all.