The Death Penalty

Doyle, thanks for an interesting and thought provoking article. I am aware of arguments on both sides and would be hard pressed to make a decision for or against. I don't think killing is "right," no matter by what agency, but I also believe that society and/or family and friends of victims are justified in wanting a measure of justice.

I'm so stuck on this one. One part of me believes that no human has the right to take the life of another, and this includes legally by death penalty. The other rejoices when Bundy fries or my cousin's murderer is killed by another inmate.

Ethically I stand by the first stance. The wrongful convictions because of a D.A. who pursues a conviction whether or not the defendant is guilty, faulty police work, frames, set ups, etc.. Too numerous to be truly sure in many, not all cases, of who the perpetrator is.

The other part is concerned about mass murderers or those who kill carelessly and without conscience. Are they truly redemable? Probably not. Unfortunately there are persons who are born without the ability to determine right from wrong, and I'm not talking about someone who is mentally deficient in the strictest sense. In fact, the ones that worry me the most are those who are highly intelligent, like Bundy, but carefully choose to torture and kill other human beings. Should we house them? What if they escape? Bundy did, and killed again.

There is no easy answer. I believe that a single murder cannot be punished in this way; the margin of error in convicting the wrong person is too extreme. But what if they have killed before, just not been caught, and kill again after release? What if they harm someone close to me, God forbid, even my children. I know I would want to see them terminated, with a vengence!

So still, I sit on the fence...

ps: I'm not religious. No problem with "morals," just deep philosophical ethics.

Susan: Would prison without possibility of parole be considered justice?

Genine: Great point. The trial is classed as "The People of the state of . . . vs. Defendent" Not as victim (or their family) vs. Defendent.

This is not about revenge or redemption. I wonder though, when I see Charles manson serving life while J.Q. Anger catches his wife in bed with his best friend and is executed. Manson, John Wayne Gacy . . . so many NOT condemned . . . . and so many more condemened for (IMO) lesser faults. Serial killers and mass murderers have a much more difficult time in prison, usually getting killed themselves (like Gacy) by somebody making a name for himself.

But . . . locked up for life . . . . or killed. Society is better with WHICH alternative?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Not an easy question.

There are people for whom the only fit punishment is to remove them from our midst--Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, the three greatest mass murderers in world history (in reverse order, incidentally), come to mind.

There are the people Genine refers to as "mentally deficient in the strictest sense," and they are not only unredeemable, but a liability to society, which would probably be much better off without them.

And then there are the run-of-the-mill murderers, most of whom had a problem with drink or drugs that culminated in their taking another person's life. Can they be redeemed? Some, surely.

The trouble comes in when we consider that the majority of death-row inmates are persons of color, from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. If you're Black, you're more than twice as likely as a Caucasian to end up with the death penalty, and that is just plain wrong.

The problem is directly related to finances. $500 buys $500 worth of justice, and in a lawyer's office that doesn't go very far. If every death-penalty case were tried by public defenders, there might be a difference. But people with money would always find a way to work the system to their advantage.

I guess my opinion is that our death-penalty is over-used, but not outmoded. There are people who should never see the light of day after their crimes. I think those people prove that to us most clearly, and they should be put out of our collective misery. Perhaps a change in the protocols for seeking the death-penalty is in order.

Nice idea Weaver but the system is what it is and how can we ever escape the power of money to provide a better defense or negotiated settlement? Are we better throwing (for example) a Hitler to the masses or locking him up forever? The examples you site are government sponsors . . . not the usual case in these trials . . . and never accountable till the regime has fallen. Truly an example of a thin sliver of the people who deal with this issue.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Ok Melinda . . . but we DO sentence people to life without parole. And I understand that a vicitim or family of a victim may have their own idea of justice. But isn't that really just revenge? Getting even? Is revenge justice?? Is execution justice??

No easy answers and so far no real taking of sides by anyone. I'm surprised. I assumed there would be some black/white decision making here! LoL!

Should have known better I guess . . . philosophers aren't know for black and white thinking (for the most part)!! :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Death penalty is wrong...........

I am torn on the issue of capital punishment. For the most part, I am against it. Too many innocent individuals have been executed in the past.

On the other hand, those who commit crimes against children should be executed with an electric chair that doesn't get em the first time.

Don. If you're sure shouldn't it end with a period?? ;)

Shannon . . . everyone is somebody's child. Is your life worth less then as you get older?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Doyle, I've often pondered if a life sentence without possibility of parole would be "just." For society, it may be acceptable, for me it would be acceptable, but for the mother of a murdered child, would it be enough? Every day of her life she would feel the loss of her child and know the killer is alive...maybe watching TV, maybe taking online college courses, reading books, learning about the world her child will never see. How do we tell these families to "move on?" I don't know if I could do it.

Susan: Revenge is a motive. But is it easier to move on if the killer kills himself or is executed? The victim is still gone. And is it justice? Executing a killer is not the same a killing an innocent person . . . the family will not and cannot get justice. But society CAN be protected from further incidents, yes?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Hi Debbie!
Always, examples tend to extremes . . . the Socratic method! love it. Is is worse if a child is killed? An elderly grandfather is valued less than a 16 year old delinquent?? Does age make a difference (since children continue to be brought up)? I agree, when personally affected . . . the issue is framed differently and a different response can be anticipated. But do we let the victims dictate what the cooler heads of society should do . . . ? :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Oh Debbie! Where did you go? Great comment . . . ( gasp ) - gone. :(

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

If the question is "Society is better with which alternative?" I would have to oppose the death penality which legitimizes killing, and is paramount to saying we are helpless against this murderer, and must thus murder him or her.
The question of life (no possibility of parole) versus death is complex, and so are the issues surrounding it. Very emotional as well.
It is hard to be philosophical if your child has been murdered, or has murdered.

Smiling at Doyle. I hate it when I typo!

:) I see Debbie! So I still ask . . . children are worth more?

Melinda: Justice was different when they beheaded Marie Antoinette than it was say several months earlier, right. Because something starts one way doesn't make it right nor can it be an excuse for it to continue.

This is a case where it need not still "go on". The same crime in one state (without a death penalty) will have a very different consequence than in a state with the death penalty (today). Is it right that two identical crimes ends in one person's death but not the others? Maybe this should be a Federal (and uniform) idea?


Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

No, Doyle I don't feel children are worth more. Society often does respond differently to the death of a child however.
I used the child/mother relationship as an illustration both because I am a mother and because it is a relationship that society tends to understand and have strong feelings about. :)

Fair enough and worthy of Socrates. Using extreme examples shows us where the line is. :) Children represent innocence more than older people do . . . symbolically at least!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Death penalty is wrong!!!!
There ya' go.

LMAO! Don't hesitate Don! Say how ya' REALLY feel! :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I believe with all of the DNA testing now done, that there is a small chance of making any mistake as to whether or not a mistake would be made in executing the wrong person, Having said this, I do believe in the death penalty, I do not care what excuse, the convicted killer uses as to why, he/she went down the wrong path in life, they have no right in playing God and taking an innocent persons life. Some of the ways that they have killed innocent victims is horrible, what about the pedophiles who kill innocent kids, this makes me sick to think of these poor children or young adults, the elderly or anyone being at the mercy of a killer, only the killer doesnt show them any mercy or doesnt kill them in a humane way, I do not feel sorry for the killers, they all have a story, I was abused as a child, I came from a broken home, I didnt know who my daddy was, I was on drugs, the list goes on. Try being the victims family, who has to deal with this tragedy every day of their lives, knowing that there was nothing that they could of done(as parents) to protect their children. I think that the appeals for criminals should be cut back to 5 years and execute them. I do not see how it is cheaper to house an inmate for life ,especially since people are living longer now, than to execute, I think this is what is wrong with society today, not to many accept responsibility for their actions. We are to soft of a nation on crime and this is why, crime runs rampant in the USA. If these criminals lived in Iran or some of these other countries, they would be put to death a heck of alot faster, than in the USA , they wouldnt have all of the rights that criminals have here, As it stands, criminals seem to have more rights than the victims or the victims families. I stand firm on my beliefs, if you take a life , then you just turned your life over to the state.

Hi Vickey!

First one with an opinion on THIS side. Welcome. You said . . . :they have no right in playing God and taking an innocent persons life." This I take it (playing God) is a right society has?

" I do not see how it is cheaper to house an inmate for life ,especially since people are living longer now . . . " - Whether you see it or not . . . it is true. Does the cost matter to you? Is it significant? You should know the life expectency in prison is significantly shorter than in society.

I'm not sure crime (murder) is rampant due to softness on crime. Prisons are bulging.

Thanks for the bravery in stating the opinion. Brace yourself . . . stay calm . . . and defend yourself logically if you get negative comments. ;)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I have a problem with the death penalty. I had a brother murdered and although I didn't demand or think that killing his killer would help me get over the grief. I sympathise with those in pain and want the people responsible gone. It's a tough call.

Sorry to hear that Jeff. Those affected by this sort of thing often suffer from this topic in many ways . . . do you hope for revenge and forego forgiving . . . do you ever get true justice? I don't think there is a way to get true justice. You can stop another incident with execution or imprisonment . . . but that's not justice and not fixing the problem. It's tough indeed . . . with no easy answer.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I could not pull the lever, or push the plunger, or throw the switch. I would not ask someone else to do it. ENDS the discussion of the death penalty for me. I would not execute, therefore I will not ask anyone else to do it on my behalf. I can and have killed animals for meat. NEVER FOR SPORT, and humans are to sacred to me to kill for any reason.

If the circumstances were right, I could start that IV and never lose a moments' sleep. I knew Judy Buenoano, the first woman executed in Florida after 150 years. Her fiance, John Gentry, was a good friend of mine. She crippled her son, and then tossed him out of a canoe with huge braces on his legs and drowned him. She poisoned her husband, and poisoned John and then firebombed his car when he didn't die quickly enough. I could have pulled that lever without a second thought, not because of John, but because of what she did to her son. The woman died much too quickly and easily in that chair, IMO.

I do not support the death penalty in any instance. If we prosecute people for taking lives, it makes no sense to me that we then turn around and take their lives ourselves. We are one of a small handful of developed countries in the world we still have the death penalty - that should tell you something.

Karl: So there is NO crime you feel would warrant this penalty?

Dee: Wow . . . sorry to hear about that . . . it's been mentioned already that where this touches people personally there is some variation in reactions - but reactions are expected . . . society is tasked with keeping a civil head and responding intelligently, not emotionally. This is why criminal cases are docketed as The People v. J.Q. Defendent. People are expected to have emotional reactions.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

But on the plus side Sheryl . . . it's no longer legal to execute retarded people or children (amazing to me that they even had to fight for that). ;) Not all states have the death penalty . . . so besides racial and income disparities . . . there are geographic disparities as well.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I used to be an advocate of the death penalty. After seeing the movie "Shawshank Redemption," about 10 years ago, I started to rethink my position and found myself on the fence on the issue for a very long time until a couple of years ago.

I went back and forth with the pros and cons, the cost to keep them alive, the cost to kill them, the morality, the New and Old Testament verses you cited, and then I finally based my new stand on the fact that we do make too many mistakes.

Although our legal system remains the best in the world, it is a relative accolade. Our legal system is flawed. As we uncover the truth about past rulings due to DNA evidence and other technological advances, we are finding that more and more death row inmates are not guilty as charged. Even if just one innocent person were put to death unjustly, it would be one too many. Not only that, but if the unjustly accused remains in prison and is still alive there is a somewhat better chance that the case may be further investigated and the real felon found, tried, and convicted than if one were dead.

Another interesting point Sue. For every 'innocent' man waiting to take that walk . . . . there is a guilty man outside . . . waiting (hopefully waiting) to re-offend.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

But we still try many children as adults and send them to adult prisons - that's a crime in and of itself.

I think that when society needs protection from a criminal, a Bundy, a Gacy, or one of those Genine called "mentally deficient" that the death penalty is certainly called for. Again, I support it, but only in cases where the condemned is unredeemable.

Kenneth McDuff was released from death row in a Texas prison, and went on to murder at least 8 more victims. We finally executed him in 1998, about 20 years later than we should have.

Sorry if I seemed indecisive. I'm not. There are good reasons to put a criminal to death. They are not always the ones we employ, however.

Also, please let me infuse a comment on just one more thing about proving guilt or innocence with DNA if that is the ultimate persuasion that, at least in the future, the death penalty should be considered just. Although DNA has become the "golden standard" for proof these days, remember that it is costly to run the tests. This may mean that only the people that can afford it will be able to hire a team that can vindicate them. Also, as the technique is used more frequently there will be more cases where contamination of the evidence is more problematic than it is now.

I understand Sheryl but find myself concerned on what the line is. With youth getting mature at a younger age and people living on their own at younger ages . . . sometimes due to homelessness . . . they get tossed into the "try them as adult" categories. A sheltered kid the same age with a home and parents will be tried as a juvenile. What a mess.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Ann:

I see what you're saying but the problem is that it's not necessarily happening the way you think it should. (Excellent link and example by the way). You know if he had been sentenced to life w/o the possiblity of parole he would not have been released. From time to time I have seen the deathpenalty overturned and each time it is the commuted sentence become "life" - not "life w/o the possibility of parole".

That bit of news might be even one more reason to go against the death penalty. Here we have Charlie Manson . . . who had the death penalty as his sentence but now goes to his parole board hearings every so often. His sentence was commuted when the death penalty was overturned.

The sentence has flip flopped more often than our reason for invading Iraq. EACH time they all get commuted sentences and the possibility of release. AND . . . each time we have more and more people getting disparate sentences for similar crimes . . . some dying . . . some not . . . depending on the prevailing political wind.

So while I understand your position . . . Bundy, Gacy types won't cause anyone any sleep loss if executed . . . . this isn't always the way it works. Gacy, Manson prime examples of people not being executed.....

But how many of these types of people are there? Currently 25 people are scheduled to be executed between now and Sept. 18th, 2007. Thats a few months. Can you name 25 people (even famous) like these seiral killers? There just SUCH a small amount of the total. 17 have already been executed this year. There have been 1,074 executions since 1976 . . . with the majority being carried out in Texas (392).

Now . . . there were 0 executions in 12 states and the District of Columbia . . . but guess who has the lower murder rate? Texas? Or Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, or Wisconsin (who executed nobody). Five other states execute only ONE person in that 30+ years.

Doesn't seem like the penalty is being applied fairly.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Sue:

Well spoken and I have to point out that people aren't familiar with this 'new' technology and some just don't trust it. In that technology . . . how could a mistake happen . . . or be discovered if it did?? You would need serious (expensive) experts. for both sides . . .

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

When I met Judy, I told John that there was something wrong with her. There was no question in my mind that the woman was very bad news, although I honestly had no idea just HOW bad. She murdered her son to collect his insurance to finance a beauty salon that she wanted to buy, and he was only disabled because she had tried it once already and the other son lost his nerve at the last minute and couldn't do it. There was no question....none at all....of her guilt. Now, if there is any chance that the person may be innocent, I would not support their execution, but in cases like hers, where there is not a shred of doubt anywhere I just don't have a problem with it.

The other part of that is, I worked trauma center ER, ambulance, and air ambulance for years. I have seen many people who were murdered and what it does to their families. I probably wouldn't even support it for a crime of passion if it didn't involve children, but for out and out, no questions, no doubts, cold blooded murder? Yeah, I don't have a problem with it.

Wow Dee. Sorry whenever one of these incidents affect anybody. The question really is, does Society profit by killing these people more than locking them up forever. You, clearly, have made your decision. You have every right to do so. Others find it not so easy. They have to find their own way. I think nobody could fault you or any person who these things have touched to develop their thoughts as you have.

May your decision bring you peace!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

It's a good article, Doyle. Alot of valid considerations.

For myself, I decided against the death penalty decades ago. Not necessarily because murderers don't deserve it, but because I am morally unwilling to participate in the death of another person. I don't see it as an issue of justice, but morality - not the murderer's morality - mine.

Jesus said that whatever we do to the least of our brothers, we do to him. Buddha reformed a mass murderer. Should our own spiritual goals not be to be like these spiritual giants? Or to put it the way the evangelicals do: "What would Jesus do?"

Steve . . . you struck a chord with me. It's more about US then it is about THEM.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Doyle.

Nice to be in "accord"!

Regards,
Steve.

Just not a Honda Accord! :P

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

LOL! No, that would be an Insight! :)

I like the way you think Steve. Perhaps you can write our group a thought provoking article we can fight over! ;) Something without an answer would be ideal!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Thanks, Doyle. I will consider your suggestion for an article. Most articles I have written have been on environmental/global warming isses. Some think these are "controversial". I do not. I'll try and think about a controversial topic that has no easy answer.

Doyle:
I joined the thread late, so you're probably the only one who'll read this. I am not against the death penalty per se, but I don't believe there is a perfect system of determining guilt or inocence. Even DNA requires a chain of evidence which can be broken. Prosecutors are human, with all the frailties that implies.
When people talk about "victim's rights" it boils down to revenge & that's not justice no matter how heinous the crime.
I'm with those who say that if something horrible were done to a loved one, my idea of apt punishment would involve hammers. Which is exactly why I shouldn't have a say in whether someone is killed by the state. Changing public mores are another reason why we should leave the death penalty to whatever god we believe in.

Great post. You got some excellent comments.

Thought-provoking article, Doyle! There is no easy answer. The issue needs to be considered in a dispassionate manner from different angles.

Deterrence, if it really works, is the only social value death penalty has in extreme cases of premeditated murders proven beyond all doubts.

Strangely, as a far-right conservative, I am totally against the death penalty.

I am always surprised at myself when I say that. LOL

I live in Texas, and with the advent of advanced DNA testing techniques I know there have been several convictions overturned. Not all of them involving the death penalty, but you know where there's smoke...

Spartan:
I have seen some very guresome things in my day and they change a person . . . and make one wonder about humanity. I wonder if making executions public would increase the debate and opposition to the death penalty . . . or would it turn into a spectacle. Any thoughts?

Gary: Thanks for the comment and welcome to the group!

CA: I see this kind of thing time and again. Conservatives can be against the death penalty . . . liberals can be against abortion . . . never let another person define who you are ! They'll do it anyway . . . but just to make it easier for them to categorize you (or me)! :)

Julie: I tend to agree about your assertion that some people cannot be reformed. The concept of being sick and tired of paying is a bit overused, in my opinion, for two reasons:

1) The cost is less than executing . . . Society will pay either way. New Jersey is currently eliminating the death penalty (through legislation) due to the last study which has indicated how the cost is far less to lock them up than to execute them. No study has ever stated the reverse.

2) I find myself concerned that money should play a part in this consideration at all. We are a society that spends money on all kinds of things . . . from nuclear weapons to homeless shelters. To consider a monetary price as a factor in a decision about extinguishing a human life is (to me) unethical.

Thanks very much for the comments everyone. Stimulating and welcome.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Dolphi:

The death penalty is not a deterrent to the crime of murder. It just isn't something people consider when drunk, drugged, enraged or in any mental state where they might do such a thing.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Doyle

I dont agree with the death penalty. Not because I am a christian or anything on those lines.

1. I dont believe in heaven or hell....so once you are dead you are dead unless you are reincarnated. Yes if you are reincarnated you will have a tougher time in the next life but you should pay for your crimes in this life.

I dont agree with the prison system. The heck with cruel and unusual punishment bring back the chain gangs and make these people suffer and remember every day what they have done.

2. I have never bought the arguement that to show people how wrong it is to kill you kill them????

My 2 cents

Hi Lori!

You make a point. This need not be a religious argument. Some people have a tough time understanding that you can be an atheist and still think killing is wrong. Athiests can be very moral people. (Off-topic, I know) . . .

Point 1 above mentions "you should pay for your crimes in this life." But the fact is some don't . . . whether they should or not.

"The heck with cruel and unusual punishment bring back the chain gangs and make these people suffer and remember every day what they have done."

I have seen this thought crop up from time to time - it is usually from people who have absolutely no conception of what prison life is like. I can guarantee you two things, regardless of the place, are uniformly true of real (versus 'Country Club') prisons:

First - the inmates do suffer. Ever wonder what happens if one is brutalized? The victim is a felon, the assailant is a felon and usually the only witnesses are felons. A difficult case to prosecute. We successfully prosecuted three people who had sexually attacked an inmate who was being held in the County Jail for unpaid tickets. But this is rare. Usually . . . . nothing comes of it.

Second - chain gangs and work programs are in place. Most work is done in the prison since that protects society, but not all of it. Instead of black and white stripes and the old ball and chain they wear orange (here) and work under armed guard. This is not considered cruel nor unusual.

Thanks for your input. Looking at your two points I wonder why you are against the death penalty then. :)


Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

From the American Heritage Dictionary

civ·i·lized (sĭv'ə-līzd') Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

I think in light of this definition an argument can be made by people both for and against as it becomes a subjective term.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Julie:

I have a hard time believing that sustaining that non-human life with the labor to contain them, three squares and dental and medical health care is more expensive than their execution.

This is difficult for a lot of people to understand. It remains true whether it is believed or not, however. As you point out, though, money should not be a consideration anyway so I assume it does not matter whether or not this is true.

As mentioned earlier in this thread . . . where people are touched by an event personally, it is expected that their passion might be aroused on the topic and that is certainly understandable.

The bottom line appears to be that a civilized society can spend more money to kill these people (pedophiles and serial killers) rather than lock them up forever (in your opinion). As you say . . . you certainly have every right to hold and express that opinion . . . and considering your emotional investment in the topic . . .I suspect you're quite right that you're unlikely to be swayed. That wasn't really the intent anyway . . . the idea was to get these comments down so that people can see ideas and concepts . . . philosophy doesn't answer a lot of questions . . . the goal is to make people think.

Thanks for commenting . . . I have some experience in Criminal Justice and I think that pedophiles are among the most likely people on Earth to re-offend if ever released to society.

. . . and you're right . . . controversial issues that stimulate thinking are the most interesting!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Doyle, just for the record:

Charles Manson WAS sentanced to death. Before the sentance could be carried out, a FEDERAL law was passed prohibiting executions. Manson's sentance was commuted to life in prison. When the law was repealed, it was mandated that those who had been given a reprieve would not be grandfathered back into death sentance.

John Wayne Gacy deserved exactly what he got.

While I am also more than a little concerned about wrongful prosecutions, ESPECIALLY AS REGARDS TEXAS, I believe that there is a point after which someone stops being a human and needs to be viewed the same way we would view a rabid dog or a man-killing grizzley bear. Sometimes we just have to do what needs to be done and put down the killer animals.

Gacy
Speck
Dahmer
Manson

Oh, and also for the record for those who falsely believe Gacy was not executed:

"On May 10, 1994, Gacy was executed at Stateville Penitentiary in Crest Hill, Illinois, by lethal injection, after finishing his last meal consisting of shrimp, fried chicken, fresh strawberries and french fries. His execution was a minor media sensation, and large crowds of people gathered for "execution parties" outside the penitentiary, with numerous arrests for public intoxication, open intoxicants, and disorderly conduct. In an unusual display of gallows humor, the so-called "Gacy's Day Parade" (a parody of the "Macy's Day Parade") ensued. Vendors sold T-shirts and Gacy merchandise, and the people cheered at the moment when Gacy was pronounced dead."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

Joan D.:

Thanks for the note about Gacy . . . inaccuracy bites. I was thinking of someone who was NOT a clown . . . and you're right, Gacy was executed. I'll have to find out who . . . but he claimed he killed like 40 people in several states . . . and died of natural causes serving two life sentences . . . his heart as I recall. I'm thinking Ralph something . . .

As to the Manson point . . . I think I said virtually the exact same thing earlier to Ann - Here we have Charlie Manson . . . who had the death penalty as his sentence but now goes to his parole board hearings every so often. His sentence was commuted when the death penalty was overturned.

Anyhow . . . we had other issues with the State courts too . . . Chief Justice Rose Bird here in the California Court wreaked havoc on Capital Punishment . . . and the point remains . . . commuting sentences from death grants the ability to seek parole . . . sentencing to life without parole does not.

:)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Mitch:

Like you, I cannot bring myself to define a human being as something non-human based on actions taken. I worry where that thinking might lead . . . and again, there is that nagging issue of "what if you're wrong" which I'm not sure you can escape. Even if you could . . . there is a definition for a human being. A person before committing those crimes is human . . . and while the crimes might be despicable and a tendency exists to refer to them as inhuman, the fact is a passion . . . an anger . . . even hatred arises because they (as humans) could do this thing. We don't see that when a grizzly bear kills a child. There is retribution and sadness . . . but the emotive reaction to the offender is different. . . . because a bear isn't human.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Man google can rock at times!! Serial killer is Ralph Andrews


I googled terms > serial killer Ralph! LoL!

This brings up an interesting point. The man refused medical help (in effect committing suicide) because the prospect of a life in prison seemed so dire. As I mentioned earlier - people don't really connect with how difficult this 'life' is and have visions of basketball games and tv . . . not really connecting with the reality in these places might make it seem less than just to let these people live.

But would that life be better than an injection and a never-ending sleep? (Or whatever your belief might be)? Which would make you suffer more? Which would be justice? How can one suffer daily if they're dead? Hmmmmmmm.

Allow me to repeat. Hmmmmmm. :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I believe in the very limited use of capitol punishment - let's restrict its use to corrupt politicians or corporate types who kill innocents (especially Republicans). That'll put a stop to political or corporate corruption.

For example, some corporate profiteer pollutes a given area thereby causing pollution and the death of innocents. I say to that, bring on the hangman!

There are so many wrong conclusions in this article it's hard to know where to begin.
First of all, just because some (even many) studies "show" something that doesn't mean it's true. For instance,it's commonly stated "We now know that it's less expensive to lock a man up than to execute him". Now people , please use your heads. Is it really going to cost more to inject someone with chemicals or electrocute him than to house, clothe, feed and medically provide for a person for 50 years or more ? This is nonsense. This widely (and wildly) accepted foolishness is based on the
current foolish practice of stringing out the accused's defense for 20 years or more.
Well, LOL, I suppose that would run up quite a tab wouldn't it.
The answer is DON'T DO THAT! In many of today's trials of first degree murder (that's premeditated, not a crime of passion), much more positive evidence (videos, DNA, computer scan ID, etc), there often is no need for stringing out the defense for more than 2 years, at most (probably not even that). So without the ludicrously decades-long criminal defense (mostly set by defense attorneys who profit from the extra/unecessary business), the cost factor is far less with execution.
What is often said about wronful convictions is misleading. Sure, there have been wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project has discovered over 100 in the last few years. But these were all convictions going back to the years before the technology of DNA, and releases occuring after re-examination with DNA.
That's an invalid comparison to new murders WITH DNA evidence, where that wrongful conviction doesn't apply, and we have certainty of guilt. As for guilty men going free, let's not forget about all those that they kill after obtaining that freedom.
Let's not also forget about the (does anyone KNOW the number ?) people who get killed in prison, by convicted murderers, who could have (in some cases, should have)
been executed.
Let's examine the statement "the death penalty does not deter murder". This is a very common statement uttered by some very well-respected researchers, universities, think tanks, etc. and so becomes accepted by a gullible public awed by their prestigous
rank. Well, they may have their prestigous rank, lots of respect amd letters after their names, but the statement is still just as wrong as it always has been.
Why ? Because no one executed goes out and kills again, do they ? They are
DETERRED, in every execution case. Just ask the survivors of those killed by convicted murderers who did not get the death penalty, and then commited murder again after their release from prison (or while imprisoned).
Another thought to consider is the method of execution. Lethal Injection ? Being
painlessly (generally) put to sleep (while the killers' victims endured torture, pain, immense trauma), the lethal injection is a made-to-order deal for every homicidal-suicidal maniac in America, who's too chicken to kill himself.
Lastly, perhaps if the execution were painful and frightening, and public (televised),
instead of buried and hidden deep down within the prison, just maybe they'd have more influence on the criminal elements.

I have to say I think we still need the death penalty for the extreme cases...Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy...people like that have no soul, no empathy, they cannot see people as people, they see them like objects, so they they feel no remorse for their crimes. They will never stop killing. Unless it is for a verifiable psycho, I think the death penalty should not be used. In most cases it is just revenge... I think in the case of Bundy, etc.. they need to be "removed" from society permanently. Bundy escaped not once, but twice and killed each time viciously...This is why they need to be taken away from the rest of us, they are not normal. People who can kill young girls and then rape them after death are beyond comprehension and there is no coming back from that. Or a man who kills MANY boys and men and literally buries them under his house where his family lives or murders people while his elderly mother is home are not fixable. Otherwise, you are right, the death penalty needs to be abolished...

Hey Robert...yuo have good points, but here is one for you...Peopel are still falsely convicted every day in cases without DNA. Not every murder has DNA eveidence. Look at the case of the West Memphis Three. If you watch HBO's excellent documenatry Paradise Lost, you will see what I mean...This case happened over 14 years ago and these men are still fighting to get out and they should be released from what I saw on the documentary. If you have a system where death penalty cases cannot have all the time necessary to appeal then justice is being miscarried. Sure, some sy, "kill em," it's cheaper, easier, etc, but what if it was your kid convicted of murder? Would you like them to have no appeals process? Would you like their life to be unceremoniously ended? Accusations and convictions don't make a person a murderer. I know it is fuction but watch the movie, The Life of David Gale, it makes excellent points about the Death penalty. Criminals need to be punished, but innocent people need safeguards for justice too.
Further more, the saying that execution does not deter murder refers to the fact that even thought people know they may get the death penalty, people still kill. Sure, a person who is executed can't kill anymore, but there are others who will not be put off by that and will still do it, either thinking they will get away with it or that it doesn't matter because teh need in them to kill is more important than their life for some reason.
I don't disagree that the death penalty in some form for some criminals is necessary, but not for the run of the mill murders, life behind bars for fifty years means the person has no chance of enjoyment of life for a long time, they have no peace, no freedoms, that I think is worse than a clean easy quick death...,

Hey Doyle, I am just helping out on the issue of why it is worse for a child to be killed.

1) A child has not yet fully experienced life. For the most part, they haven't had their "chance" yet.
2) the grandfather example was good, here's why: Most people feel as bad for a "helpless" old man as they do for a "helpless" child. However, the difference is that the old man has lived a long time, they have had a chance at life.
A person, I think could handle the death of their 35 year old kid better than their 5 year old kid for that reason. They would know that they had gotten to know who the 35 year old is and will have memories to remind them of that perosn. With a child it is worse because the child did not get to even live to find out who they are, what they want to be, etc... The parent has a hard time dealing with it because they did not get to know the person their child would one day grow to be, and they won't have as many memories to reflect back on...
That is why it is harder....

oh and to everyone who says that because of DNA evidence we no longer need to worry about innocent people being sent to death, well here are some fun factoids about DNA
1) A single person can have two types of DNA, therefore, a person may commit a crime and leave a DNA sample, then get tested later and proved innocent because the DNA took for testing was from a different area then the DNA left behind at the crime...I know it sounds implausible, but look it up, it's true!

2) Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA, if one commits the crime and the other did not and they both deny it and both have alibis, etc...how do you decide who did it??
Just some facts to think about before you go thinking DNA will solve everything!

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=23 check out this link, it explains chimeras, the word for people with two types of DNA

This is truely an ethical question. I know that I wouldn't want to be a jury member having to determine the fate of a person. I can also understand the fact that the victims family wants revenge for the death....but I think it would be hard to live with the fact that you decided to end someone's life.

I do believe that in the case of the "Bundies" of the world, the death penalty is proper. He had no conscience with what he was doing. Most murders however, are not planned, but rather are a result of a situation. Each case has to be decided individually.

I also agree with you on the fact of what makes a police officers life more valuable than an average citizen.

In a society that doesn't know of killing, there will be no intentional killing by any individual that is in social harmony with that society. But in a society where the death penalty exists it follows that some individuals will think that it can be just to kill, and thus when given what they think is enough reason to kill, they will do so. So it would seem best to kill the death penalty in order to reduce the belief that an individual has the right to kill under the right circumstances. It is harder for an individual to self justify doing something that not even the government is permitted to do. But then what good would that do if our government continues to war, unless we find a way to war without causing death, which seems eminent. But the fact that war still exists doesn’t mean it would be meaningless to end the death penalty, everything comes in steps.

put the convicted rapists, molesters, and murderers on the front lines of battle. Of course, they should go through the boot camp first, but theirs will be much tougher than what "regular" civilians endure. When they are not fighting the enemy the military can handle them any way they see fit.