Ok, why should *this* guy live?

[luchog]

Being a white racist and murderer in prison will win him no brownie points. Other whites will shun him and the black prisoners will always be a threat to him. If he isn't in protective custody he'll soon wish he was in he doesn't already.

That's crap. There are gangs of white racists in prison. Nearly all outlaw biker gangs like the Hell's Angels are white supremacists to some degree, and the majority of their members do prison time at some point. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of white violent criminals in prison are racists, if not actually white supremacists.

Pretty much the only people who don't have some kind of group supporting them in prison are paedophiles.

 

[River]

thats the expensive bit.

That part is non-negotiable. Everyone needs that right. (even the worst of the worst)

 

[Ambrosia]

That part is non-negotiable. Everyone needs that right. (even the worst of the worst)

Absolutely, noone will argue with that, but the costs are a *lot* more to prosecute and defend a case where capital punishment is being sought. So much so that trial costs dwarf the costs of life incarceration.

The actual execution costs are negligible.

 

[NYCEMT86]

Sorry for my late response

If basic principal means that somebody is killed, well obviously.

Either way, it doesn't make it right.

Is the state kidnapping somebody when they imprison that person and hiding behind the law to make it legally right? They must be according to your logic.

I support involuntary civil commitment as an alternative to the death penalty. Life in prison is more effective and less extreme then killing somebody.

Why? Both are exactly proportional to the crimes committed.

Not necessarily so, if you feel people deserve the death penalty, then why not cut the thief's hand, rape the rapist, and so forth? Wouldn't those be proportional to the crimes committed?

You really want a source showing that there are violent crimes committed in prison in the US? Really?

I just want the source that supports this statement;

"Plenty of murders have killed and committed other violent crimes in prison. If they are dead, they cannot."

Source?

Long Term and Dangerous Inmates: Maximum Security Incarceration in the United States

 

[HansMustermann]

In certain cases where there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, or confession with corroborating evidence of such heinous acts including murder along with child rape are well deserving of capital punishment. I am not suggesting cutting back on any of the rights of the defendant, but mearly enforcing it on a more permanent basis. Exactly how much is another childs life worth?

1. Except actually those who confess don't get the death penalty. Which has the side effect that it is a tremendous incentive to confess even if you didn't do it. (And meantime the case gets closed and the real murderer walks free.) That's another very pragmatic RL effect.

2. As I was saying there are people who'll confess anything whatsoever, and people who are that prone to confabulating. And some methods of psychological torture, e.g., sleep deprivation, have been shown to cause people to confabulate. At some point you can actually start remembering the stuff that those guys tell you repeatedly that you did.

3. Standard of evidence is already supposed to be high, but it is what it is. And who should judge whether it's good enough? Obviously a judge and a jurry were convinced that the evidence is good enough even for those innocents convicted. Short of actual omniscience, it's hard to force the standard of evidence any higher without becoming unable to prosecute at all.

4. "Exactly how much is another childs life worth?" And killing an innocent prevents that... how?

 

[River]

1. Except actually those who confess don't get the death penalty. Which has the side effect that it is a tremendous incentive to confess even if you didn't do it. (And meantime the case gets closed and the real murderer walks free.) That's another very pragmatic RL effect.

2. As I was saying there are people who'll confess anything whatsoever, and people who are that prone to confabulating. And some methods of psychological torture, e.g., sleep deprivation, have been shown to cause people to confabulate. At some point you can actually start remembering the stuff that those guys tell you repeatedly that you did.

3. Standard of evidence is already supposed to be high, but it is what it is. And who should judge whether it's good enough? Obviously a judge and a jurry were convinced that the evidence is good enough even for those innocents convicted. Short of actual omniscience, it's hard to force the standard of evidence any higher without becoming unable to prosecute at all.

4. "Exactly how much is another childs life worth?" And killing an innocent prevents that... how?

Note I said confession with corroborating evidence. Also, we're not talking about an innocent person here. Are we? The scum we're talking about here, well deserves being "killed" by a society that deems it punishable in such a fashion. Do you think this member of society would be worthy of keeping around? If so, what for?

 

[River]

Absolutely, noone will argue with that, but the costs are a *lot* more to prosecute and defend a case where capital punishment is being sought. So much so that trial costs dwarf the costs of life incarceration.

The actual execution costs are negligible.

Sad but true.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Note I said confession with corroborating evidence. Also, we're not talking about an innocent person here. Are we?

We don't know. If we did, there wouldn't be innocent people in prison. The case of the OP is dreadful (though of course even then we don't know if he's telling the truth or just yanking chains), but for every anecdote about a horrific criminal getting away from the death sentence, I can produce an anecdote about an innocent family father getting the death needle.

The scum we're talking about here, well deserves being "killed" by a society that deems it punishable in such a fashion.

Problem with capital punishment is that it's a form of revenge more than a rational response. If you lose a parent to some sick killer, or if your sister is raped, of course you want to vent your anger as forcefully as possible. This is perfectly natural. I've got friends who've gotten raped, several of them repeatedly, and trust me, you want the perpetrator dead.

However, it's one thing to wish for the death of someone else because of the grief you're experiencing, it's another thing entirely to actually go ahead and make the state take that person's life. You're taking the life of a person who's in all probability got family and other loved ones. You're venting your own grief, and in the process causing the same grief to those people that you're experiencing yourself. How does that solve anything? You may ask yourself what you've done to deserve losing a parent, a sibling, a best friend, but ask yourself - what have they done to deserve losing their loved one?

Do you think this member of society would be worthy of keeping around? If so, what for?

Lots of people aren't worth keeping around. We still keep them around, even though they may be a burden, scum or otherwise not exactly the cream of the crop.

 

[HansMustermann]

Note I said confession with corroborating evidence.

... and when you said confession, you actually excluded him from the death punishment right there under the current crop of laws. This guy's letter earned him a place on the death row precisely because it doesn't qualify as confessing to the cops

Also, we're not talking about an innocent person here. Are we? The scum we're talking about here, well deserves being "killed" by a society that deems it punishable in such a fashion. Do you think this member of society would be worthy of keeping around? If so, what for?

1. Again, you seem to be convinced that you absolutely got the right guy with this one. In reality there's a very small, but non-zero, chance that it's a borderline psychotic guy who's confabulating.

2. Laws and case law aren't made for one guy. This one is a one-off example of extreme stupidity, truly worthy of the Darwin Award (when he actually gets executed.) I think that if you look back in the history, you're not going to find another one like him in at least a century. Even if there is no shortage of dumb criminals, I think you'll find that they aren't going to mail a signed confession against themselves as a taunt to the DA.

I don't think that you could have foreseen this 10 years ago, to pass a law especially for such an extremely unlikely case. And such a law may well be useless after him, if it relies on someone not just being at this level of chaotic self-destructive behaviour, but basically doing exactly this stupid action out of millions of stupid actions possible.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...2. Laws and case law aren't made for one guy. This one is a one-off example of extreme stupidity, truly worthy of the Darwin Award (when he actually gets executed.) I think that if you look back in the history, you're not going to find another one like him in at least a century. Even if there is no shortage of dumb criminals, I think you'll find that they aren't going to mail a signed confession against themselves as a taunt to the DA...

Given all that, does he fry?

And you've better stated my less-clear point. Even if one is completely and totally anti-death penalty (for whatever reasons), doesn't this particular 'one in a million' Darwin Award™ nominee make you re-think the reasons why, at least a little? Now, if we could somehow just get him to wear a helmet cam and then get to watch his life in prison 24/7, say on the WhattaMaroon Channel™, I could be persuaded to spare his useless life. I really wanna be watchin' the day somebody breaks their foot off in his ***.

 

[jdp]

Note I said confession with corroborating evidence. Also, we're not talking about an innocent person here.

Does that guarantee that we've got the right man? We've never jailed someone based on false (or possibly coerced) confessions and seemingly corroborating evidence have we?

 

[River]

Safe-Keeper & HansMustermann - I'm curious why you feel like this persons life should be spared and them kept around as opposed to a death sentence. Could you elaborate on why you feel its a better sentence? Do you feel this person could be an active particpant in society again?

How would you suggest handling such crimes/criminals?

 

[HansMustermann]

Given all that, does he fry?

And you've better stated my less-clear point. Even if one is completely and totally anti-death penalty (for whatever reasons), doesn't this particular 'one in a million' Darwin Award™ nominee make you re-think the reasons why, at least a little? Now, if we could somehow just get him to wear a helmet cam and then get to watch his life in prison 24/7, say on the WhattaMaroon Channel™, I could be persuaded to spare his useless life. I really wanna be watchin' the day somebody breaks their foot off in his ***.

Well, he sure worked hard to earn his Darwin, that much is certain. If you read more about the topic, he didn't just send that repulsive taunt letter to the DA -- though even that ought to be enough for an award -- he also did it to the victim's mother and sent a few letters full of hate in which he described the murder. Really put in some effort to not just incriminate himself, but to remove any trace of sympathy any judge or jury might have for him in the future.

So to answer the first question, yes, at this point it's pretty much a certainty that he's going to bite the dust.

That said, no, it doesn't really make me want to revise my opinion for the same reasons I too already wrote again and again:

1. Just because he's a hate-filled prick, doesn't mean there's not a very small chance that he's actually innocent and crazy.

Really, there is nothing in that confession of his that he hadn't heard in the interrogation and accusation before, or is impossible to verify outside of his taunt-letter-turned-testimony. There was no forrensic corroboration that there was a sexual attack on the first girl, for example, since that's the detail that'll earn him a dirt nap.

So, really, since you mentioned you'd want "confession and corroboration", in this case there's one half missing there.

2. The fact still is that the same laws will be applied to other people too, for which the evidence is even thinner. And in the wake of _this_, now the chance of getting the death penalty removed will be nil for the near future.

I'd rather just keep this scumbag in jail for life, than know that a few more innocents will be executed. He's taken out of the circuit one way or the other, so it's not even like those innocents are a price to pay for some actual gain (though I can't really relate to that line of thinkin either).

And I'd add:

3. In the end, all that's different between him and any other guy who gets the same penalty, is that this guy made himself completely repulsive. But I don't think that being rude, hate-filled or an idiot are things that warrant an execution. Or we'd have to rid the world of quite a few more idiots. Like about a billion at a wild guess.

So, no, on the whole it still doesn't make me start thinking that a system that executes innocents is a neat thing if it gets rid of this idiot too.

 

[River]

Does that guarantee that we've got the right man? We've never jailed someone based on false (or possibly coerced) confessions and seemingly corroborating evidence have we?

Thats what the exaustive court process is for, with appeals. I believe in capital punishment as a deterrent also. If people know they are likely to be killed instead of jailed for their life - they might be more likely to comply with the laws. Some would argue the opposite, but given the choice between death and life behind bars... I'm pretty sure most are going to pick a life even if its behind bars. I dont feel individuals that commit heinous crimes as the ones described should be given the chance to do it again. Its happened far too much in our society already. I would beg to offer, far more than innocent people getting executed by our justice system..... so which innocents lives are worth more? Either? We already give the criminals an exaustive judicial system in which they can present their defense. What more do you deserve under those circumstances? What would you suggest as an alternative?

 

[HansMustermann]

Safe-Keeper & HansMustermann - I'm curious why you feel like this persons life should be spared and them kept around as opposed to a death sentence. Could you elaborate on why you feel its a better sentence? Do you feel this person could be an active particpant in society again?

I think I've repeated it so often in this thread, that you must be the only person who missed it. No offense. But just to repeat myself:

1. Because even in this case, short of omniscience, you can't really know whether he was the murderer, or it's a confabulating retard.

2. Because the exact same laws and system that give this guy a rendez-vous with the Grim Rapper... err... Reaper are the laws which put a bunch of innocents on the death row just as well.

And really, especially from someone coming from the "OMG, but he may kill again" angle, it's kinda startling that the possibility that the _state_ will kill another innocent seems to not even register. If you're really for killing him just to maybe possibly save a life in the future, and not, say, revenge... then why not start with the _certainty_ that the USA system _is_ killing a number of innocents just as well. Between the system where _maybe_ an innocent will be killed sooner or later, and one where _certainly_ an innocent will be killed sooner or later, I know which I'd get rid of.

How would you suggest handling such crimes/criminals?

Jail for life, no parole.

 

[HansMustermann]

Thats what the exaustive court process is for, with appeals. I believe in capital punishment as a deterrent also. If people know they are likely to be killed instead of jailed for their life - they might be more likely to comply with the laws.

Right. That must be why the USA has 5.4 murders per 100,000 people (as of 2008), while Canada has 1.83, while (by region) England and Wales have 1.37, Scottland is at 2.13, and Ireland is at 1.59, and Australia is at 1.2. (Though somehow the Irish got the bad reputation anyway.) And that's just in the English-speaking world.

And then we have such lawless places, in the absence of that deterrent as Germany at 0.88 (though it can get as high up as 1.17 if you go back in time all the way to 2000), France at 1.59 (1.75 in 2000), Sweden at 0.89 (down from a peak of 2.64 in 2004), Denmark at 0.88 (down from 1.20 in 2003), Iceland 1.03 (despite being one of the first to abolish death penalty, in 1928), Italy at 1.06 (you'd think the way they're stereotyped as mafia-ridden, they'd get more), Spain 1.20, Portugal 2.50 (still less than half that of USA) etc. Oh, wait, they're not actually having more murders for lacking it

 

[roger]

I'm not at all a fan of capital punishment, but the common argument - that courts can make mistakes - doesn't really work for me. I mean, I drive my car with my gf and dogs in it all the time. If I make a mistake, they die, quite unfairly. This doesn't stop us from driving. We don't refuse to do things because mistakes lead to unfair deaths in about anything else we do - why is this such a showstopper argument for capital punishment? We kill people in droves in other ways in this country. I'm thinking it's the emotional element. It's easy to empathize with the person who is found innocent after being executed. It's rather harder to empathize with with the thousands (or whatever the numbre is) dying of lung cancer because of lax standards for particle emmissions from factories.

If it's an issue of this being from the government, we arm our police officers, and they sometimes cause wrongful deaths in the pursuit of their duties. Naturally, we hate when this happens, and expect and demand accountability and a through review of policy of training, but I think we all also understand that these incidents will continue to happen. Police will shoot the wrong BG, or shoot the deaf woman ignoring shouted command who is reaching into her back pocket for her card explaining she can't hear. These extremely regretable errors are not (IMO) an argument to remove from police officers any capacity to use force in their duties. In the same way, the inability of the courts to never make an error is not an argument against capital punishment. We may choose to not exercise this ability, but the possibility of error is not some kind of show stopper argument.

 

[BenBurch]

I'll volunteer to be on the firing squad for that dirtball, Beerina.

My issues with capital punishment are largely practical;

1. Almost impossible to be 100% correct all the time. Which means sometimes you kill an innocent person.

2. With appeals (reason for which, see #1) these cases are hellishly expensive for the State.

My preferred means of dealing with such things, were I able to wave my hand and change the system, is life without possibility of parole.

 

[bpesta22]

We should have different burdens:

To convict; beyond a reasonable doubt.

If guilty, go to step 2:

To kill: beyond any doubt.

Here a confession wouldn't do unless it could be corroborated such that no doubt exists. Other examples include having the crime on video or DNA evidence.

But, to be fair, if it turns out that we ever do put an innocent person to death, then that person's prosecutor should be charged with manslaughter, at least.

That would do it!

And, the above should apply only to the class of crimes that represent acts against humanity (the violent serial killing body cutting type).

Human life is so sacred that we're obligated to kill those who take it from others perversely.

 

[jdp]

Thats what the exaustive court process is for, with appeals. I believe in capital punishment as a deterrent also. If people know they are likely to be killed instead of jailed for their life - they might be more likely to comply with the laws.

Really? Well I think that murder is the one common capitol crime, what are the three motivating factors for murder and do you think that something like the death penalty could really deter from those motives?

Some would argue the opposite, but given the choice between death and life behind bars... I'm pretty sure most are going to pick a life even if its behind bars. I dont feel individuals that commit heinous crimes as the ones described should be given the chance to do it again. Its happened far too much in our society already. I would beg to offer, far more than innocent people getting executed by our justice system..... so which innocents lives are worth more? Either? We already give the criminals an exaustive judicial system in which they can present their defense.

Neither innocent life is worth more than the other. But how does someone who is in jail for life recommit the offense again? Do you think there has ever been an innocent man on death row? Do you think there has ever been an innocent man executed? I'll add in modern times.

What more do you deserve under those circumstances? What would you suggest as an alternative?

Life in prison.