Control Your Weeping

[BPSCG]

Life on U.S. death row makes inmates want to die
Sun May 8, 2005 07:29 PM BST

By Ellen Wulfhorst
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Death row prisoners in the United States are saying they can't take it anymore and asking to die.

Behind that trend is the reality of their living conditions -- typically more than a decade of mind-numbing isolation under the specter of death with years of legal wrangling ending in dashed hopes and execution.

If serial killer Michael Ross is executed this week in Connecticut as planned, he will join more than a hundred "volunteers" who have waived appeals and hastened their deaths since capital punishment was reinstated a generation ago.

Tough-on-crime prison conditions and an ever-longer appeals process make dropping the legal fight attractive, experts say.

"The day-to-day experience becomes pretty unbearable," said Stuart Grassian, a psychiatrist who told a hearing in April that Ross' living conditions influenced his choice to die.

Of the 59 people executed in 2004, 10 had dropped appeals.

Like inmates on death row across America, Ross is locked up most of the day in a small cell with no access to prison sports or education programs, and no interaction with other inmates.

In an essay posted on the Internet by the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Ross describes his sliver of a window as offering "a wonderful view of the razor-wire fencing and outdoor recreation yard of the prison next door."

Ross, who admitted killing eight women and raping most of them, was sentenced to death in 1987. He first asked to waive his appeals over a decade ago.

"There is so little to focus on. There is so little over which individuals have control. There's so little to distract them from the negative thoughts," said Grassian.

Link.

 

[Ed]

In an essay posted on the Internet by the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Ross describes his sliver of a window as offering "a wonderful view of the razor-wire fencing and outdoor recreation yard of the prison next door."

because:

Ross, who admitted killing eight women and raping most of them, was sentenced to death in 1987. He first asked to waive his appeals over a decade ago.

And the problem with this is?

 

[Skeptic]

The saying "a problem that solves itself" comes to mind.

 

[Jocko]

The inhumanity of it all. Next thing you know, there will be complaints that the final meal was a little pink in the middle even though inmate #864962 CLEARLY asked for medium-well.

If they want to dash to their appointment with the needle, then more power to them. Too bad they lacked that clarity of mind when they were butchering people and sodomizing the remains.

 

[Bruce]

I'm appalled. We should be using our tax money to treat these poor souls for depression. I'm boxing up some Swiss Miss Cocoa, bunny slippers, Cosby Show DVD's, and half of my Prozac perscription right now.

This thread seems unusually one-sided right now. Must be too early in the morning for the lib's.

 

[Tricky]

Like I've always said: Life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment. Execution is more humane.

 

[chocolatepossum]

I imagine the objection would be that since there are (debatably) innocent inmates on death row, there is a danger that they will give in and go to the chair rather than endure another year on death row with no guarantee of a reprieve at the end of it.

I suppose if you haven't TOTALLY made up your mind to fry someone yet, you shouldn't be aiming to subject them to a fate worse than death whilst you make up your mind.

 

[Orwell]

Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So not only must they be killed, but they must be made to suffer while waiting.

I find it kind of surprising that a bunch of fairly irreligious folks like you would still be so much in favour of the old Lex Talionis!

 

[c0rbin]

Our society is better off without those who would do it harm.

Religion has little to do with it.

 

[Orwell]

Our society is better off without those who would do it harm.

Religion has little to do with it.

So you kill them instead of locking them up (which works just as well, as exemplified by the practices of all the other western nations). You sure that the old testament has nothing to do with it?

I also find it curious that you folks (I suppose you're fairly "conservative"), who ordinarily distrust the government and are all for individual rights, don't get the least bit disturbed by state sanctioned killing.

 

[BPSCG]

I also find it curious that you folks (I suppose you're fairly "conservative"), who ordinarily distrust the government and are all for individual rights, don't get the least bit disturbed by state sanctioned killing.

I fervently support the right of Dzung Ngoc Tu, Paula Perrera, Tammy Williams, Debra Smith, Taylor Robin Stavinksy, April Brunias, Leslie Shelley, and Wendy Baribeault to not be raped and killed.

And I also fervently support my right to have my tax dollars not put to use paying to keep alive the guy who raped and killed them (I know, someone's gonna pop in here now and point out that's not technically a right...).

In any case, "individual rights" isn't some kind of ace of trumps card. There is no "right" that trumps every other right in every other circumstance. I submit that my right and society's right to be protected from this monster outweighs his individual right to live.

Let me ask you: Do you believe this guy has the right to food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for the rest of his natural life, at my expense and that of the rest of society? If so, what would he have had to do to lose that right?

Does everybody have that right? Or do only convicted murderers have it?

Oh, BTW, I am opposed to cruel and unusual punishments; it's wrong to execute a criminal in such a way that would cause unwarranted suffering. So, since it was established several weeks ago that it is a peaceful way of dying, I propose that he be starved to death.

 

[Beerina]

State-sanctioned killing to express society's disgust and outrage at, and disaproval of, the heinousness of the crime.

Oh, and none of these other Western countries went to the moon, either, as long as you're pulling out irrelevant comparisons. Clearly the death penalty, like going to the moon, is an expression of a powerful, free nation with the balls to do what needs to be done.

 

[Orwell]

I fervently support the right of Dzung Ngoc Tu, Paula Perrera, Tammy Williams, Debra Smith, Taylor Robin Stavinksy, April Brunias, Leslie Shelley, and Wendy Baribeault to not be raped and killed.

Well, they're dead now. If their killer's death brought them back, I would be all for it.

And I also fervently support my right to have my tax dollars not put to use paying to keep alive the guy who raped and killed them (I know, someone's gonna pop in here now and point out that's not technically a right...).

In any case, "individual rights" isn't some kind of ace of trumps card. There is no "right" that trumps every other right in every other circumstance. I submit that my right and society's right to be protected from this monster outweighs his individual right to live.

What if the guy is nuts (that is, not totally responsible for his actions)? Or, much worse, innocent? What if condemning him to death is more expensive than keeping him alive because of all the judicial procedures involved?

Let me ask you: Do you believe this guy has the right to food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for the rest of his natural life, at my expense and that of the rest of society? If so, what would he have had to do to lose that right?

I should remind you that that guy will, in all probability, be locked up for the rest of his life if he's not condemned to death or proven innocent. That's pretty unpleasant, to say the least, even with free food and shelter.

Does everybody have that right? Or do only convicted murderers have it?

Well, you know, I'm what you call a "liberal" (although I don't give two ◊◊◊◊◊ about american style liberalism), so I would say that everyone has a right to the essentials of life, with the exception of freedom of movement in the case of convicted murderers.

 

[Orwell]

State-sanctioned killing to express society's disgust and outrage at, and disaproval of, the heinousness of the crime.

Oh, and none of these other Western countries went to the moon, either, as long as you're pulling out irrelevant comparisons. Clearly the death penalty, like going to the moon, is an expression of a powerful, free nation with the balls to do what needs to be done.

"Needs to be done"? Why?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I suppose if you haven't TOTALLY made up your mind to fry someone yet, you shouldn't be aiming to subject them to a fate worse than death whilst you make up your mind.

What if they had life without parole, with all of the other conditions being the same?

 

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
I should remind you that that guy will, in all probability, be locked up for the rest of his life if he's not condemned to death or proven innocent. That's pretty unpleasant, to say the least, even with free food and shelter.

Yes it is, but it doesn't answer the question I asked, which was, "Do you believe this guy has the right to food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for the rest of his natural life, at my expense and that of the rest of society? If so, what would he have had to do to lose that right?"

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer

BPSCG:
Does everybody have that right? Or do only convicted murderers have it?

Ex Lion Tamer:
I would say that everyone has a right to the essentials of life, with the exception of freedom of movement in the case of convicted murderers.

In that case, I have decided to quit my job, and I expect you will provide me with all of the essentials of life, as is my right.

I shall duly inform my family, my friends, and my neighbors of the same.

I would thank you for your offer, but I don't thank people for providing me what is rightfully mine.

 

[BPSCG]

What if they had life without parole, with all of the other conditions being the same?

Whence comes my obligation to pay for his support?

 

[Bruce]

I think we should round up all the convicted felons, put them on a boat, and ship them off to that barren continent southeast of China. That'll learn 'em.

 

[RandFan]

I think we should round up all the convicted felons, put them on a boat, and ship them off to that barren continent southeast of China. That'll learn 'em.

 

[BPSCG]

I think we should round up all the convicted felons, put them on a boat, and ship them off to that barren continent southeast of China. That'll learn 'em.

You mean turn Australia into a penal colony?

Nahhh... it would never work.