I have been against the death penalty as long as I can remember but cases like the following cause me to wonder if we shouldn't perhaps execute some criminals.

These men were known, violent offenders with long rap sheets and let they were allowed out of prison to continue preying on innocent citizens. If we aren't going to keep people like this locked away forever perhaps it is best that we kill them in order to insure the safety of the innocent.




Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:14 PM EDT

Brutal, horrific, heart-rending
Cheshire victims were stalked before assaults, arson, murders
BY BEN CONERY, STEVE GAMBINI, PAUL SINGLEY and GENNADY SHEYNER REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN


A Connecticut State Police investigator sorts through evidence removed from the house at 300 Sorghum Mill Drive in Cheshire, Conn., on Tuesday, July 24, 2007, where a home invasion yesterday claimed the lives of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters Hayley and Michaela, and left the husband and father, Dr. William Petit, Jr. in critical condition at Saint Mary's Hospital in Waterbury. (T.J. Kirkpatrick / RA)



CHESHIRE — As Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her 11-year-old daughter Michaela drove away from a supermarket Sunday in their white Mercedes-Benz, two career criminals stalked them. The men followed them from the Stop & Shop on Highland Avenue to the Petit family home at 300 Sorghum Mill Drive, where they set in motion events that would lead to what authorities believe were multiple rapes, savage beatings and murder, sources familiar with the investigation told the Republican-American.

Authorities are still building their account of what happened Monday morning, but they told the newspaper that their investigation so far indicates that the following events took place:

After staking out the Petit house, the men — Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, and Steven Hayes, 44, — drove to a Wal-Mart, where they bought an air rifle and rope.

They came back and waited about a mile-and-a-half away until about 3 a.m. Monday, when they slipped into the house through an unlocked door.

Komisarjevsky and Hayes attacked Hawke-Petit's husband, Dr. William Petit Jr., then threw him down the basement stairs and beat him viciously. Sources said the men bound Petit and left him in the basement, where he remained for the next six hours.

The men then restrained Hawke-Petit and her daughters — Michaela and 17-year-old Hayley — and raped them repeatedly, the sources said.

About 9 a.m., one of the suspects drove Hawke-Petit to the Bank of America on Route 10 in Cheshire and forced her to withdraw $15,000 in cash while he waited outside. Hawke-Petite managed to convey to a bank teller that there was a problem at her home. The teller called police.

At some point during that excursion, the man with Hawke-Petit stopped and bought a container of gasoline.

After they returned to the home, the attackers strangled Hawke-Petit, doused the home with gasoline and set it ablaze.

Dr. Petit, who remained hospitalized Tuesday at Saint Mary's Hospital in Waterbury, was able to free himself and crawl into the yard. Police arrived about the same time and arrested Komisarjevsky and Hayes after the two men tried to barrel through a police roadblock.

Inside the Petit home, authorities found the bodies of Hawke-Petit and her two daughters.

The chief medical examiner's office determined after autopsies Tuesday that the two girls died of smoke inhalation. The medical examiner's office did not release any information regarding the sexual assaults.

The two men appeared Tuesday morning in Superior Court in Meriden to answer a plethora of charges, including sexual assault, kidnapping, assault and arson.

Already facing decades in prison, the men may soon face additional charges that could bring them the death penalty.

Shackled and wearing orange prison jump suits, Komisarjevsky, of 840 North Brooksvale Road, and Hayes, of 5-H Horn Ave. in Winsted, stared at the floor as they appeared individually in Judge Christina G. Dunnell's courtroom.

As the suspects' long criminal records were read to a standing-room-only crowd of about 100 people, a woman related to the Petits clutched green rosary beads in her lap and cried hysterically as court officials tried unsuccessfully to console her. She and three other family members were escorted from the court by judicial marshals.

Before the suspects left the courthouse, an unidentified man in the back of room yelled out "scumbags" to Hayes and Komisarjevsky.

The suspects did not enter pleas Tuesday, and their case has been moved to New Haven Superior Court. They are each being held on $15 million bonds, and their next court date is Aug. 7.

One of Petit's patients, Nancy Manning, attended Tuesday's arraignment to show her support for her doctor. "This man's life is destroyed," she said.

Cheshire townspeople struggled Tuesday to comprehend the tragedy. Portions of the 300 block of Sorghum Mill Drive that remained closed off with police tape served as a visible reminder.

Cheshire police, state police and the state fire marshal's office continued investigating.

"This is everyone's worst nightmare," said Lt. Jay Markella, Cheshire police spokesman. "It's by far the worst thing any of us have ever seen."

A detective visited William Petit at the hospital Monday to interview him about the incident, Markella said. Despite his injuries, Petit was lucid. He told authorities he heard nothing during his six hours in the basement.

Administrators at Cheshire Academy spent much of Monday sending e-mails to students and alumni all over the world, informing them about the death of Hawke-Petit, the beloved co-director of the academy's health center. On Tuesday, her colleagues were still in shock.

Barbara Dupre, who works in the office of the academy's associate headmaster, described Hawke-Petit as a highly intelligent, empathetic and family-oriented individual whose untimely death is impossible to comprehend.

"If your children go to Cheshire Academy, she is exactly the kind of person you would want to take care of them," Dupre said. "We still can't wrap our heads around it."

Chase Collegiate School in Waterbury, where Michaela Petit was a student, is hosting a gathering this morning to console people associated with the school.

The Cheshire United Methodist Church, where the family was heavily involved, held an open forum Monday night that attracted about 150 parishioners, church officials said. The church also held special prayer sessions Tuesday and will do so again today and Thursday, from 3 to 8 p.m. A psychiatric nurse and a grief counselor also will be available from 4 to 7 p.m. today at the church, 205 Academy Road.

William Petit's colleagues at the Hospital of Central Connecticut in New Britain also continued to pray for him and his family Tuesday.

"He was very kind to his patients," said Anita Sienicki, a nurse who works with Petit, a prominent diabetes expert. "He's a good staff member. This is just heartbreaking."

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2007/07/25/news/273326.txt

I dont want to read the recount, but yes, these scum should die horrible deaths. So should pedophiles.

I have been against the death penalty as long as I can remember but cases like the following cause me to wonder if we shouldn't perhaps execute some criminals.

This sort of fence-sitting has always annoyed me. Either you "value the sanctity of human life above all else" or you believe that putting certain people to death is not only an acceptable act, but a necessary one for the good of society.

There's no middle of the road here. Pick a side and stick to it.

These men were known, violent offenders with long rap sheets and let they were allowed out of prison to continue preying on innocent citizens. If we aren't going to keep people like this locked away forever perhaps it is best that we kill them in order to insure the safety of the innocent.

Now this I can agree with.

This was on CNN last night. Anderson Cooper did the report. Sad thing is if the state had the 3 strikes law the younger one would not have been out of prison...

The only reason the father survived was because they had him in the basement. He will likely survive... physically at least.

Very horrific.

that is just........ugh.....I can't even find the words for this

"Brutal, horrific, heart-rending"

Indeed this crime was all that. I don't believe it gives anyone the right to take a life, not even society.

......cases like the following cause me to wonder if we shouldn't perhaps execute some criminals.


I agree 100%.

But then, I am also adamantly pro-abortion.

I have been against the death penalty as long as I can remember but cases like the following cause me to wonder if we shouldn't perhaps execute some criminals.
I have said the same thing many times over the years. Some people make it damn difficult to defend my position against executions.

This sort of fence-sitting has always annoyed me.

It must be great to be you, to see everything in pure black and white, to never have any doubts.

To be perfectly honest, people who pick a position and then never question it have always annoyed me.

It must be great to be you, to see everything in pure black and white, to never have any doubts.

To be perfectly honest, people who pick a position and then never question it have always annoyed me.


I don't know about others, but I do sometimes question my stance on the death penalty. Then something like this happens, or some scum sucker, doing life w/o parole, kills a fellow inmate, who was doing 4 to 6 for some relatively minor offense.
I'll tell ya, that just reinforces my original pro-death penalty stance.

I think most thoughtful people question their stances not only on the death penalty but on most issues.

I am anti-death penalty but a case like this comes up and I wonder about my stance.

I am anti-abortion but then a particular case comes up that makes me question whether abortion isn't sometimes the answer.

Very few issues are pure black and white. Most are varying shades of gray. To never question one's views on issues indicates a hidebound mind.

As far as I'm concerned... your tax dollars should be spent on something useful, rather than be used to keep a criminal alive.

As far as I'm concerned... your tax dollars should be spent on something useful, rather than be used to keep a criminal alive.As far as I'm concerned ...my tax dollars should not be spent to kill people who are no longer a threat to society, such as a person who is locked up for the rest of their natural life.

As far as I'm concerned ...my tax dollars should not be spent to kill people who are no longer a threat to society, such as a person who is locked up for the rest of their natural life.
Usually that's my stand too but like Frogger every once in a while I think we should just off all the most heinous criminals. It goes against everything I believe but when people show themselves to be so twisted I think it knocks on a door within all of us that has that controlled rage that exists within every human being.

It sort of calls to us, reminds us we are human. Easiest way to deal is just wipe out the call.

As far as I'm concerned ...my tax dollars should not be spent to kill people who are no longer a threat to society, such as a person who is locked up for the rest of their natural life.

So they should, instead, be spent to sustain them during the rest of their natural life?

Maybe I read too much Ann Rule back in the 1980's, but here's a thought for you:

What if it turns out the husband paid those two guys to kill his family (and to rough him up in the process of course), so that he would be free to party with some other chippie?

He would of course go to the head of the line at the electric chair, ahead of even the two hired killers.

Food for thought.

:eek:

The fact that the husband remains alive throws almost immediate suspicion on him - an unfortunate reality in our world.

Maybe I read too much Ann Rule back in the 1980's, but here's a thought for you:

What if it turns out the husband paid those two guys to kill his family (and to rough him up in the process of course), so that he would be free to party with some other chippie?

He would of course go to the head of the line at the electric chair, ahead of even the two hired killers.

Food for thought.

:eek:

es347fan The fact that the husband remains alive throws almost immediate suspicion on him - an unfortunate reality in our world.

Okay I didn't want to own up to such thoughts drifting through my head...luckily for me I have you two freaks to voice it.... :D

It's an awful thought but... I kinda wondered if the plan went haywire.... "who the hell leaves doors unlocked"... but their neighbour did say it was the type of neighbourhood where it seemed safe enough to leave their doors unlocked.... I don't know, it seems strange.

I know it is a shame to wonder such things but....

It's an awful thought but... I kinda wondered if the plan went haywire.... "who the hell leaves doors unlocked"... but their neighbour did say it was the type of neighbourhood where it seemed safe enough to leave their doors unlocked.... I don't know, it seems strange.



safe neighborhood or not,when you have kids you don't leave your doors unlocked all night. And the one thing that bothers me is,how did these two know that certain door would be unlocked? Did they try other doors or windows? The police will and probably are already looking at these same angles.

Thankfully, these kinds of home invasion crimes are very rare.

It'll be easy enough to find out if the Dad were responsible by finding out how much insurance his family was carrying..but then again, the family was well off so a large policy wouldn't create undue suspicion.

Look for a girlfriend.



PS. As in any violent crime, close family members always rank number one on the list of suspects....for good reason.

safe neighborhood or not,when you have kids you don't leave your doors unlocked all night. And the one thing that bothers me is,how did these two know that certain door would be unlocked? Did they try other doors or windows? The police will and probably are already looking at these same angles.

My parents never lock their doors. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that mentality is out there. Frankly, if someone wants in your house, it really doesn't matter much.

One of the worst crimes in Indiana history involved an unlocked door.

The family--mom, dad, and four boys, lived in a rural area. Crime was all but unknown and all the neighbors were lifelong friends.

The father was at work when the perpetrators, high on crank and who'd recently read In Cold Blood and were cruising for random people to kill in order to re-enact the Clutter crime, picked out their house.

Result--absolute slaughter. Only the mother survived, even tho she took a shotgun blast to the head.

I recall a neighbor of mine at the time making the callous comment that the crime never would have occured if the family had locked their doors. They should have done that, she self-righteously declared.

I replied that I was sure the victims had learned their lesson and would never do that again.


Addendum--none of the accused received a death sentence. Don't ask me why.

My parents left their doors unlocked, and quite frequently the keys in the ignitions of the family's vehicles, for decades. They had been in the same home for just over 40 years when the place was vandalized while they were out shopping. My mother was never comfortable in her own home without everything being locked following that incident. It wasn't career criminals doing the dastardly deed, but a couple of local kids throwing rocks & otherwise misbehaving.

My parents never lock their doors. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that mentality is out there. Frankly, if someone wants in your house, it really doesn't matter much.


no,a locked door won't stop anyone,but it will slow them down enough to make enough noise to alert anyone inside. My parents have always locked their doors,I always do too,I can't sleep if I don't and if I am home alone,the doors get locked too.

I think most thoughtful people question their stances not only on the death penalty but on most issues.

I am anti-death penalty but a case like this comes up and I wonder about my stance.

I am anti-abortion but then a particular case comes up that makes me question whether abortion isn't sometimes the answer.

Very few issues are pure black and white. Most are varying shades of gray. To never question one's views on issues indicates a hidebound mind.
Great post, Frogger. I question my views on everything all the time and often wonder how other people can be so sure about what they believe.

I think most thoughtful people question their stances not only on the death penalty but on most issues.

I am anti-death penalty but a case like this comes up and I wonder about my stance.

I am anti-abortion but then a particular case comes up that makes me question whether abortion isn't sometimes the answer.

Very few issues are pure black and white. Most are varying shades of gray. To never question one's views on issues indicates a hidebound mind.

Hell I can question one of my posts two minutes after I've written it if someone with the opposite view point states it well enough. It's one of the reasons I really like to argue hard about some things. It's also why I will post contrary to what I believe on occasion. It makes me wonder, and that is a good thing. Or at least, for me it is a good thing.

So they should, instead, be spent to sustain them during the rest of their natural life?Yessir.

I know it is a shame to wonder such things but....Any decent investigator will wonder it too. In a murder, spouses must always be ruled out. In a home invasion where the husband is the only one to survive, especially so. It would be nice if the authorities in this matter would dig into the issue immediately and release a statement clearing the husband as soon as possible, because it will be on the minds of a great many people.

I could spare the tax payers and all the people who don't want their deaths on their moral conscience a lot of grief. I would volunteer to kill these bastards myself.

Are you telling me that if these men bound, REPEATEDLY raped, and then left your 11 and 17 year old daughters to burn in their own home, you would still have a problem with them being executed?

Hell I can question one of my posts two minutes after I've written it if someone with the opposite view point states it well enough. It's one of the reasons I really like to argue hard about some things. It's also why I will post contrary to what I believe on occasion. It makes me wonder, and that is a good thing. Or at least, for me it is a good thing.MPD is treatable!:drinktoth

As far as these two animals go, it makes no difference whether they were hired to do it or not. They committed the crimes and are clearly guilty, I just wish the police would have shot them dead when they rammed their cars. Just use the excuse that they were trying to escape. I for one would have given them a medal.

As for the father's involvement, thats just speculation and I won't even think about his punishment until there is concrete evidence that he was involved.

I could spare the tax payers and all the people who don't want their deaths on their moral conscience a lot of grief. I would volunteer to kill these bastards myself.Which is why you would never represent me.

Are you telling me that if these men bound, REPEATEDLY raped, and then left your 11 and 17 year old daughters to burn in their own home, you would still have a problem with them being executed?I'd hope so, but even if I didn't, that wouldn't make it right.

I'd hope so, but even if I didn't, that wouldn't make it right.

That's the exact attitude that has these animals walking around. Throw a switch and you never have to worry about them doing it to someone else again.

What's RIGHT is to be able to live your life free from worry that someone will enter your house in the middle of the night and rape and kill you. May you never have to face such a decision as to how you would react to it.

I can think of a few condemned convicts who I have sympahty for and, if I had been the Governor, would have commuted their sentence...tho this probably would have made me unpopular with the voters who support this type of punishment, not to mention the jury who handed down the recomendation and the judge who passed sentence. Or the victims, especially.

One is Richard Chapman, mid-1930's, from my own hometown of Hobart, Indiana.
Anyone interested in details, I can provide.

However, for the most part, I believe that those guilty of the ultimate crime--the deliberate taking of life, should receive the ultimate punishment.

If I remember the story correctly, these guys were out on parole too.

What I really think is an injustice is how many dangerous people get out of prison on parole. I just read a case file yesterday where a guy had been arrested 14 times, that he admitted to, including one that resulted in a 2-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter (he slit someone's throat). The guy is currently incarcerated for burglary, and he will be getting out on parole soon...he's in his 40's. Oh yeah, he's been out of parole before, and just preceded commit more crimes. I see cases like this all of the time.

These people shouldn't be getting out of prison.

That's the exact attitude that has these animals walking around.Your opinion, nothing more...Throw a switch and you never have to worry about them doing it to someone else again.True, but then you violate important principles, as far as I'm concerned.
What's RIGHT is to be able to live your life free from worry that someone will enter your house in the middle of the night and rape and kill you.A nice dream. It'll never happen, though, less so in a society that feels the solution to certain problems is to kill someone.
May you never have to face such a decision as to how you would react to it.You too.

These people shouldn't be getting out of prison.Agreed. If our criminal justice system weren't so full of petty offenders, the space would be there to keep the serious animals were thay belong.

I am guilty of suspecting the father also. Only for the main reason that he is the overseer of the house and should have taken precautions otherwise.No one can ever know what the night holds and there is many reasons to protect yourself these days.Times have changed since I was young and my parents never locked the doors either.

I have a security system, so even if I don't lock my doors, if it's opened alarms go off and continue til the code is punched in. I live in a very secure area with, no supposed reason to ever lock the door, but still the world is mad and no one is ever safe. It confuses me why anyone wouldn't take a precaution to protect their home and loved ones when they are most vulnerable.

As for these asshats, they need to fry right along with any others that have committed such crimes. I see no reason to let them to continue to live. They are a burden to society, and will no doubt repeat their crimes if given the chance again. They are scum and need to be disposed of.

Agreed. If our criminal justice system weren't so full of petty offenders, the space would be there to keep the serious animals were thay belong.

When a human turns into an animal, their value is good for no one.

We put our animals to sleep when they are too sick to live, why not these animals?

These animals can hire lawyers.

We put our animals to sleep when they are too sick to live, why not these animals?I look at it much the way the law looks at self-defense. The response must be appropriate to the threat. Once a person is in custody, they no longer represent a threat, so the response should change. Had they refused to surrender to the officers and been shot while fighting back, the response would be appropriatly metered.

Your opinion, nothing more...True, but then you violate important principles, as far as I'm concerned.
A nice dream. It'll never happen, though, less so in a society that feels the solution to certain problems is to kill someone.


I respect your view point, Shiloh, but I take exception to the argument that the jury and/or society in general is guilty of the same crime, the same homicidal mindset, as are most murderers.

I have seen too many crime scene photos and counseled too many families of victims of violent crime, to not understand completely what people of this ilk are capable of. Society reacts to such with a sentence of judicial homicide. It is not, properly, referred to as murder, because it is not. The accused have a chance to defend themselves in open court, under the full review and fairness of the law.

A favor not granted their victims.

I take exception to the argument that the jury and/or society in general is guilty of the same crime, the same homicidal mindset, as are most murderers.I'm not suggesting they are the same things. I feel strongly that they are not the same as a homicidal mindset.

Maybe I read too much Ann Rule back in the 1980's, but here's a thought for you:

What if it turns out the husband paid those two guys to kill his family (and to rough him up in the process of course), so that he would be free to party with some other chippie?

He would of course go to the head of the line at the electric chair, ahead of even the two hired killers.

Food for thought.

:eek:

You know - I have to admit it crossed my mind too - another husband walks away (like the SUV family murders in Chicago - in which the husband initially said his wife did it - he's now charged) while the rest of his family is dead; And you can bet the police are investigating that angle too.:

I am guilty of suspecting the father also. Only for the main reason that he is the overseer of the house and should have taken precautions otherwise.No one can ever know what the night holds and there is many reasons to protect yourself these days.Times have changed since I was young and my parents never locked the doors either.

I have a security system, so even if I don't lock my doors, if it's opened alarms go off and continue til the code is punched in. I live in a very secure area with, no supposed reason to ever lock the door, but still the world is mad and no one is ever safe. It confuses me why anyone wouldn't take a precaution to protect their home and loved ones when they are most vulnerable.

As for these asshats, they need to fry right along with any others that have committed such crimes. I see no reason to let them to continue to live. They are a burden to society, and will no doubt repeat their crimes if given the chance again. They are scum and need to be disposed of.

I agree with you on that, and you have to wonder, um, WHO left the back door unlocked?

I am guilty of suspecting the father also.

That would be an extraordinarily surprising circumstance in a case where the father's family was raped, his home was burned, the father himself hospitalized, and the murders were by smoke inhalation.

IMO, you should give the guy a break until you have good reason to believe otherwise. I know men are evil and all, but sometimes bad things happen to good people's families.

MPD is treatable!:drinktoth


Yeah but I like me, myself and I and treatment would involve integrating all of us. How to choose... :(

I agree with you on that, and you have to wonder, um, WHO left the back door unlocked?The backdoor to my house is almost always unlocked. It would be bad news if somebody broke in, though. Between my two boys (18 & 15), the little lady and myself, the crossfire would likely screw up the crown molding in a major way!

Yeah but I like me, myself and I and treatment would involve integrating all of us. How to choose... :(Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated.

That would be an extraordinarily surprising circumstance in a case where the father's family was raped, his home was burned, the father himself hospitalized, and the murders were by smoke inhalation.

IMO, you should give the guy a break until you have good reason to believe otherwise. I know men are evil and all, but sometimes bad things happen to good people's families.

Don't get me wrong Leper, I don't think he is guilty, I only meant I did suspect him after reading the article, for a fleeting moment.

Imagine the difference might have been in the story had a door been locked? or alarm set? perhaps we'd be reading about self defense and how two asshats got killed breaking in.
The man failed to protect his family using a bit of common sense, I think that is all he is guilty of.

The poor man has lost everything he had to live for, and for that I feel bad for him. I can't imagine his grief.

These animals can hire lawyers.

Yes. Unfortunately.

Lawyers are good things, not bad.

Lawyers are good things, not bad.

I know it's just their job, so maybe it's the system that's broken. It's too bad that it doesn't allow for one to die if they kill another. Society keeps forking it over for these killers to live while the victims bury the innocent.
If it were me, once proven guilty they should die quickly.

It's too bad that it doesn't allow for one to die if they kill another.
38 states and the federal government and the military all have the legal power to execute criminals.

Lawyers are good things, not bad.


The lawyers have helped to make the system so that they are indespensible. Try to defend yourself in court these days, even if you COULD understand all the technical jargon, the court would not even consider hearing you with a straight face.

Lawyers are even lower than the clients many of them help keep on the streets.

38 states and the federal government and the military all have the legal power to execute criminals.

Why are inmates sentenced to death yet live on death row for 20 years or more?

Why are inmates sentenced to death yet live on death row for 20 years or more?

Excellent question.

Because more than a few death row inmates have been exonerated due to a wrongful conviction. It is this reason the appeals process must be carried out before a prisoner is executed.

And how many appeals should be allowed?

The lawyers have helped to make the system so that they are indespensible. Try to defend yourself in court these days, even if you COULD understand all the technical jargon, the court would not even consider hearing you with a straight face.

Lawyers are even lower than the clients many of them help keep on the streets.

This is more just ignorant bashing of lawyers.

Here's an article from today where a guy defended himself in a criminal trial. No one stopped him from doing so, but the fact remains that if he let a lawyer represent him, he'd almost certainly be better off.

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/181301.html

On the other hand, I've seen lay people successfully represent themselves on many occasions. And the court and attorneys involved were all very patient with these people and their ignorance of the law.

If you are charged with a crime, you don't have to get a lawyer at all. Just tell the judge you want to represent yourself and you want a jury trial, and he'll tell you when and where to show up. Then you can tell a group of people (who know as little about the law as you do) why you aren't guilty. Or is that too complicated and full of legal jargon for you?

And how many appeals should be allowed?
Well, how many appeal would you like if you were innocent and sitting on deathrow?

Do you believe the justice system works?

I am not talking about executing every person for these crimes. as i have said before, if you are going to use the death penalty you better make dam sure that this person is guilty.

Caught redhended like these two that the post was originally about, I say kill em and kill em now.

Do you believe the justice system works?

Somtimes yes and sometimes no. Money and skin colour speak. DNA helps huge but some cases of guilty from years ago have appealed to have DNA tests done and it has been denied. It's a quagmire.

So once again... how many appeals are too many if the person on death row is innocent? What if it's you. There is no other way to look at it.

How many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice so you can just clear the jails out? Hhow much revenge does it take?

How many lawyers can you afford?

I am not talking about executing every person for these crimes. as i have said before, if you are going to use the death penalty you better make dam sure that this person is guilty.

Caught redhended like these two that the post was originally about, I say kill em and kill em now.

Caught redhanded so it would appear. Just execute them right there on the spot.

No one sets anyone up. No one is ever framed. Everything's black and white.

Somtimes yes and sometimes no. Money and skin colour speak. DNA helps huge but some cases of guilty from years ago have appealed to have DNA tests done and it has been denied. It's a quagmire.

I think if there is a new science available now that wasn't available then and it isn't used it's a tragedy and any judge who denies it should be removed from the bench.

So once again... how many appeals are too many if the person on death row is innocent? What if it's you. There is no other way to look at it.

If there is A SHADOW OF A DOUBT of the persons guilt then the death penalty should not even come into play. You should be able to appeal as many times as it takes to prove you 100% guilty or 100% innocent.

How many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice so you can just clear the jails out? Hhow much revenge does it take?

None.

[QUOTE][How many lawyers can you afford?/QUOTE]

LOL--with their fees I could barely afford the free consultation.

Caught redhanded so it would appear. Just execute them right there on the spot.

Not right on the spot, let them have their dog and pony show and then kill them.

You believe that the law enforcement community is guilty of "setting up" so many people?

Not right on the spot, let them have their dog and pony show and then kill them.

You believe that the law enforcement community is guilty of "setting up" so many people?

No I don't think the law enforcement community set people up per se. I think when we the public really pressure them to produce, results sometimes get sloppy... things get overlooked... chain of evidence breaks down.

But I was acutully thinking for instance... what if... there are just so many what if's. People can set other people up. Things are not always as they would appear and therein lies the problem.The justice system as it stands is far from perfect but it is all there is. You can't speed up deathrow or make significant changes until science has progressed further.

And jailing long term still is more cost effective... at this point due to lengthy appeals.

Do you believe the justice system works?

No,quite certainly it doesn't work.
I was really suspect,especially when the OJ verdict was
manipulated.And that Judge Ito,who seemed competent and
thorough and fair,turmed out to be a blundering schtup.
Now,the entirte World knows that many a Prosecutor is
merely hellbent on geting their quota of convictions and
usurping to the hilt,in the process.
Jeffrey Figer was right all along.
Prosecutorial overreach and abuse is endemic in our country.
Jury trials have turned out to be a farce and Justice isn't
Blind,it's damn near on permanent Holiday,wearing sunblock.

As far as I'm concerned ...my tax dollars should not be spent to kill people who are no longer a threat to society, such as a person who is locked up for the rest of their natural life.

1. Not every convicted of murder is put away for life. There are thousands of paroled murderers walking around free in every city, every state. Do you consider those people a threat to society?

2. In addition to the above, it often takes more than one murder conviction to receive a life sentence. According to the Justice Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fdluc94xm.txt), 1 in 12 death row inmates have prior murder convictions. What should be done with a convicted murderer serving a life sentence that kills a corrections officer or another inmate? Give him another life sentence? Will that eliminate the threat he poses to everyone around him? The simple fact is, a convicted murderer in a state without the death penalty has absolutely no reason not to murder again.

3. Paroled murderers - those murderers who do NOT get a life sentence and who serve their time - can and do murder again. Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. --Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm). Please note that these numbers represent only those who were caught committing murder after parole for murder within three years of parole. How many paroled murderers are never caught for subsequent murders? How many commit another murder within five years of parole? Ten years? I haven't yet found data for these matters, but I'd bet my left breast it's more than 0.

4. Murderers who are locked up (for life or otherwise) are still a threat. Prison inmates can and do murder other inmates, corrections officers, visiting clergy/legal counsel, etc. Homicide rates in State prisons = 4 per 100,000 --Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/shsplj.htm). The number of people in state prisons at year-end 2005 was 1,259,905 --Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf). This comes to a little more than 5 prison murders a year in state prisons alone. (Still looking for similar stats for federal prisons, which contained approximately 180,000 inmates at year-end 2005.)

5. We haven't even discussed lifers who escape and murder again. Granted, the number is small, but it still happens. "In its latest roundup of death penalty statistics, Capital Punishment, 2004, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that at least 101 murderers now on death row were already in prison when they murdered their victims; at least 44 others were prison escapees." --Misplaced sympathy for killers (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/07/misplaced_sympathy_for_killers/)

Given the above, what makes you think locking someone up for life renders them "no longer a threat to society" or any other population?

Finally, where is your sympathy for murder victims?

What is it that makes victims so easy to forget? When Kenneth Boyd was executed in North Carolina last week, it was reported everywhere that he was the 1,000th murderer to be put to death since the resumption of capital punishment in 1976. But how many stories devoted more than a passing mention to the two people Boyd sent to early graves -- his estranged wife, Julie Curry Boyd, and her father, Thomas Curry? Why doesn't the media's round-number fetish extend to the victims of homicide as well as the perpetrators? If the 1,000th execution made headlines, why didn't the 1,000th murder? Or the 10,000th? Or the 100,000th?

Actually there have been close to 600,000 homicides in the United States since 1976, and the total climbs by roughly 15,000 each year. Where is the uproar over those round numbers? Where are the protests, the petitions, the Hollywood rallies aimed at stopping those deaths? I understand that some people think capital punishment is wrong as a matter of principle. What I cannot understand is how anyone can be more outraged by the lawful execution each year of a few dozen murderers than by the annual slaughter of thousands of victims at the hands of such murderers.

Opponents of capital punishment make much of the theoretical possibility that an innocent defendant might be killed. What they never acknowledge is that the abolition of capital punishment guarantees that innocent victims will die. That isn't only because executing murderers has a powerful deterrent effect, as a number of recent studies confirm. It is also because prison bars can't keep some killers from killing again. --Misplaced sympathy for killers (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/07/misplaced_sympathy_for_killers/)

1. Not every convicted of murder is put away for life. There are thousands of paroled murderers walking around free in every city, every state. Do you consider those people a threat to society?

2. In addition to the above, it often takes more than one murder conviction to receive a life sentence. According to the Justice Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fdluc94xm.txt), 1 in 12 death row inmates have prior murder convictions. What should be done with a convicted murderer serving a life sentence that kills a corrections officer or another inmate? Give him another life sentence? Will that eliminate the threat he poses to everyone around him? The simple fact is, a convicted murderer in a state without the death penalty has absolutely no reason not to murder again.

3. Paroled murderers - those murderers who do NOT get a life sentence and who serve their time - can and do murder again. Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. --Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm). Please note that these numbers represent only those who were caught committing murder after parole for murder within three years of parole. How many paroled murderers are never caught for subsequent murders? How many commit another murder within five years of parole? Ten years? I haven't yet found data for these matters, but I'd bet my left breast it's more than 0.None of these scenarios address what I said, so I'll ignore them for now, except to point out that they should be locked up for the rest of their life.
4. Murderers who are locked up (for life or otherwise) are still a threat. Prison inmates can and do murder other inmates, corrections officers, visiting clergy/legal counsel, etc. Homicide rates in State prisons = 4 per 100,000 --Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/shsplj.htm). The number of people in state prisons at year-end 2005 was 1,259,905 --Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf). This comes to a little more than 5 prison murders a year in state prisons alone. (Still looking for similar stats for federal prisons, which contained approximately 180,000 inmates at year-end 2005.)

5. We haven't even discussed lifers who escape and murder again. Granted, the number is small, but it still happens. "In its latest roundup of death penalty statistics, Capital Punishment, 2004, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that at least 101 murderers now on death row were already in prison when they murdered their victims; at least 44 others were prison escapees." --Misplaced sympathy for killers (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/07/misplaced_sympathy_for_killers/)These are problems the Institutional Divisions of various corrections departments need to answer to you for, not me. They have these inmates under their control and appearantly don't do a sufficient job.

Given the above, what makes you think locking someone up for life renders them "no longer a threat to society" or any other population?You are the one who said "any other population," not me. As to society, if the convict is in deed locked up for the rest of their life, say a super-max or some such, they are no longer a threat. With the exceptions of the failures of corrections folks to do their job, you've not shown otherwise.

Finally, where is your sympathy for murder victims?My sympathy is very real. Don't cloud the issue, though. We are not (yet?) discussing empathy/sympathy/alignment with the victims, though we could. I will say, though, that my moral code is such that I feel that all people should be free to live in a place of security. I believe the chance for that is decreased when we tell the community that anyone has the right to take anyone else's life except in self-defense.

1. Not every convicted of murder is put away for life. There are thousands of paroled murderers walking around free in every city, every state. Do you consider those people a threat to society?

Thousands? It seems unlikely that every city, in every state has thousands of paroled murderers walking the streets.


The simple fact is, a convicted murderer in a state without the death penalty has absolutely no reason not to murder again.

That's laughable.


3. Paroled murderers - those murderers who do NOT get a life sentence and who serve their time - can and do murder again.

And some people who were convicted of drunk driving can and do drive under the influence, and some of them kill people in the process. Perhaps we should just shoot them after the first offense to make sure they don't do it again.


4. Murderers who are locked up (for life or otherwise) are still a threat.

So are burglars, arsonists, and embezzlers.


5. We haven't even discussed lifers who escape and murder again. Granted, the number is small, but it still happens.

As someone already pointed out, this is a fault of our corrections system. How many guys escaped from Alcatraz?


Given the above, what makes you think locking someone up for life renders them "no longer a threat to society" or any other population?

Nothing. Life is full of threats, both mild and severe, and I'd hate to live in a society that was ruled by the thought that we could eliminate the threats completely if only we could execute enough people.


Finally, where is your sympathy for murder victims?

Right where it belongs. Don't kid yourself Fran, your desires to see these criminals suffer has little to do with your sympathy for their victims. It's about revenge.

I must say Fran, that your arguments here are not very good ones. Appeal to emotion has little place in a discussion of our criminal justice system.

Vile, with all due respect, and I know we've gone round and round on this topic before,:) ---


but ALL justice is revenge. Or what is sometimes referred to as retribution.

If an employee steals from his workplace, he will be fired. This will create much hardship for both himself and his family, if he has one. This is punishment. This is revenge.

If a college professor commits plagiarism, he will also lose his job. He will have scorn heaped upon him. This is revenge.

If a gunman robs a storekeeper and is caught, he will be punished by being locked in a cell with litlle besides a bunk and toilet, kept awake with a light bulb burning continously overhead, be denied basic rights, and be cut off from his loved ones--assuming he has any. This is revenge.

ALL punishment is revenge. In a nutshell, it's a basic tenet of criminal law, and the fear of it is what keeps many potential theives/plagiarists/robbers in line.

Capital punishement is merely the ultimate revenge.

Emotion and Criminal Law

Someone brought up the topic of emotion and how it should be kept out of trials.

IMO, it would be exceedingly wrong to NOT have it brought up.

A murder never just affects merely one victim. There are the family and friends left behind.

A murder creates a ripple effect, as when you throw a pebble in a pond. The concentric circles taint and destroy so much more than the brutal ending of a human life.

As the murderer has taken it upon himself to act as judge, jury and executioner, thus thumbing his nose at the basic laws of fairness in our society, so it is a basic right for a jury to hear what effect this has had on those who get to live with his decision.

Which is why it is now allowed for the families to testify during the penalty phase of a trial. One by one, they testify what the victim was like, what he liked to do, what he meant to others, how much he was loved. Seeing as the victim cannot speak for himself.

Emotional, oh yes. But it needs to be said and heard in open court. And I have not read or heard of one that did not bring tears to my eyes.

The untimely dead have their rights too.

Society should be focused on deterring criminals from doing their job, not getting revenge on them. We are at a point where we can do honest statistical studies on what deters crime and what doesn't. We need to do those studies, repeatedly, and implement those solutions that sound the most promising. The death penalty is an exceedingly blunt instrument whose impact on crime is about the same as the ham bagelwiches I eat for breakfast every morning.

Deterrence should be our goal, not prevention, not revenge, not justice. We don't need to execute people when we could deter them. Besides, do you really think the threat of death is going to stop the most heinous of violent criminals?

I believe the death penalty is not a deterent because it is not used. As people indicated, there are many on death row who have been there for more than 20 years. How is that supposed to deter anyone, in order for someone to say that they have studied it is impossible because even though it is a penalty, how often is it ACTUALLY used?

Quite a bit, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Until we can force law enforcement agencies to use proper diligence in the investigation and prosecution of criminals, a long appeals process is absolutely necessary, because wrongful convictions happen even today.

Quite a bit, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

I'm sure it was used a lot back then, I wasn't alive so I don't know myself. I mean today.

Here is a link to the Prisoners currently on deathrow.

http://www.ccadp.org/inmates.htm

And here is a link to all the prisoners executed and when they died.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions.php

Until we can force law enforcement agencies to use proper diligence in the investigation and prosecution of criminals, a long appeals process is absolutely necessary, because wrongful convictions happen even today.


I agree 100%, I have said many times that it should be used only in cases where the individual is 100% guilty. Without a shadow of a doubt, if there is ANY question at all, then the death penalty should not be used due to its finality.

I am wondering how we can possibly deter some criminals, ever. From the dawn of time there have been those who kill and rob. Speaking mainly of murderers, not a one was forced into such an act. They killed because, basically, they chose to.

They say a high crime rate is the price we pay for living in a free society.

Unless the government is willing to act as a Third Reich I don't see how it can be done.

Quite a bit, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

In 17th and 18th century England, a convict was hung for stealing an item that was worth over five pounds sterling. Needless to say, there were a lot of hangings.
Did this deter stealing?
Absolutely not.

The death penalty has never been shown to deter murder, even when it was used quite often--see 1930's decade.

What it DOES do is keep that particular killer from killing again.

Steven D. Levitt has convincingly shown in his book, Freakonomics, that abortion, of all things, has a significant preventative effect on violent crime, and accounted for much of the drop of the early nineties. Longer prison terms had a similar effect.

Interesting----I've read of many a crook who chose execution over a life sentence spent in almost total isolation. Some would argue that THAT sentence is cruel and unusual--see Gary Mark Gilmore, who said he had a right to chose the firing squad, as indeed he did.

I didn't read the book, can you sum up why he believed abortion dropped the crime rate?

Steven D. Levitt has convincingly shown in his book, Freakonomics, that abortion, of all things, has a significant preventative effect on violent crime, and accounted for much of the drop of the early nineties. Longer prison terms had a similar effect.

Wow, that is impressive.

He points to two disconnected occasions in which he claims abortion was the key factor in both raising the crime rate, when it's abolished, and lowering it, when it was implemented. Romania was the case study for the positive correlation claim, and the United States during the early nineties, fifteen years after Roe vs. Wade, for the negative correlation claim, then using a number of supporting studies to bolster his claim. You really should read the book though.

Vile, with all due respect, and I know we've gone round and round on this topic before,:) ---


but ALL justice is revenge. Or what is sometimes referred to as retribution.

If an employee steals from his workplace, he will be fired. This will create much hardship for both himself and his family, if he has one. This is punishment. This is revenge.

If a college professor commits plagiarism, he will also lose his job. He will have scorn heaped upon him. This is revenge.

If a gunman robs a storekeeper and is caught, he will be punished by being locked in a cell with litlle besides a bunk and toilet, kept awake with a light bulb burning continously overhead, be denied basic rights, and be cut off from his loved ones--assuming he has any. This is revenge.

ALL punishment is revenge. In a nutshell, it's a basic tenet of criminal law, and the fear of it is what keeps many potential theives/plagiarists/robbers in line. No ren I have to totally disagree with you here.

Punishment is not revenge and is not supposed to be about revenge. Punishment is the result of or consequence of a wrongful act. An act that one knowingly choose to do.

Revenge and consequence are not the same. Revenge is purposely inflicting injury on another.
Capital punishement is merely the ultimate revenge
Yes capital punishment is the ultimate revenge, which is why it has no place in the justice system.

I will certainly make the effort.

I didn't read the book, can you sum up why he believed abortion dropped the crime rate?

I can guess. Which is why I am pro choice and anti death penalty.

If someone is contemplating abortion, chances are they are not in a position to properly nurture and raise an infant to become a healthy productive member of society.

Also there is no social net to help these children. They often become abused and neglected children. Abused and neglected children can produce dysfunctional adults. Dysfunctional adults commit crimes. Some of them heinous.

I'll buy that.

No ren I have to totally disagree with you here.

Punishment is not revenge and is not supposed to be about revenge. Punishment is the result of or consequence of a wrongful act. An act that one knowingly choose to do.

Revenge and consequence are not the same. Revenge is purposely inflicting injury on another.

Yes capital punishment is the ultimate revenge, which is why it has no place in the justice system.

No problem with disagreement, Sal.
This topic makes for interesting debate and I can't think of many others which inspire such strong feelings.
The subject of crime and punishment strikes a deep response of fear in the human soul.
Let's face it--we are all potential victims. And any one of us could be wrongfully accused. No wonder it causes such controversy.

In closing, I'd like to say that there has never been a more compelling argument against the death sentence than what was delivered by the great Clarence Darrow during closing arguments by the defense at the spectacular trial of Leopold and Loeb, 1920's Chicago.

The full text of his brilliant oration can be read here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/darrowclosing.html


and it was an argument so powerful it literally moved the judge to tears and was reprinted on the front pages of newspapers across the country.

(Briefly, the 2 defendants were on trial for the brutal slaying of 12 year old Bobby Franks. The accused as well as the victim were from wealthy families. It was referred to as a "thrill" killing as the defendants had a long desire to find out what it was like to kill someone.)

Loeb was later knifed to death in prison. Nathan Leopold's father, who had literally begged on his knees to Darrow to defend his son, and told him to name his price, later defaulted on his payment. Darrow had to sue to get his fee.

No problem with disagreement, Sal.
This topic makes for interesting debate and I can't think of many others which inspire such strong feelings.
The subject of crime and punishment strikes a deep response of fear in the human soul.
Let's face it--we are all potential victims. And any one of us could be wrongfully accused. No wonder it causes such controversy.

In closing, I'd like to say that there has never been a more compelling argument against the death sentence than what was delivered by the great Clarence Darrow during closing arguments by the defence at the spectacular trial of Leopold and Loeb, 1920's Chicago.

The full text of his brilliant oration can be read here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/leoploeb/darrowclosing.html


and it was an argument so powerful it literally moved the judge to tears and was reprinted on the front pages of newspapers across the country.

(Briefly, the 2 defendants were on trial for the brutal slaying of 12 year old Bobby Franks. The accused as well as the victim were from wealthy families. It was referred to as a "thrill" killing as the defendants had a long desire to find out what it was like to kill someone.)

Loeb was later knifed to death in prison. Nathan Leopold's father, who had literally begged on his knees to Darrow to defend his son, and told him to name his price, later defaulted on his payment. Darrow had to sue to get his fee.I think you should start a section or thread about some of these cases. You know a lot about them and if you set it up so that there was a bit of controversy about it I think many would participate.

You are right that all are affected by crime and it definitely is something almost everyone has an opinion on.

thanks for the link I am going to read it later this evening when there aren't so many distractions around....

I will certainly make the effort.
Don't be afraid of the statistical bent of the book, it's quite easy to read, and proceeds in a novel, interesting "treasure hunting" pattern. I think it should be required reading in every high school.

The backdoor to my house is almost always unlocked. It would be bad news if somebody broke in, though. Between my two boys (18 & 15), the little lady and myself, the crossfire would likely screw up the crown molding in a major way!


Really, always unlocked.?..hope your a light sleeper Shiloh.

i believe in capital punshment. but i think when an innocent person is executed, then ALL those who prosecuted, and sentenced the person should automatically be taken to the gallows and hanged.

i believe in capital punshment. but i think when an innocent person is executed, then ALL those who prosecuted, and sentenced the person should automatically be taken to the gallows and hanged.
What about those members of society who elected the judge, District Atty., etc?

Hanging's too good for those good-for-nothings!

These are problems the Institutional Divisions of various corrections departments need to answer to you for, not me. They have these inmates under their control and appearantly don't do a sufficient job.

Regardless, people are still dying at the hands of others who've been locked up for life. You can't ignore the fact that they are still a threat, just because it doesn't jibe with your idea of what a prison should be.

As to society, if the convict is in deed locked up for the rest of their life, say a super-max or some such, they are no longer a threat. With the exceptions of the failures of corrections folks to do their job, you've not shown otherwise.

Your naivte is showing. :) People in prison (even SuperMaxes) are not only threats to those around them in prison, they also threaten the civilian population.

On the pre-dawn morning of August 12, 1967, Pusser's phone rang, informing him of a disturbance call on New Hope Road in McNairy County. He responded, with his wife Pauline joining him for this particular ride. Shortly after they passed the New Hope Methodist Church on New Hope Road, two cars came alongside Pusser's; the occupants opened fire, killing his wife and leaving Pusser, who had suffered a shotgun wound to the face, for dead. He spent eighteen days in the hospital before returning home, and would need several surgeries to restore his appearance.

Pusser vowed to bring all involved with his wife's death to justice. He identified four assassins: Louise Hathcock's former boyfriend Carl Douglas "Towhead" White, George McGann, Gary McDaniel, and Kirksey Nix.

In April 1969, the mastermind who paid for the hit, Carl Douglas "Towhead" White was gunned down in front of the El Ray Motel on U.S. Highway 45 in Corinth, Mississippi. The alleged triggerman was a small-time hood named Berry Smith. (Author W.R. Morris wrote in 1990 that Pusser himself had hired a hit man who killed White with one shotgun blast to the head.)

In late 1970, both McDaniel and McGann were found shot to death in Texas. According to Edward Humes in "Mississippi Mud," Pusser was suspected by some law enforcement officials of having killed both.

Pusser never brought Kirksey Nix to justice. Nix was sentenced to Angola State Prison in Louisiana for the Easter Saturday, 1971 murder of a New Orleans grocer, Frank J. Corso. Nix was later involved in the 1987 murder-for-hire killing of Judge Vincent Sherry and his wife Margaret, in Biloxi, Mississippi. His co-conspirator, Biloxi Mayor Pete Halat, had stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from Nix and blamed it on his law partner, Vincent Sherry. Nix ordered the hit from prison and was later sentenced to isolation for the rest of his life. --Wiki - Buford Pusser (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buford_Pusser)

Prosecutor says mob hit ordered from prison was enabled by lawyer
Genovese family boss among 32 indicted (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/24/prosecutor_says_mob_hit_ordered_from_prison_was_en abled_by_lawyer/)
By Larry Neumeister, Associated Press | February 24, 2006

NEW YORK -- A corrupt lawyer enabled an acting boss of the Genovese crime family to order a killing from prison and direct other crimes, a prosecutor said yesterday as he announced charges against 32 mob associates and others.

US Attorney Michael J. Garcia said the lawyer, Peter J. Peluso, pleaded guilty last summer, admitting his role in the murder and agreeing to cooperate against his client, Liborio S. Bellomo, the acting Genovese boss who ordered the hit.



Then there's the case of Paul "Cornfed" Schneider, a lifer at Pelican Bay SuperMax, who was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, a very powerful prison gang. While in Pelican Bay, Schneider ran a Canary dog-raising operation, and one of those dogs attacked and killed a San Francisco woman in the hallway of her apartment (the vicious dog was being raised by Schneider's lawyers, who also lived in the apartment building).

Schneider, a member of the prison's white supremacist gang, the Aryan Brotherhood, was raising the [Canary] dogs as weapons to be used by the Mexican Mafia.

Schneider ... is facing charges for conspiring to arrange murders for the Aryan Brotherhood. In September, Schneider was indicted along with seven others on federal charges that he had participated in the ordered killings of about two dozen people.

He was also charged with the 1995 murder of a sheriff's deputy, who was shot to death by Robert Scully. Authorities say Scully and Schneider's girlfriend, Brenda Moore, were acting on Schneider's orders to commit a series of robberies — and that Sonoma County Sheriff Deputy Frank Trejo was killed when he approached the duo. --Court TV (http://www.courttv.com/trials/dogmaul/background-d_cornfed.html)

Do I need to go on, or do you get it now? Prison bars, even those of SuperMax prisons, do not stop convicted murderers from a life of crime, both inside AND outside prison walls.

I feel that all people should be free to live in a place of security.

So do I. That's why I staunchly support the death penalty.

Not Canary Dogs, Fran, that makes them seem like cute little, yellow puppies. He was raising Presa Canario dogs for the Mexican Mafia.


I agree that prisoners can continue to kill which is why I think violent prisoners should be kept in a form of durance vile, seperated from the rest of the prison population. Certain people are so dangerous that they should be kept in maximum security, seperated from all other prisoners for the rest of their lives, no parole, no lessening of the sentence, no leaving isolation, ever.