Originally posted by mad dog
A beast is a beast nothing more, just because the wolf is wearing a lamb outfit doesn't make it part of the flock.

And just because you think of them as wolves doesn't make them any less human.

I think you love the word revenge :) Getting rid of a killer is NOT revenge it is society cleaning up the trash, nothing more.

Calling them trash doesn't make them less human either.

I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this. I refuse to put a violent criminal in the same catagory as you, me, or others that try to live peacefully with each other. Heck I would even put my pets in a higher catagory then a childmolester, rapest or killer.

I believe we'll end up disagreeing on this as well. Your refusal to acknowledge a murderers humanity is understandable, and completely human. It doesn't make it right however. Dehumanizing those we wish to execute is a form of denial. Propagandists do it with our country's enemies in time of war to make it less psychologically troubling for our soldiers when they kill the enemy. They aren't killing people, they are killing sub-human animals.

Your desire to do this with murderers and other violent criminals is no different. The crimes thay commit are so far removed from what you and I consider "normal" that you have convinced yourself that these criminals are less than human. This is due to a desire to distance yourself from their behavior, to convince yourself that you aren't capable of murder. We don't call our killing "murder", we call it "execution", or "justice", to convince ourselves that it isn't the same thing as murder. It is killing another human being, however much you want to believe that it isn't. Neither you or I is in a position to honestly deny another persons humanity. I know it's somewhat humbling to think that another human could behave in such a way, but they can, and do. The behavior of a murderer doesn't make me less human, but my response to that behavior might. I find it somewhat ironic that in an attempt to set ourselves apart from killers, we kill them . How different can we be?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
And just because you think of them as wolves doesn't make them any less human.


Calling them trash doesn't make them less human either.
You're right Vile. Maddogs words and thoughts do not make them less human. Its the murderer's actions that make them sub human. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, a persons actions can indeed turn them into something less than human. But i will not try to knock the lenses out of the rose colored glasses you seem to be viewing the world from. Enjoy your naivety.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Its the murderer's actions that make them sub human. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, a persons actions can indeed turn them into something less than human.

The only thing that is changed by someone's actions is our perceptions of them. They do not automatically change species because they do something despicable. If you believe that a man who commits murder suddenly becomes "less than human", then you must believe that a dog who rescues his master from drowning, suddenly becomes "more than a dog". In both of these cases there is no change in the creature who engaged in the good or bad behavior, the only change that has occured is in us, in our perceptions of these creatures. Just as a dog who does something good isn't anything but a good dog, a man who does something bad is nothing more, or less, than a bad man. To consider them "less than human" is intellectual dishonesty, and is done only so we can rationalize our own actions and convince ourselves that we haven't participated in the killing of another human being, we have executed an animal. Which one of us is truly naive?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It may help you to look at humans as animals, or in this case as a disease that is infecting society, but it doesn't change the fact that we are talking about other human beings.

There have been criminals in our midst throughout history, and there are likely to be criminals among us for a long time to come. Treating the problem with fire and bloodshed has done little to rid our species of this scourge, and until we learn to deal with the problem using our higher abilities of reason and compassion, instead of revenge and violence, we will likely have to deal with it a good while longer.

I really don't see how you can link killing the worst of the worst criminals through the death penalty to increased violent crime. Not only does this position defy my common sense, but I've never seen any evidence to support such an assertion.

Furthermore, being a human being does not in itself maintain your the right to live any more than it maintains your right to liberty. You can lose your right to liberty, as well as life, through intolerable antisocial actions. That's the way it is and the way it should be.

I'd be very surprised if you maintained your position toward someone who raped and butchered your lover right in front of you. Hell, if someone raped and butchered me, I'd particularly dread having someone like you carrying out the punishment for my murder.

Originally posted by Leper
I really don't see how you can link killing the worst of the worst criminals through the death penalty to increased violent crime. Not only does this position defy my common sense, but I've never seen any evidence to support such an assertion.

I made no such assertion. I merely pointed out that we have been executing murderers for thousands of years and that has done nothing to solve the problem.

Furthermore, being a human being does not in itself maintain your the right to live any more than it maintains your right to liberty. You can lose your right to liberty, as well as life, through intolerable antisocial actions. That's the way it is and the way it should be.

At present that's the way it is in 30+ states, but whether or not it should be that way is what we are debating here.

I'd be very surprised if you maintained your position toward someone who raped and butchered your lover right in front of you. Hell, if someone raped and butchered me, I'd particularly dread having someone like you carrying out the punishment for my murder.

We learned a long time ago that in order to have even the chance of dispensing justice in this country that you must remove emotion from the equation. That's why we don't leave the punishment of criminals in the hands of the criminal's victims.

That's also why I think that capital punishment is all about revenge. It does nothing but deliver retribution upon someone who has horribly wronged someone else, and society as a whole. My opinions about capital punishment are not based upon emotion. We're not supposed to be discussing emotions, we're supposed to be discussing justice. Statistics show that if you live in the South, and are black, that you stand a much better chance of being executed than if you are white. Not emotion, fact. It's also a fact that that situation is inherently unjust. Knowing this and still supporting capital punishment means that you are more interested in retribution than in justice.

Originally posted by Leper
Hell, if someone raped and butchered me, I'd particularly dread having someone like you carrying out the punishment for my murder.


You wouldn't dread anything if you had been butchered.

i agree with vile. if someone is born a human, that's it. it can't change, no matter how you percieve them. and it's a dangerous thing under any circumsances to dehumanize someone, since once someone is no longer human then many people feel as if its morally ok to do the most terrible things to them. they're not human, after all.

totally with sputnik and vile, don't think I could have said it better myself.

Well, Vile, at least the two 14 year olds understand your position. As for those of us who know better, there are some people who quite simply are worth more dead than alive.

Furthermore, any justification you can use for imprisoning someone for life, you can use for killing someone.

Another side effect of your policy is that, due to the inadequacy of your punishment, it encourages vigilante justice. I think many people, including unnamed members of this board, would rather handle punishment themselves rather than allow our oversoft legal system to handle it.

Have you ever seen the film "In the Bedroom?" This movie is an excellent portrayal of how a tragic crime and inadequate punishment can affect a victim's loved ones. It's the sort of scenario your position creates.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
You wouldn't dread anything if you had been butchered.

Someone's always gotta nitpick!

Originally posted by Leper
Well, Vile, at least the two 14 year olds understand your position. As for those of us who know better, there are some people who quite simply are worth more dead than alive.

Furthermore, any justification you can use for imprisoning someone for life, you can use for killing someone.

Another side effect of your policy is that, due to the inadequacy of your punishment, it encourages vigilante justice. I think many people, including unnamed members of this board, would rather handle punishment themselves rather than allow our oversoft legal system to handle it.

Have you ever seen the film "In the Bedroom?" This movie is an excellent portrayal of how a tragic crime and inadequate punishment can affect a victim's loved ones. It's the sort of scenario your position creates.

I have seen "In the Bedroom". The murderer thinks he has the right to "punish" the couple's son for sleeping with his wife.

He even said something like "What could I do? He was sleeping with my wife" to the authorities. As if they would say "Oh, well case dismissed".

THAT is the the kind of behavior our society promotes by being vengeful.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
That's also why I think that capital punishment is all about revenge.

I think this is were you are having a problem, it has nothing to do with revenge, it is about taking care of the rest of society. Sure maybe the people closely effected by the killer would get a sort of revenge, but the rest of the world could sleep knowing that there is one less serial killer around.

Originally posted by Leper
Well, Vile, at least the two 14 year olds understand your position. As for those of us who know better, there are some people who quite simply are worth more dead than alive.

If you believe that you can rationally decide that someone deserves to die, then I don't think you know better.

Furthermore, any justification you can use for imprisoning someone for life, you can use for killing someone.

That might be true if you think that execution and life imprisonment are equal punishments. I do not.

Another side effect of your policy is that, due to the inadequacy of your punishment, it encourages vigilante justice.

On the contrary, I think that when the state participates in the killing of some of it's citizens under the guise of dispensing justice, it lends credence to the idea that killing someone out of revenge is justifiable.

I think many people, including unnamed members of this board, would rather handle punishment themselves rather than allow our oversoft legal system to handle it.

If true it shows that emotion has no place in the process of dispensing justice.

Have you ever seen the film "In the Bedroom?" This movie is an excellent portrayal of how a tragic crime and inadequate punishment can affect a victim's loved ones. It's the sort of scenario your position creates.

I've never seen the movie, but I'm sure it would not make me change my mind about capital punishment. It does however convince me that your arguments in favor of the death penalty are emotional arguments, not rational ones. Let me ask you a few questions.

You've repeatedly stated that certain people "deserve to die", or that they are "animals", "scum" and so on. What are your criteria for determining who these people are? Who gets the death penalty and who gets life imprisonment? Do all people convicted of murder deserve to be executed? Should they be executed for second degree murder, or just premeditated murder?

Can you explain to me how your thoughts on the death penalty are reached through reason rather than through anger, fear, and loathing?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
]The only thing that is changed by someone's actions is our perceptions of them. They do not automatically change species because they do something despicable.

you are correct, but let me ask was the killer a killer to start with and did he/she change once they were caught? Probably not, so from the beginning they were allready different from most.

If you believe that a man who commits murder suddenly becomes "less than human", then you must believe that a dog who rescues his master from drowning, suddenly becomes "more than a dog".

Maybe the dog just has more compassion then the human, so does this make the human better just because he walks upright?

In both of these cases there is no change in the creature who engaged in the good or bad behavior, the only change that has occured is in us, in our perceptions of these creatures.

exactly, so maybe the human was/is/allways will be bad and the dog was allways good.

Just as a dog who does something good isn't anything but a good dog, a man who does something bad is nothing more, or less, than a bad man.

So lets switch things, the dog kills{or attacks} and the human saves, the dog gets put down.

To consider them "less than human" is intellectual dishonesty, and is done only so we can rationalize our own actions and convince ourselves that we haven't participated in the killing of another human being, we have executed an animal. Which one of us is truly naive?

With this logic you must agree that Bush is smart, truthfull, allknowing{aboutU.S.}, honest, etc.... After all he is the prez........................

Originally posted by sputnik
. if someone is born a human, that's it. it can't change, no matter how you percieve them.

I don't think we are saying these creatures are not humans, what we are saying is they are violent and do not serve a purpose. Just because a creature wears pants and a shirt does not make them better then something else. If they choose to kidnap, rape, torture, and kill another, then why give them compassion? Why do you believe a violent killer is better, and diserves special treatment?


and it's a dangerous thing under any circumsances to dehumanize someone, since once someone is no longer human then many people feel as if its morally ok to do the most terrible things to them. they're not human, after all.

Let me ask this, did society put the label on the person or did the person choose to put themselfs into a different catagory? When the killer made a choice to kidnap, torture, and kill didn't they make their own bed{so to speak}?

Originally posted by mad dog
you are correct, but let me ask was the killer a killer to start with and did he/she change once they were caught? Probably not, so from the beginning they were allready different from most.

They may be different, but they are still human.

Maybe the dog just has more compassion then the human, so does this make the human better just because he walks upright?

I wasn't attempting to make a value judgement between a "good" dog and a "bad" human, I was merely pointing out that one is a dog and one is a human. I would hope that our justice system would recognize the difference.

So lets switch things, the dog kills{or attacks} and the human saves, the dog gets put down.

Again, I hope that our justice system would be more enlightened than to treat a human like a mad dog (sorry).

I wrote:

To consider them "less than human" is intellectual dishonesty, and is done only so we can rationalize our own actions and convince ourselves that we haven't participated in the killing of another human being, we have executed an animal. Which one of us is truly naive?

You wrote:


With this logic you must agree that Bush is smart, truthfull, allknowing{aboutU.S.}, honest, etc.... After all he is the prez........................

You lost me mad dog, I don't see any connection between our respective statements and I don't understand what you are trying to say here...

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Again, I hope that our justice system would be more enlightened than to treat a human like a mad dog (sorry).

:D :D

You lost me mad dog, I don't see any connection between our respective statements and I don't understand what you are trying to say here...

Sorry that was a joke, I forgot the smile. If humans are so great, even the killers, then the prez must be smarter, and more truthfull, then the average Joe no matter who he/she is. :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
If you believe that you can rationally decide that someone deserves to die, then I don't think you know better.

Somehow you're better off because you believe you can rationally decide that someone deserves to be permanently locked up?



That might be true if you think that execution and life imprisonment are equal punishments. I do not.

But the same rationale is used for each.

On the contrary, I think that when the state participates in the killing of some of it's citizens under the guise of dispensing justice, it lends credence to the idea that killing someone out of revenge is justifiable.

Puhlease. Killing people out of revenge was around long before the state started executing people. It's a natural reaction.


If true it shows that emotion has no place in the process of dispensing justice.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.


I've never seen the movie, but I'm sure it would not make me change my mind about capital punishment. It does however convince me that your arguments in favor of the death penalty are emotional arguments, not rational ones. Let me ask you a few questions.

This paragraph demonstrates to me is that you operate on the assumption that emotional and rational reactions are always different. This is an obviously incorrect assumption as emotional and rational reactions quite often follow the correct path. Furthermore, emotional reactions are often right where man's reasoning ability falls short.

There's a rational basis why people emotionally want criminals to suffer just as there's a rational basis behind a variety of emotions. The rationale behind vengeful/angry behavior toward criminals is that no one wants to become a victim, and by reacting unfavorably (to put it mildly) to criminals, they discourage criminal behavior versus themselves as well as against their loved ones.

You've repeatedly stated that certain people "deserve to die", or that they are "animals", "scum" and so on. What are your criteria for determining who these people are? Who gets the death penalty and who gets life imprisonment? Do all people convicted of murder deserve to be executed? Should they be executed for second degree murder, or just premeditated murder?

Make sure you get your quotes straight. Although I don't completely disagree with the characterization of criminals as "scum," that is not my word, so please be careful and if you ever really want to understand my position, you shouldn't confuse me with Travh. As for "animals," my position is that murderers (I use the criminal definition....one who kills another is not necessarily a murderer) are often worth less than animals so, although you probably think I'm splitting atoms, you mischaracterize my position since I think animal lives have value. Murderer's lives often have negative value (i.e. they are liabilities to society on the whole).

As for determining who should be subject to death penalty, there are probably several factors that should be considered (number of victims, circumstances of the crime, the security of victims and their loved ones), but I think all of them ultimately relate to the danger the criminal presents to society.

To answer your question in case I haven't already, no, I don't think all criminal killers should be executed but I think execution should be cheaper than life imprisonment and more frequently used than it is now. In fact, I would say execution should be used more frequently than life imprisonment in murder cases, but every murder should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.


Can you explain to me how your thoughts on the death penalty are reached through reason rather than through anger, fear, and loathing?

I've done this already. Death penalty, if properly administrated (In case I haven't established this, I think the death penalty is improperly administrated in the US), serves to deter crime, to incapacitate the criminal, and to serve justice on behalf of the victims and their loved ones.

Originally posted by Leper

Somehow you're better off because you believe you can rationally decide that someone deserves to be permanently locked up?

Yes, because I believe not killing someone is better than killing someone.

But the same rationale is used for each.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean your rationale is rational.

Puhlease. Killing people out of revenge was around long before the state started executing people. It's a natural reaction.

As a species we codify laws to punish people for acting on their natural impulses in such a way that brings harm to society. If we have laws that punish people for killing others out of revenge, then our society should not engage in the practice either.

This paragraph demonstrates to me is that you operate on the assumption that emotional and rational reactions are always different.

Not always. I was speaking about your arguments in favor of the death penalty.

This is an obviously incorrect assumption as emotional and rational reactions quite often follow the correct path.

This may be true occasionally, but I don't believe it applies in this case.

Furthermore, emotional reactions are often right where man's reasoning ability falls short.

Again, your belief that I made the assumption that emotions are always incorrect, is a false belief. Can you tell me how, in the context of the death penalty, emotions would serve us better than using our reasoning abilities to decide the matter?

There's a rational basis why people emotionally want criminals to suffer just as there's a rational basis behind a variety of emotions. The rationale behind vengeful/angry behavior toward criminals is that no one wants to become a victim, and by reacting unfavorably (to put it mildly) to criminals, they discourage criminal behavior versus themselves as well as against their loved ones.

There is indeed a rational basis for emotions expressed in the proper context. I don't believe it's rational to want criminals to suffer. You are correct in your statement that no one wants to be the victim of a murderer, and it would be rational to fear such a murderer if he were loose on the streets. It would not be rational to have the same level of fear for a murderer who is locked up in a maximum security prison. I believe imprisonment is adequate discouragement to criminals, insofar as any punishment actively discourages such behavior.

Make sure you get your quotes straight. Although I don't completely disagree with the characterization of criminals as "scum," that is not my word, so please be careful and if you ever really want to understand my position, you shouldn't confuse me with Travh.

My apologies. I should not have attributed the "scum" remark to you. That was mad dog's.

As for "animals," my position is that murderers (I use the criminal definition....one who kills another is not necessarily a murderer) are often worth less than animals so, although you probably think I'm splitting atoms, you mischaracterize my position since I think animal lives have value. Murderer's lives often have negative value (i.e. they are liabilities to society on the whole).

I don't accept the fact that you or any other individual is qualified to judge the worth of someone else's life. The fact that you believe you are so qualified, implies a certain level of arrogance on your part. If you can judge someone else as being unfit to live, what's to prevent someone else from making the same determination about you, for their own reasons?

As for determining who should be subject to death penalty, there are probably several factors that should be considered (number of victims, circumstances of the crime, the security of victims and their loved ones), but I think all of them ultimately relate to the danger the criminal presents to society.

To answer your question in case I haven't already, no, I don't think all criminal killers should be executed but I think execution should be cheaper than life imprisonment and more frequently used than it is now. In fact, I would say execution should be used more frequently than life imprisonment in murder cases, but every murder should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

This is why I maintain that you are deciding this issue using your emotions rather than your reasoning abilities. You are certain that more people need to be executed, you just can't explain exactly how the decision to execute should be reached.

I've done this already. Death penalty, if properly administrated (In case I haven't established this, I think the death penalty is improperly administrated in the US), serves to deter crime, to incapacitate the criminal, and to serve justice on behalf of the victims and their loved ones.

The same things can be said about incarceration. Can you tell me how the death penalty works better than incarcerating people, to deter crime, incapacitate the criminals, and serve justice?

Originally posted by Vilepagan

The same things can be said about incarceration. Can you tell me how the death penalty works better than incarcerating people, to deter crime, incapacitate the criminals, and serve justice? [

As long as someone is behind bars they will allways have the chance of getting out{or hope of}{escape or legal}. Now if they are put down they have no chance of doing anything. Now if someone commits the act of murder where would they rather go, to a place that might at sometime let them loose, or to a place that will end ALL chances of them ever seeing the light of day??? Our system, as it is, allready has proven that even folks that get life, get out. Loopholes, over population, etc... are reasons to get out. I even heard some jacka** the other night say "well so and so committed these murders -------years ago so they probably have changed, we should JUST let them out."

Originally posted by mad dog
As long as someone is behind bars they will allways have the chance of getting out{or hope of}{escape or legal}. Now if they are put down they have no chance of doing anything. Now if someone commits the act of murder where would they rather go, to a place that might at sometime let them loose, or to a place that will end ALL chances of them ever seeing the light of day??? Our system, as it is, allready has proven that even folks that get life, get out. Loopholes, over population, etc... are reasons to get out. I even heard some jacka** the other night say "well so and so committed these murders -------years ago so they probably have changed, we should JUST let them out."

Yes it's true that occasionally a murderer escapes from prison and commits a horrible crime. This problem could be solved by building better prisons. I'd also like to point out that it is an extremely rare event to have someone escape from prison and commit more crimes. To fear this happening to the extent that you use this as a reason to execute people, is akin to staying indoors your whole life because you fear being struck by lightning. As I said in a previous post, it is rational to fear the murderer who is loose on the streets, but it is not a rational fear to fear the murderer who is locked up.

As far as "loopholes" in the law go, the law is structured so as to make the possibility of convicting an innocent person as remote as possible, and as you decrease the number of guilty people who wriggle out through one of these holes, you will inevitably increase the number of innocents incarcerated.

Our prisons are not overpopulated because we are putting to many violent criminals in prison. They are overpopulated because we are jailing thousands of non-violent drug offenders in a misguided policy called "The War on Drugs".

Originally posted by Vilepagan
]Yes it's true that occasionally a murderer escapes from prison and commits a horrible crime. This problem could be solved by building better prisons.

Now we are back to the money thing??? How much money are we suppose to waste on scum?

I'd also like to point out that it is an extremely rare event to have someone escape from prison and commit more crimes.

Have you really looked into this? Lets not forget what happens inside the prison. Now if Killer Sallybobjoe even kills one more is this an option?

To fear this happening to the extent that you use this as a reason to execute people, is akin to staying indoors your whole life because you fear being struck by lightning.

comparing something that we have NO control over to something that we have control over is like comparing cars to snakes.

As I said in a previous post, it is rational to fear the murderer who is loose on the streets, but it is not a rational fear to fear the murderer who is locked up.

Just the other night I watch the prison system let a killer out because of over population, so now tell me more about this killer on the streets stuff

As far as "loopholes" in the law go, the law is structured so as to make the possibility of convicting an innocent person as remote as possible, and as you decrease the number of guilty people who wriggle out through one of these holes, you will inevitably increase the number of innocents incarcerated.

Hog wash

Our prisons are not overpopulated because we are putting to many violent criminals in prison. They are overpopulated because we are jailing thousands of non-violent drug offenders in a misguided policy called "The War on Drugs".

I do agree with this, but as I said above a KILLER was released because of over pop. So how great of a system to we have????

Originally posted by mad dog
Now we are back to the money thing??? How much money are we suppose to waste on scum?

Just as much as it takes to imprison them and prevent their escape. As shown in previous posts it is more costly to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for life. I don't consider keeping killers off the street as a waste of money.


Have you really looked into this? Lets not forget what happens inside the prison. Now if Killer Sallybobjoe even kills one more is this an option?

Again, an extremely rare event. It happens far less frequently than executions.



comparing something that we have NO control over to something that we have control over is like comparing cars to snakes.

I wasn't comparing the events, I was comparing the fear of those events, and we do, or rather we should, have control over our fears.

Just the other night I watch the prison system let a killer out because of over population, so now tell me more about this killer on the streets stuff

Forgive me, but to suggest that we need to execute people to relieve overcrowding is absurd, and frankly I don't believe the person you mentioned was released because the prison was overpopulated.

I do agree with this, but as I said above a KILLER was released because of over pop. So how great of a system to we have????

Again, I don't believe a killer was released because of prison overcrowding, and if in fact it did happen, the fault is with the idiot who made the decision to do so, not the system itself. The system is obviously not perfect, and some changes surely should be made, but executing people is not the answer.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
]Just as much as it takes to imprison them and prevent their escape. As shown in previous posts it is more costly to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for life. I don't consider keeping killers off the street as a waste of money.

I still say that is wrong, to each his opinion. Should we throw money at killers or should we consider the old, children etc... I would feel much better if my money went to help a 70-80-90 year old with heat, medical, food. Of course it's awesome that a killer can watch cable TV, lift weights, have clean bed and sheets and 3 square meals. The guy that fought in WW2 gets to sleep in an old run down house can't afford crap, but hey lets treat killers with respect.



Again, an extremely rare event. It happens far less frequently than executions.

have you been to a prison or talked to a prison guard? You might have an eye opener.



I wasn't comparing the events, I was comparing the fear of those events, and we do, or rather we should, have control over our fears.

You have a fear of being wrongly accused and sentenced to death. So which fear do we go with mine or yours?


Forgive me, but to suggest that we need to execute people to relieve overcrowding is absurd, and frankly I don't believe the person you mentioned was released because the prison was overpopulated.

I didn't say kill all the prisoners I said kill the killers, eye for an eye, justice. Yes it was true.


Again, I don't believe a killer was released because of prison overcrowding, and if in fact it did happen, the fault is with the idiot who made the decision to do so, not the system itself.

What is the system, it's the jackass that let the guy go??? There is a good show on A&E I think it's called American Justice. They are allways bringing up violent criminals and reasons why they get out. They had one guy that killed a cop{small town} he was pulled over awhile after the deed. when the arresting officer went up to his car he was finishing eating his victims finger. After 20+ years this guy was released from jail. reason over crowding.

The system is obviously not perfect, and some changes surely should be made, but executing people is not the answer. [

This is exactly why execution should take place, the system is a joke.

Originally posted by mad dog
I still say that is wrong, to each his opinion. Should we throw money at killers or should we consider the old, children etc... I would feel much better if my money went to help a 70-80-90 year old with heat, medical, food. Of course it's awesome that a killer can watch cable TV, lift weights, have clean bed and sheets and 3 square meals. The guy that fought in WW2 gets to sleep in an old run down house can't afford crap, but hey lets treat killers with respect.

I would feel better if the homeless and the elderly got more help too, but that doesn't change the fact that we need to spend a certain amount protecting us from criminals. I don't think that prison is pleasant for these killers, regardless of the amenities they might have, and the reason they are given such things is primarily to make it safer for the guards.


You have a fear of being wrongly accused and sentenced to death. So which fear do we go with mine or yours?

I don't have a fear of being wrongly imprisoned.


I didn't say kill all the prisoners I said kill the killers, eye for an eye, justice.


That sounds very Old Testament. It also sounds like revenge. Hit me and I'll hit you....when does the violence stop?


What is the system, it's the jackass that let the guy go??? There is a good show on A&E I think it's called American Justice. They are allways bringing up violent criminals and reasons why they get out. They had one guy that killed a cop{small town} he was pulled over awhile after the deed. when the arresting officer went up to his car he was finishing eating his victims finger. After 20+ years this guy was released from jail. reason over crowding.

Sounds to me like the guys sentence should have been life without parole.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
]I would feel better if the homeless and the elderly got more help too, but that doesn't change the fact that we need to spend a certain amount protecting us from criminals. I don't think that prison is pleasant for these killers, regardless of the amenities they might have, and the reason they are given such things is primarily to make it safer for the guards.

Back in the day when the guard got respect these criminals sang to a different tune. The criminals are running the jails today, the guards are just there to make sure doors stay locked. The only thing these criminals don't get is freedom, other then that they get everything you and I get and then some.



I don't have a fear of being wrongly imprisoned.

I thought you said your fear is of someone innocent, being convicted, charged and killed? My fear is that a killer can kill again, maybe not me or anyone I know, but someone.



That sounds very Old Testament. It also sounds like revenge. Hit me and I'll hit you....when does the violence stop?

Has nothing to do with testament it is the natural way. The violence stops when the killer is no longer breathing. I think you are trying to be everybodys "nice" guy. When does society stand up to the bullies and take out our trash? We can take out a dog that attacks{doesn't kill or torture}, but we can give a human a place to live, 3 squares, etc... when they kidnap, rape, torture, and kill. Tell me, the victim, or the victims, family where the justice is in that? "Oh , we're sorry, Ms Ellroy your daughter {6} was brutally totured and raped then killed and left in a swamp, but you'll be happy to know the criminal is eating a steak and watching womens mud wreastling on HBO. Justice, hmmmmmmmmmm



Sounds to me like the guys sentence should have been life without parole. ]

Sounds words etc... all sound good but this is the point, as long as that criminal is breathing he/she has a chance to get out. The bottom line is violent criminals deserve nothing less then death. I am not talking about all criminals but these slease bags that have killed more then once, totured, etc... HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER THE REST OF SOCIETY With DNA, new types of equipment, etc... it is a much better chance of getting the right guy/gal. With our ways of proving "who done it", to not have a death penalty is going backwards. We are not living in 1975 anymore todays science can allmost perfectly convict the real killer. So once this is done why waste the tax payers money on stupid sh**, like when Sallybobjoe "got off" because the arresting officer forgot to read him his rights? We have the evidence that Sallybobjoe is a violent killer no 10 year wait, no fancy last meal, etc... one bullet{about .30-.70 cents}. Hell that would be one tax that I would be happy to pay for.

Originally posted by Leper
Why do we give out the death penalty for one murder and not another?

Because circumstances of the crime are crucial to determining the appropriate punishment. They're same sort of reasons we give stiffer penalties to someone who steals $100K from a bank than to someone who steals a pack of gum from a grocery store.

A bank exec., respected in his community and coaches little league, embezzles $100K. A minority factory worker just fired from his job robs $100K from a bank. Who's going to serve more time? The 12 y/o daughter of the bank exec. and the 12 y/o daughter of the factory worker each shoplift a pack of gum on the same day. Who's going to get the slap on the wrist, and who's going to go to juvvie hall?


Would you feel that the perpetrator deserved the death penalty if his victim was a 45 year-old, skanky, crack-whore, instead of a pretty, 22 year-old, white, college girl?

Cause let's face it. The 25-year old's life is worth more. Of course, race has nothing to do with it.

How can the government justify who's life is worth more? Racial discrimination or no, there's also discrimination against the poor in cases like this. Change the 45 y/o to a 15 y/o runnaway crack whore. Her parents will probably argue that their daughter's life is "worth it".

(I apologize for not reading ahead before posting.)

Originally posted by mad dog
Just the other night I watch the prison system let a killer out because of over population, so now tell me more about this killer on the streets stuff

Then they should have released all the non-violent criminals, instead. Get rid of the "War on Drugs." Erase the mandatory sentencing for pot users and put more mandatory sentencing on the murderers and rapists.

How's this for fair? A convicted rapist or murderer, if released, may still apply for federal educational grants, such as the Pell. Anyone convicted on any drug charge is ineligible for those grants.

Originally posted by P Marie C
]Then they should have released all the non-violent criminals, instead. Get rid of the "War on Drugs." Erase the mandatory sentencing for pot users and put more mandatory sentencing on the murderers and rapists.

I agree, but because alot of them were new to the jail they figure they should do time{makes no sense}. I believe in a war on drugs just not to the extreme that we are at. I don't want to see crack, etc.. on the streets but, pot I still don't understand what the big deal is. This is another reason are system is so screwed up. A guy can get caught molesting a child and basically get slapped on the wrist. While a guy getting caught for DWI gets nailed to the wall. I'm not saying I agree with either crime it just seems like priorities are screwed.

How's this for fair? A convicted rapist or murderer, if released, may still apply for federal educational grants, such as the Pell. Anyone convicted on any drug charge is ineligible for those grants.

Once again what idiot makes these laws? I would rather see our officers at work trying to stop crime instead of wasting our tax money on stopping folks without seatbelts.

I was watching a show on the science channel the other day, they were comparing brains of killers to non-killers. Serial killers showed NO remorse for any crime they commited. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Casey, Jeffry D. etc... all showed the same type of reaction. So if these types of people could care less then why should we care less for them?

Originally posted by mad dog
I was watching a show on the science channel the other day, they were comparing brains of killers to non-killers. Serial killers showed NO remorse for any crime they commited. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Casey, Jeffry D. etc... all showed the same type of reaction. So if these types of people could care less then why should we care less for them?

Because we are not like them.

Originally posted by mad dog
I was watching a show on the science channel the other day, they were comparing brains of killers to non-killers. Serial killers showed NO remorse for any crime they commited. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Casey, Jeffry D. etc... all showed the same type of reaction. So if these types of people could care less then why should we care less for them?


you're saying that what sets us apart from killers is that we can't kill without remorse. if you use that argument, then we shouldn't be able to execute them without sinking to their level. no matter who you're killing, it's still taking someone elses's life. by your logic, if we are above these people, we shouldn't be able to simply kill them.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I'd also like to point out that it is an extremely rare event to have someone escape from prison and commit more crimes.
Sorry Vilepagan, but you're 180 degrees dead wrong on this one. It's actually very common for escaped prisoners to reoffend. Common sense should tell you this - an escaped prisoner has to break some sort of law just to flee, just to eat. You know, once he's weaseled his way out, it's extremely unlikely that someone will be standing there with the keys to a fast escape car, a change of clothes, and a bag of Burger King take out.

In light of this general fact, it's almost a given that an escaped prisoner will commit more crimes. In just a few minutes, I found plenty of documentation to prove this assertion. There's tons more out there, but I don't want to belabor the point. ;)
Death penalty opponents believe life behind bars, unlike execution, gives convicts decades to recover from their crimes. "As long as a prisoner remains alive he or she can hope for rehabilitation," Amnesty International has declared.

Not necessarily.

Unfortunately, some murderers stop pondering their misdeeds and seek greener pastures beyond the penitentiary walls.

Such wanderlust led William D. Davis and Douglas E. Gray to escape a Stringtown, Okla., prison on March 16. Both were serving life sentences for homicide. Davis stabbed a man 80 times with a knife during a 1974 robbery while Gray fatally beat and shot a teacher in 1988.

After hiding in a truck bound for the local post office, prison authorities say, the convicts seized the vehicle from its driver. They reportedly entered a woman's home, tied her up, stole her guns and fled in her Ford Taurus. Later, officials say, the two car-jacked a pickup truck containing two rifles.

After being spotted by a cop, Davis and Gray held an elderly couple hostage in their home for seven hours on March 24. Gray gave up while Davis apparently committed suicide.

A higher-profile jailbreak ended in a similar standoff. Michael Rodriguez, sentenced to life for murder, joined six lesser criminals in overpowering prison employees in Connolly, Texas, last Dec. 13 before leaving in a maintenance truck. Police say the "Malevolent Seven" robbed an Oshman's sporting goods store on Christmas Eve, then shot Irving, Texas, police officer Aubrey Hawkins 11 times and drove over his corpse. Authorities eventually captured Rodriguez and two other fugitives in a stolen Jeep near Woodland Park, Colo. A SWAT team surrounded two escapees hidden in a trailer. Randy Halprin surrendered.

After negotiating with police, Larry Harper fatally shot himself.

Statistics on this phenomenon are rare. States categorize escapes differently and appear not to report them nationally. Clearly though, for some imprisoned murderers, "life without parole" is more suggestion than reality.

Lee John Knoch escaped Oregon's Snake River Correctional Institute Feb. 28 before being caught in Idaho. He received life for burying Robert Holliday alive to prevent his testimony at Knoch's torture trial.

After escaping a Florida prison in 1991, John Fred Woolard shot and killed a park ranger. Last May 28, Woolard escaped again, this time from a Mississippi prison, accompanied by armed robber Roy Randall Harper.

The two convicts allegedly fired at a sheriff's deputy who stopped them for speeding, then embarked on a high-speed chase in a stolen van last June 14. Woolard surrendered three days later, after a final getaway bid in yet another car-jacked van. A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/murdock.htm)
Nearly 50 men and women held at the state psychiatric hospital for murder and other violent acts have escaped since 1990, a Denver Post investigation has found.

Seven of the patients were violent again after they fled the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo. One killed a motel clerk. Another cracked the skulls of his brother and sister-in-law with a sledgehammer, nearly killing them.

Two others beat up an off-duty police officer and stole his car. A fifth sexually assaulted a store clerk and tried to break her neck. Another was sent back to the hospital after attacking an elderly woman. Another fatally shot himself in the head with a stolen gun. -- Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1468651,00.html)

But it is true that prison escapes, while not rare, aren't especially common either. So let's forget the escaped prisoner part and look at murderers who have actually served their time like good boys and girls, and been parolled all nice and legal like. We shouldn't have anything to fear at ALL from those folks, right? Because they're not frantically running for their lives, and because they've been reformed, right?

Well, guess what? Parolled murderers murder again. OFTEN.

Here's an entire LONG page full of reports (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm). Sobering, isn't it?

Yes it's true that occasionally a murderer escapes from prison and commits a horrible crime. This problem could be solved by building better prisons.
I doubt that you have done the kind of research on prisons and recidivism and the death penalty that I have, Vilepagan. This is an issue that interests me intensely, and I've spent a great deal of time learning the facts and debating the pros and cons. I can tell you with authority that we have yet to build an escape-proof prison. Throwing more money at building bigger badder prisons is a waste - if someone wants out badly enough, they will find a way to do it.

Would tighter facilities help? Perhaps. But on Jan. 15, three convicts escaped Oklahoma's H-Unit, a supposedly hermetically sealed "prison within a prison." The inmates reportedly disappeared into the crawl space behind the toilet each had pried loose in his respective cell.

Robber Nathan Washington became ensnared in the complex's concertina wire. Murderer James Robert Thomas and kidnapper Willie Lee Hoffman were recovered, but not before they stole an Oldsmobile belonging to one of two women they ambushed. Thomas, who escaped the Oklahoma County Jail in 1994, was doing life for the 1993 rape and killing of Jessie Roberts, his 81-year-old neighbor who paid the then 17-year-old to mow her lawn.

A 5,000-volt electric fence did not deter Steve Murphy, O.C. Borden and Gary Scott. These three murderers, all lifers, escaped a high-security prison in St. Clair Springs, Ala., on Jan. 30. Along with three fellow inmates, they lifted the fence with a broom handle and slithered to freedom. Murphy once escaped this facility in the 1980s.

"There are always people who rebel against being contained," says Captain Dave Arnold, personnel director at the Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail in Williamsburg. "There are those who will take that to heart and make it their mission to get out." Arnold explains that prison overcrowding has decreased guard-inmate ratios, something convicts surely notice. "These guys can look for all kinds of flaws," he adds. "It's their job to poke holes in the system." --A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/murdock.htm)

So. We can't contain them, we can't change or reform them, and we can't afford to house/feed/clothe or provide healthcare for them any more. For these reasons and many more, I strongly support the death penalty, as well as an abbreviated appeals process (and dropping this stupid war on pot that fills our prisons to overflowing).

I'd much rather spend less on prisoners and prisons and more on education. Do you know that in CA, we're closing schools left and right so that we can continue to pay for our big, bad prisons (CA is home to what is considered to be THE most secure prison in the country-Pelican Bay)?

*shakes head*

How twisted is that?

Originally posted by F. de Marzipan
Sorry Vilepagan, but you're 180 degrees dead wrong on this one. It's actually very common for escaped prisoners to reoffend. Common sense should tell you this - an escaped prisoner has to break some sort of law just to flee, just to eat. You know, once he's weaseled his way out, it's extremely unlikely that someone will be standing there with the keys to a fast escape car, a change of clothes, and a bag of Burger King take out.

In light of this general fact, it's almost a given that an escaped prisoner will commit more crimes. In just a few minutes, I found plenty of documentation to prove this assertion. There's tons more out there, but I don't want to belabor the point. ;)

Well Francoise, you certainly did do some research, but my point wasn't that escaped prisoners rarely commit crimes, because obviously they do, but that prison escapes themselves are very rare.



But it is true that prison escapes, while not rare, aren't especially common either. So let's forget the escaped prisoner part and look at murderers who have actually served their time like good boys and girls, and been parolled all nice and legal like. We shouldn't have anything to fear at ALL from those folks, right? Because they're not frantically running for their lives, and because they've been reformed, right?

Well, guess what? Parolled murderers murder again. OFTEN.

Here's an entire LONG page full of reports (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm). Sobering, isn't it?

I read your list, and yes it details some very tragic incidents. Your list of tragedies contains no statistics however, and really doesn't back up your statement that these people OFTEN commit murder again. It also tells me that they shouldn't have been paroled, not that they should have been executed. Several of the incidents mentioned in the list included people that had been paroled after being on death row. I can't imagine why such people were granted parole.


I doubt that you have done the kind of research on prisons and recidivism and the death penalty that I have, Vilepagan. This is an issue that interests me intensely, and I've spent a great deal of time learning the facts and debating the pros and cons. I can tell you with authority that we have yet to build an escape-proof prison. Throwing more money at building bigger badder prisons is a waste - if someone wants out badly enough, they will find a way to do it.

I don't know if we have ever built an escape-proof prison, but I believe we could do better. Combine modern electronic monitoring with state-of-the-art designs and you could come up with a prison that was very secure. Alcatraz comes to mind as a prison that was virtually escape-proof and it closed 40 years ago. Can we make a prison that is completely impossible to break out of? Maybe. One problem we will never overcome is that we will always have humans overseeing the prisoners, and humans make mistakes, and can be bribed, etc.


So. We can't contain them, we can't change or reform them, and we can't afford to house/feed/clothe or provide healthcare for them any more. For these reasons and many more, I strongly support the death penalty, as well as an abbreviated appeals process (and dropping this stupid war on pot that fills our prisons to overflowing).


I don't agree that we can't contain them. Obviously you will not be successful in rehabilitating all of them. If you think we can't afford to imprison them how will you address the fact that it costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life? If your answer is to abbreviate the appeals process, won't that increase the number of innocent people executed?

I'd like to compliment you on a nice post, but I remain unconvinced that the answer is to execute more people. If executing people made us safe we would have the lowest crime rate in the world since we execute people all the time. Why isn't Texas safer? They execute half the people in this country.

You also haven't addressed the inconsistencies in the application of the death penalty in regards to race and geography. I would be interested in hearing your suggestions as to how the death penalty can be applied fairly.

I read your list, and yes it details some very tragic incidents. Your list of tragedies contains no statistics however, and really doesn't back up your statement that these people OFTEN commit murder again. –Vilepagan

There is no centralized collection of such data. Each state handles its own statistics, and often does not report them at all, because, well, it’s bad PR to have released a murderer only to have him murder again, you know. ;) Pretty much our only regular source for such information is reports in the news. Unfortunately, unless we read every paper and watch every newscast in every region of the country, every day, we’re never going to really know how many murderers murder again in any given year. I’ve provided you with a brief list of 40 or so such news reports from various states across the country, representing the deaths of 100 or so innocent people – 60 or more of which we could absolutely have prevented.

Granted, that number doesn’t represent NEAR the real total of innocent people that have been killed by someone who has killed before, because we know that the list I linked to previously is woefully incomplete. Yet, with this one page of news stories, I’ve proved without question we could have prevented the murder of at least 60 innocent people (the true total number is most likely several thousands), yet we continue to NOT prevent them from happening.

It also tells me that they shouldn't have been paroled, not that they should have been executed.

I agree that they shouldn’t have been paroled, but it happens. In the mid-70s we commuted the sentences of hundreds of convicted murderers on death row, and a significant number of them were paroled. And, as the news stories I linked to prove, paroled murderers DO murder again.

And we’re still releasing murderers 30 years later, because we have no more room to hold them.

In addition, a murderer doesn’t need to be outside the walls to murder again. Convicted murderers kill cellmates, guards, visiting attorneys and clergy while IN prison with some regularity, as evidenced by the fact that six of the 40 or so cases in the list I provided fit this category. That’s 15% of the total list. I have no idea if that percentage holds true across the board, because, again, these kind of statistics are not collected anywhere and each state has a vested reason to NOT advertise this sort of thing. So we have no real way of knowing the ratio of murders committed by murderers IN prison, vs. those committed by murderers OUTSIDE of prison. Still… 15%. Something to consider, anyway.

Several of the incidents mentioned in the list included people that had been paroled after being on death row. I can't imagine why such people were granted parole.

I can’t either. But it happens, or we wouldn’t have lists of horror stories like the one I linked to.

One problem we will never overcome is that we will always have humans overseeing the prisoners, and humans make mistakes, and can be bribed, etc.

That’s exactly why we can’t build an escape-proof prison. Your suggestions for improvement, while reasonable, are not going to change the reality of the human condition, and therefore, not going to change the fact that we cannot build an escape-proof prison.

This doesn’t even touch on the fact that, even when housed in the most secure place we can build, inmates continue to conduct illegal activities from behind bars. Read up on the Paul "Cornfed" Schneider (http://www.courttv.com/trials/dogmaul/background-d_cornfed.html) and Dale Breeches story – they're the Pelican Bay (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n707/a04.html) prisoners whose Canary dog was illegally bred and raised to kill (as protection for the Mexican Mafia) while they were in prison, and the dog later mauled a woman to death. In addition to raising and selling dangerous, outlawed animals from behind bars, there’s also a huge drug trade in prisons. There’s gang violence, rapes and beatings and stabbings between inmates all the time. Criminal activity doesn’t stop just because someone has been put in jail. Similarly, murderers won’t necessarily stop murdering just because they’re behind bars.

I don't agree that we can't contain them.

But I thought we agreed that we can’t build an escape-proof prison and that human beings make mistakes, can be intimidated or bribed, etc…?

If you think we can't afford to imprison them how will you address the fact that it costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life? If your answer is to abbreviate the appeals process [Yes, this is my answer], won't that increase the number of innocent people executed?

Not at all. The number of innocent people executed (a number that hovers in the 50-100 range, depending on which source you listen to) will continue to drop, due to improved forensic study of evidence, DNA testing, and so on.

You also haven't addressed the inconsistencies in the application of the death penalty in regards to race and geography. I would be interested in hearing your suggestions as to how the death penalty can be applied fairly.

Science doesn’t have racial or geographical prejudices. Such inconsistencies would be eliminated with proper handling of evidence and enhanced/additional forensic research on crimes. We should have mandatory DNA testing and registry for every person arrested/convicted/currently imprisoned for a violent crime (if not for all crimes, but that’s a different discussion), and we should put that data in a national DNA database for violent offenders. Finally, I’d install professional juries in all death penalty appeals. I believe in such high-risk cases, the jury needs to be more educated as to the legal system (thereby reducing the number of people who get off on technicalities and legal errors).

But ultimately, you’re not going to erase prejudice or stupidity, so there will be instances where such things play into a death penalty case, but as we already agreed, human beings make mistakes and there’s no way to eliminate them 100%, so you’re going to have to accept that occasionally, the wrong guy will be convicted. A sad thing to accept, yes I know, but unless you can find a way to perfect human beings, we’re stuck with it.

I remain unconvinced that the answer is to execute more people. If executing people made us safe we would have the lowest crime rate in the world since we execute people all the time.

Well, I’m not really trying to convince you. I’m simply addressing your comment that “it is an extremely rare event to have someone escape from prison and commit more crimes,” and giving my reasons/evidence for why I believe it is incorrect. As for executing people “all the time,” well, hyperbole much? ;)

Number of U.S. executions
Year 1999.......98
Year 2000.......85
Year 2001.......66
Year 2002.......71
Average per year since 1976.......29
Total executions since 1976.......820

Why isn't Texas safer? They execute half the people in this country.

The complaint that Texas executes too many murderers is a straw man. Those who oppose execution do so regardless of the numbers involved. From sentencing to execution, Texas now takes nearly 13 years to execute capital murderers, a period of time longer than the national average. In addition, Texas has a 15 percent rate of overturning those cases on appeal, a rate less than half of the national average of 33 percent. Far from any rush to judgment, what we see in Texas is a careful and reflective effort to seek justice in these most difficult of cases. –Houston Chronicle (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/SharpOpEd.htm)

We haven’t really mentioned deterrence, and while I don’t necessarily believe the death penalty is a strong deterrent for others to avoid killing people, I can say with authority that putting a murderer to death will guarantee at least ONE person will never murder again.

If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.

“It's because I have so much regard for human life that I favor capital punishment. Murder is the most terrible crime there is. Anything less than the death penalty is an insult to the victim and society. It says…that we don't value the victim's life enough to punish the killer fully." Mike Royko

I read your list, and yes it details some very tragic incidents. Your list of tragedies contains no statistics however, and really doesn't back up your statement that these people OFTEN commit murder again. –Vilepagan

There is no centralized collection of such data. Each state handles its own statistics, and often does not report them at all, because, well, it’s bad PR to have released a murderer only to have him murder again, you know. ;) Pretty much our only regular source for such information is reports in the news. Unfortunately, unless we read every paper and watch every newscast in every region of the country, every day, we’re never going to really know how many murderers murder again in any given year. I’ve provided you with a brief list of 40 or so such news reports from various states across the country, representing the deaths of 100 or so innocent people – 60 or more of which we could absolutely have prevented.

Granted, that number doesn’t represent NEAR the real total of innocent people that have been killed by someone who has killed before, because we know that the list I linked to previously is woefully incomplete. Yet, with this one page of news stories, I’ve proved without question we could have prevented the murder of at least 60 innocent people (the true total number is most likely several thousands), yet we continue to NOT prevent them from happening.

It also tells me that they shouldn't have been paroled, not that they should have been executed.

I agree that they shouldn’t have been paroled, but it happens. In the mid-70s we commuted the sentences of hundreds of convicted murderers on death row, and a significant number of them were paroled. And, as the news stories I linked to prove, paroled murderers DO murder again.

And we’re still releasing murderers 30 years later, because we have no more room to hold them.

In addition, a murderer doesn’t need to be outside the walls to murder again. Convicted murderers kill cellmates, guards, visiting attorneys and clergy while IN prison with some regularity, as evidenced by the fact that six of the 40 or so cases in the list I provided fit this category. That’s 15% of the total list. I have no idea if that percentage holds true across the board, because, again, these kind of statistics are not collected anywhere and each state has a vested reason to NOT advertise this sort of thing. So we have no real way of knowing the ratio of murders committed by murderers IN prison, vs. those committed by murderers OUTSIDE of prison. Still… 15%. Something to consider, anyway.

Several of the incidents mentioned in the list included people that had been paroled after being on death row. I can't imagine why such people were granted parole.

I can’t either. But it happens, or we wouldn’t have lists of horror stories like the one I linked to.

One problem we will never overcome is that we will always have humans overseeing the prisoners, and humans make mistakes, and can be bribed, etc.

That’s exactly why we can’t build an escape-proof prison. Your suggestions for improvement, while reasonable, are not going to change the reality of the human condition, and therefore, not going to change the fact that we cannot build an escape-proof prison.

This doesn’t even touch on the fact that, even when housed in the most secure place we can build, inmates continue to conduct illegal activities from behind bars. Read up on the Paul "Cornfed" Schneider (http://www.courttv.com/trials/dogmaul/background-d_cornfed.html) and Dale Breeches story – they're the Pelican Bay (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n707/a04.html) Aryan Brotherhood prisoners whose Canary dogs were illegally bred and raised to kill (reportedly as protection for the Mexican Mafia) while they were in prison, and the dogs later mauled a woman to death. In addition to raising and selling dangerous, outlawed animals from behind bars, there’s also a huge drug trade in prisons. There’s gang violence, rapes and beatings and stabbings between inmates all the time. Criminal activity doesn’t stop just because someone has been put in jail. Similarly, murderers won’t necessarily stop murdering just because they’re behind bars.

I don't agree that we can't contain them.

But I thought we agreed that we can’t build an escape-proof prison and that human beings make mistakes, can be intimidated or bribed, etc…?

If you think we can't afford to imprison them how will you address the fact that it costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life? If your answer is to abbreviate the appeals process [Yes, this is my answer], won't that increase the number of innocent people executed?

Not at all. The number of innocent people executed (a number that hovers in the 50-100 range, depending on which source you listen to) will continue to drop, due to improved forensic study of evidence, DNA testing, and so on. Had all the convicted murderers on that list I linked to been put to death, we could have prevented the murders of 60 or so innocent victims (and we know that number is low, because the list or murderers who murder again is incomplete). That essentially wipes out the "but we're putting innocent convicts to death" argument. With that one list (again, a very incomplete list), the death penalty could have saved as many or more innocent victims than the total number of innocent criminals that have been wrongfully executed.

You also haven't addressed the inconsistencies in the application of the death penalty in regards to race and geography. I would be interested in hearing your suggestions as to how the death penalty can be applied fairly.

Science doesn’t have racial or geographical prejudices. Such inconsistencies would be eliminated with proper handling of evidence and enhanced/additional forensic research on crimes. We should have mandatory DNA testing and registry for every person arrested/convicted/currently imprisoned for a violent crime (if not for all crimes, but that’s a different discussion), and we should put that data in a national DNA database for violent offenders. Finally, I’d install professional juries in all death penalty appeals. I believe in such high-risk cases, the jury needs to be more educated as to the legal system (thereby reducing the number of people who get off on technicalities and legal errors AND reducing the possibility of convicting an innocent person).

But ultimately, you’re not going to erase prejudice or stupidity, so there will be instances where such things play into a death penalty case, but as we already agreed, human beings make mistakes and there’s no way to eliminate them 100%, so you’re going to have to accept that occasionally, the wrong guy will be convicted. A sad thing to accept, yes I know, but unless you can find a way to perfect human beings, we’re stuck with it.

I remain unconvinced that the answer is to execute more people. If executing people made us safe we would have the lowest crime rate in the world since we execute people all the time.

Well, I’m not really trying to convince you. I’m simply addressing your comment that “it is an extremely rare event to have someone escape from prison and commit more crimes,” and giving my reasons/evidence for why I believe it is incorrect. As for executing people “all the time,” well, hyperbole much? ;)

Number of U.S. executions
Year 1999.......98
Year 2000.......85
Year 2001.......66
Year 2002.......71
Average per year since 1976.......29
Total executions since 1976.......820

Why isn't Texas safer? They execute half the people in this country.

The complaint that Texas executes too many murderers is a straw man. Those who oppose execution do so regardless of the numbers involved. From sentencing to execution, Texas now takes nearly 13 years to execute capital murderers, a period of time longer than the national average. In addition, Texas has a 15 percent rate of overturning those cases on appeal, a rate less than half of the national average of 33 percent. Far from any rush to judgment, what we see in Texas is a careful and reflective effort to seek justice in these most difficult of cases. –Houston Chronicle (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/SharpOpEd.htm)

We haven’t really mentioned deterrence, and while I don’t necessarily believe the death penalty is a strong deterrent for others to avoid killing people, I can say with authority that putting a murderer to death will guarantee at least ONE person will never murder again.

If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.

“It's because I have so much regard for human life that I favor capital punishment. Murder is the most terrible crime there is. Anything less than the death penalty is an insult to the victim and society. It says…that we don't value the victim's life enough to punish the killer fully." Mike Royko

Originally posted by WhammyBar
you're saying that what sets us apart from killers is that we can't kill without remorse.

That is what the show was about. All of us have the power to kill and no one knows what the future holds in store for them. Serial KILLERS kill because they don't give 2 craps. It is like a game to them, they live, so there for they kill, nothing more nothing less.

if you use that argument, then we shouldn't be able to execute them without sinking to their level.

Why is anyone sinking when they are protecting others? When we remove these killers from society we are only helping our species live in peace. Maybe someday we'll come up with a magic drug that can change a person's way of thinking but until that day comes we need to help{protect} ourselfs with whatever means we have.

no matter who you're killing, it's still taking someone elses's life.

So a cop or someone protecting themselfs or a loved one, is just the same as a serial killer in your eyes?

by your logic, if we are above these people, we shouldn't be able to simply kill them. ]

I think it is awfull that life has delt these folks{serial killers} a bad hand, but 2 wrongs do not make a right. I am sorry they don't function peacefully, I am even more sorry when other's find this out 1st hand. Like I have said 100 times before, these type of people will never change and they serve no purpose except to destroy others. So why keep them around just waiting for the day for them to hurt someone else?

The death penalty was meant to be a tool to prevent violent crimes but as always the well meaning people have sanitized it. When people were hanged publicly it meant something but since it happens behind locked doors it no longers serves any purpose except to rid society of individuals that do not deserve to remian alive. And that is not a good reason to use it.

Ok I was pro death penalty and would be again if it can be allowed to serve the purpose it was intended, but I do not wish to witness an execution anymore than most people. Why you ask if I am pro death penalty? It is because we have sanitized every aspect of our society along with reasons not related to this topic.

A little tarnish makes the gold shine brighter.

Ok now for my opinion on this topic, if he is found guilty and has exhausted all of his appeals then he should serve the penalty a jury of his peers has handed down, whether it is death or life.