The death penalty or at least life without parole would have saved the lives of Polly Klaus and so many others who lost their lives to repeat offenders who had just gotten out on parole and killed less then a month later.

Isolating predators from their prey is one of the roles prisons are used for. The death penalty may not be a deterrent for other criminals, but it does insure a convicted killer won't be killing more innocent victims. They should be isolated from the general prison population if they are apt to kill again. (My earlier comment about sticking some of the DR inmates in the general population was aimed at inmates who had sexually assaulted and killed children. Death Row protects THEM from the inmates, not the other way around.)

In fairness, I do think that the cases and evidence from the trials on Death Row shuld be examined a final time before a sentence is carried out to be sure that nothing was overlooked and techniques like DNA sequencing that have come into being or progressed since they were convicted have been used. If they are proven innocent, that's wondeful. If enough evidence has been found for a retrial, great. If the inmates refuse to have any further efforts made to prevent their sentence from being carried out, that is also their choice to make.

When I was younger I was absolutely opposed to the DP just because an innocent person could be killed. This was way before we had tools like DNA to help clear/convict. I am not against it in any case in which the victim was a child, especially when their death was due to someone who thought a 3 year-old or 2-year old was trying to seduce him. (I can't remember her exact age at the moment but I know that she was small enough that his raping her ruptured her intestines and she was in agony for several days before she died. Her murderer co-signed an appeal by the inmates on Death Row that it was cruel and unusual punishment to keep them locked up with other inmates who were going to die because each death meant their own was closer and it was inflicting mental cruelty on them. This man ADMITTED what he had done and tried to place the blame on the child for seducing him.
  I'm willing to agree that this is hard on these poor people. I think that they should have the choice of staying on Death Row or being released into the general population of inmates until all of their appeals were gone...after all, they technically weren't going to be guilty of murder until all the appeals that the taxpayers were footing the bill  for were exhausted. How many of them would decide that the only thing they had to fear on DR was a quick death instead of what was going to happen to them without that protection? Of course, they can't do that because they have to keep them safe. It just helps to think of it on days when another child has been put through Hell.
  However, I still think that we should wait until DNA has been used to be sure there wasn't an error with the samples sent to different laboratories. Hypnosis, drugs that can allow the inmate to answer questions truthfully--all of the above should be offered to the people on DR to be sure that they are guilty of the crime they are being executed for. In the case of serial killers, I think that asking about a few other missing people would be permissible after the initial case is resolved. The inmates could request psychics, for that matter. (Although I'm sorry for the pain being near all these people would cause them.)
  They wouldn't have to avail themselves of any of that stuff. It's just a way to try and safeguard anyone who is innocent from being put to death. Should the DP be used for rape? How about years of sexually abusing a child or impregnating a child by force? That's why there are sentencing choices for juries to make by either choosing Life without possibility of parole or even Truth in Sentencing so someone imprisoned on a 12-25 year sentence doesn't get out in 5 years for "good behavior" or "overcrowding". I do like the judges who sentence someone to life sentences to be served consecutively for each victim to be sure that person will never be out on the street again.
   For the rape of a child that resulted in said child's death-DP. For years of abusing a child or step child--make sure that they are going to be away for at least 20 years real time. If they need help with alcohol, addiction, finding God, that's fine. But they should have all contact with their victim severed unless that person wishes to contact them. Certainly parental rights to their victims should be severed. 
  So I agree that every means possible should be offered to those on DR, although of course the inmate can refuse them.
  And as for the crowds who were cheering and celebrating Ted Bundy's death--many of them were the friends, parents, and siblings of his victims who couldn't make it inside to witness the executions themselves. In their position I don't know if I would have been cheering or crying, but I would have wanted to be there in memory of the person I had lost at his hands.
  Is the DP a deterrent to other criminals? That's not really why we use it. It's to make sure that this particular person will never harm anyone else again. We could accomplish that with Life without Parole, but in some cases the crimes are so heinous that the DP is the only thing that is appropriate. After all, the victims have already been given it, haven't they?

[QUOTE=allthegoodnamesweretaken;968730]Well Becca, as you probably know by now, some forms of empathy are just beyond me.  I support the DP not as punishment, but as a version of society just saying "we're not putting up with your crap anymore". 

Someone kills a member of my family, or one of my close friends, they better hope the police get to them before I do.  [/QUOTE]

i understand the sentiment i really do, god knows if someone killed my brother i'd be distraught, pissed and so on .... it would be very easy to seek revenge and ot remove them from this and hopefully any other life forever .... however then whatever happenes ot the genuine perpetrator they win, they have made decent folks into them, baying for blood and cheering when it is spilled. ..... worse than them in many respects as i've seen on here and elsewhere, perfectly decent people say of miscarriage of justice cases that their deaths weren't important so long as murderers got killed swiftly.

so do i think perpetrators of murder, rape murder - and other 'capital' crimes should have our empathy; i think that is an individual choice and reaction but i DO think that in turning our back on even contemplating such ideas we are becoming that which we seek to kill. as evidenced by the number of MOJ cases (miscarriage of justice) in the US alone who are victims of judicial murder, to give those figures some perspective -- any serial killer with victims into double figures is world renowned this is as true whether their victims are all killed within a short space of time or over many, many decades.

imho those who go through such horrors are so  admirable that they do not allow the negative/evil of the crime erode their own morality and empathy.

In the US, our whole penal system has issues.  It seems that they want to switch to a more rehabilitative system, but don't want to spend the money on it.  We are still using the old punitive model, but they are squeamish about actually doing most of the punishment parts. 

all[/QUOTE]

most punative systems are -- this is usually because most states/countries judicial systems are in conflict, which imho is because the beurocrats in 'charge' do not realise different crimes need responding ot and treating in different ways ... IE serial murder/rapists need removing from society period no question (imho this should be life sentence but ... ) whereas what good does it do to stick a petty criminal in jail and do nothing else with them, not commit to giving them life skills, job or education skills to give them options other than offending behaviour; it doesn't, they simply build up a resentment of the system, feel further alientated from society and usually havn't had to face the face of the victim of their crimes.

this is one of the major problems with the due process model of criminal law enforcment, neither the perpetrator or the victim have identities beyond the crime, one is a 'theif' the other a 'victim of theft' the causes of the theft Ie why did the defendent steal/take the raod they did, the resutling impact of the theft on the 'victim' are irrelevent details, and yet to both defendent and 'victim' central to their experiences. In due process law enforcment becomes almost a conveyor belt, an identiy less conveyor belt which for 'minor crimes' simply pertetuates the recidivism rates. (BCS nationalstatistics.gov.uk -- webspage not loading right now so can't give direct link grrrr)

anyhoo i've kinda wandered off track (as you can tell this is a topic i know alot about and that interests me, sociologically speaking as well as personally) but anyway, i do find it interesting that currently the majority of countries do not have the DP (amnesty international).

bx

[QUOTE=cajun_snake;967238]I think, if you go with the Christian view of it...no it's not right.  But, IMO, you have to put yourself in the place of those who have lost loved ones. 

Whilst i think this true to a certain extent IE one has to have empathy with any victim and the victms families ... i also know that we have other members on here who have lost family/friends to murder and who are still ardently against the DP in ALL cases. (i beleive one such member is '13' (could be wrong there though, names are not my strong suit) and mountain mans dad was killed by a drunk driver he is also anti DP ) --- and others (BM) who due ot their experiences now do support the use of the DP in 100% proven beyond any doubt whatsoever cases. (as far as i recall).


[QUOTE]Ask anyone who is on death row, did their victims HAVE TO DIE?  In today's world, we can lose our loved ones to a any reason, to these types of people.  Why do they do it?  Because in most cases, they won't die themselves, even though they sit on death row.  With maybe the exception of Texas(I live there).[/QUOTE]

Depends on the state and country (DP is not just an american issue and bnet is not just an american board) and climate, the more social deprivation folks face the more clamour to either return to the DP or to enact the DP.

I like watching crime documentaries, (as a crime, deviance in society student it counts as research for a deeper understanding ;) or thats what i tell myself) watching one last night on the crime and investigation chanel (UK cable chanel) about Ted Bundy, now we all know most of wheat Bundy has definatly done and there have been several educated estimates of more, very few people can dispute he deserved to be caught andto many he is a perfect example of why the DP should be used.

What disturbed me was this documentary showed the crowds outside the prison where he was killed by DP, and when confirmation of his death was relayed to the crowd they were cheering as if at a football/soccer game.

Now imho this illustrated perfectly one of the reason i feel the DP is a dangerous, dangerous thing, perfectly good decent people where actually cheering and wooping at the death of another human being; - they weren't sad that it 'had' ot happen, or mournful at the sheer waste of life represented by bundy's killing and his own subsequent death, they weren't mourning his victims, they celebrated the death of somebody else.

imho this is unhealthy for a society, for our children to learn that if someone wrongs us we get to wrong them as well and it makes all the crookeds straight ... imho that sight of those people cheering, wooping and waving the american flag as if something fabulous had occured was more distrubing to me than all the descriptions of Bundy's crimes (and i find them pretty disturbing).put together. 

But I don't agree with the example of the child.  Like someone said it's apples and oranges. 

That i do agree with i didn't get the analogy at all and i agree with the general pov of the post IE DP not such a great thing. *shrug*.

I've followed this thing for a lot of years, and to date, those that have been put to death...deserved it.  If there is a silver lining to this...they are not put to death in the same manner as their victims.
SNAKE[/QUOTE]

Not strictly accurate --- many DP victims have been as innocent as the victims of the crimes they were killed for.

http://www.nyadp.org/main/faq#1 (excerpt below) (the figure mentioned below as '123' is now over '200' according to more uptodate other sources listed below)

How many death row inmates have been found innocent?
[COLOR="Red"]Over 123 people have been found innocent of the crime they were sentenced to death for. [/COLOR]
False confessions, mistaken eyewitness accounts, incompetent counsel and jailhouse snitches are often the cause of an innocent person's conviction. While DNA has saved many innocent lives, most crimes do not have DNA that can be tested.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, has reiterated his opposition to capital punishment. Bloomberg noted, "The death penalty I've always had a problem with, because too many times in the past you've seen innocent people incarcerated and, tragically, every once in a while they've been executed. And until you can show me that the process never would ever convict somebody that later on we find out was innocent of a crime, murder is murder no matter who does it, and I think we as a society can afford to incarcerate people." (The New York Times, July 31, 2003).
In New York, the five men convicted in the Central Park Jogger rape case were found innocent, although they confessed to the crime. At the time of the crime Donald Trump took out a full-page ad to say that he wished New York had the death penalty for these men.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=3444

http://deathwatch.wordpress.com/2008/04 … death-row/

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

[COLOR="Red"]Among cases mentioned in previous issues of J:D is David Wayne Spence, executed by the state of Texas on April 3, 1997 despite the conclusion of the police lieutenant who supervised the case that "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." The homicide detective on the case added, "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." One of the inmates who testified in Spence's trial, Robert Snelson, said, "We all fabricated our accounts of Spence confessing in order to try to get a break from the state on our cases."[/COLOR]

http://www.cybercollege.com/fog41.htm

(according to the above source the estimated figure of innocents put to death is now closer to 100, but the truth is we will never know as even these innocent defendents supports usually move on after death to try and exonerate or at least repeal the DP sentence in other suspected innocent cases)

i also have studies this issues extensivly out of personal interest, have followed these issues for a very, very long time certianly pre teen; and nothing i know would lead me to conclude that EVERY recipient of the DP 'deserves' it the evidence just doesn't support that conclusion.

Another Bnet member i think its tolerant sis (but agian i could be mistaken in the name) has a cousin who was a very high profile innocent man on death row who was saved by preasure form a tv documentary.

bx

[QUOTE=ritarae;915528]Even if the person has commited the most hideous crime, the death penality is wrong in my opinion. The sixth commandment in the bible is thou shall not murder. So for christians every time they put someone to death they are sining. This is my belief, and even though others may differ, that is why I think that the death penality is wrong. Why would you kill as a punishment of killing? Would you make your child go outside in the snoow without shoes on because he had already done it so it would be a good punishment? not to many people would.[/QUOTE]

I think, if you go with the Christian view of it...no it's not right.  But, IMO, you have to put yourself in the place of those who have lost loved ones.  Ask anyone who is on death row, did their victims HAVE TO DIE?  In today's world, we can lose our loved ones to a any reason, to these types of people.  Why do they do it?  Because in most cases, they won't die themselves, even though they sit on death row.  With maybe the exception of Texas(I live there).

But I don't agree with the example of the child.  Like someone said it's apples and oranges.  I've followed this thing for a lot of years, and to date, those that have been put to death...deserved it.  If there is a silver lining to this...they are not put to death in the same manner as their victims.


SNAKE