What good would putting him to death do? Will that bring back his victims? or will it make more victims(his family/friends)? Would putting him to death help his wife's loved ones in any way? How anyone can feel better by the killing of another is beyond me.
Sometimes serving justice doesn't make anyone feel good. Like punishing a defiantly disobedient child doesn't make a parent feel good but it is supposed to teach a lesson.
It's the intended lesson that should stay with us and hopefully speak loudly to those who may be contemplating committing such acts.
JudyT929, I just wonder if you think Scott Peterson feels better or worse about killing his wife and child. He sure gave them a chance didn't he? And the issue of killing another human being apparently didn't bother him.
Judy, he chose his actions -- why should his family have the privilege of seeing him and sharing things with him that Laci's family has had taken away.
What will killing him accomplish? Will it bring back his victims? or will it make more victims (his family, friends)? How anyone can feel better by the killing of another is beyond me. And why do they prevent convicted criminals from killing themself? Death by ones own hand is wrong but is right when done by the government? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
JudyT it is very evident that you have never been associated with anyone that has been the victim of a violent crime or you would have a different viewpoint. Imagine yourself as the spouse of someone shot during an attempted robbery and later died from the wounds, or the mother of a 17 year old daughter that was raped and then killed and her body dumped on the roadside. Or how about a pregnant girl that was shot and lost her baby while innocently standing in a parking lot at a shopping mall by a drive-by shooter. While thankfully none of these have personally happened to me, I do have very close friends that it has happened to and also employees. Living through the pain and anguish of such an experience is unfathomable and there is no punishment great enough for the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes.
Where would our great nation be today if there were not laws and punishments for the law breakers? The liberals of our land against capital punishment would love to make everything a "feel good" punishment in the name of political correctness and look where we are headed. Guns don't make you a killer, killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or with a car but no one is trying to ban you from driving your son or daughter to a little league baseball game with their favorite bat in your front seat.
It all falls back on personal responsibility and I feel that if you commit the crime you pay the price.
One of the other posters stated that if we don't send a message, where will it stop?????
*****Please don't take this personally but you happened to be the last response and I needed to vent*****
"One of the other posters stated that if we don't send a message, where will it stop?????"
It's already been proven (again, and again, and again) that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. To my mind, the prospect of spending the next 40 or 50 years behind bars and losing my freedom is a much greater deterrent. Death would just give me an easy-out (for a good illustration of this, think Gary Gilmore or any of the other convicted killers who have waived all their appeals and beat feat to the execution chamber voluntarily).
But ours is a great country and right up there with all the other civilized nations who still have a death penalty - the People's Republic of China, for example.
The acts that generally lead to a death sentence can be so horrific that a rational mind just cannot grasp it. The victims and their families and friends can only think of payback, and who can blame them? Since the murderer had no thoughts of compassion and/or mercy when he/she held lives in their hands, why should we expect anything less from the punishment portion of this process?
But I also believe that there is something inherently wrong with a society that deliberates (premeditates) and then puts a criminal to death. The result is the same as the crime for which the punishment is meted out. These things arise because we want to defend ourselves from wrong acts. Beagle is right when he states that the punishments are not a deterrent to criminals. We stop the crimes while the perp's are in jail and in the case of a death sentence, this person's crimes are permanently stopped.
I don't have any big answer for this. Part of my hesitation relates to the fallibility of our system. There are a few well publicised cases documenting innocent folks that have been imprisoned for years. So if society mistakely puts an innocent person to death, should the prosecution, the jury, the judge, and the executioner face the death penalty?
When one looks at recidivism rates in our crime and punishment system, one understands that reform is more of a wish and a prayer than any sort of reality. A sentence of life without parole does not really allow for the possibility of reform in any case.
In the end, I vote for life because I do not have enough conviction regarding how right these actions are to pull the switch myself. If I could not do it, then I cannot look the other way while society does it.
I've heard that argument before - that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. I think this comes from statistics that show that for the most part - all things considered, murder happens in this country on a fairly consistent basis. So, yep, I would agree. However, I don't care if it's a deterrent or not I want an appropriate response or consequence for taking another human life, either life in prison OR the option of death. Doesn't mean the death penalty has to be used each and every time, but I want the option for it especially with particularly heinous crimes. I don't really give a rip how much it costs either way - I want appropriate responses & consequences & for me it's not appropriate for someone like a Ted Bundy, for instance, to sit around in prison as a consequence for killing so many people.
If spending a lifetime in prison was to punish a criminal then why do we try to make their lives more comfortable? Ex: Gyms, TVs, libraries, work programs, smokes, packages from outside(letters are OK), etc.
It should be if you are convicted of a violent crime all you should get is a cell, a toilet and 3 squares a day. Be permitted to go outside for exercise 30 minutes a day for good behavior. Then maybe that would deter people from commiting violent crimes.
Barbaric maybe but we should think of the victims who suffered at the hands of these criminals rather than making sure the criminals have 50lb weights and barbells or something to read.
Parabeagle offers the same old mantra response the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International and the Catholic Church have used for eons, that capital punishment does not deter criminals from committing like acts. There is no proof that it does not deter. There is no proof that it does deter. The penalty of death has no underlying foundation requiring that it be a deterrent.
Deciding it is not a deterrent is a fabrication of the left, the ACLU and Amnesty International. The law never mentions deterrence. The constitution which allows it does not mention that it will or should be a deterrent. It is or it is not. Whichever is the case is irrelevant. Some crimes require being put to death, regardless of the analysis of what that reaction does or does not accomplish.
Any punishment is appended to the supposition that a lesson is learned from it. Whether my daddy whips my ass with a belt or the state executes me or my wife locks me out of the house; somebody, somewhere will learn a lesson from each of those and a group of people or one individual (in the case of my daddy) has decided the result is deserved and that is all the consequence of death by execution supposes.
I feel it is hooey to suggest we warehouse people who have offended society by killing others. How is society or the family of the dead served or rewarded or obliged by that position?
Some of you would applaude the women who offered to marry the Menendez brothers who bludgeoned their parents to death and who today languish in prison for life, playing on computers, exercising and trading field peas for cobbler at the dinner table. Warehousing them has only interrupted their sure journey to hell.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-08-04 AT 10:05PM (CST)[/font][br][br]The jury appeared to be undecided, or hung after some time. Then, two jurors were dismissed, including the doctor/lawyer foreman. Then, very shortly after returned a verdict of guilty.
This is a very high-profile case, and prosecutors and the system need to resolve it quickly or are subject to scrutiny.
The evidence is circumstancial, though strongly circumstancial; there are no eyewitnesses.
Scott's behavior is very suspicious after the disappearance. He is obviously a real jerk, but that's not a crime.
He MAY not have done this. To execute an innocent man is far worse than to let a guilty man go free.
"Some of you would applaude the women who offered to marry the Menendez brothers who bludgeoned their parents to death and who today languish in prison for life..."
I'm completely baffled by this comment.
Apart from that, I remain ambivalent about the death penalty for the same reasons that Marc very eloquently laid out. Thank you for that post, Marc.
I tend to believe Beagle's (i.e. the Oregon's correctional system's) contention that it's cheaper to keep 'em. But I agree with others who said that cost is ultimately irrelevant.
I agree that no one can comprehend the perspective of victims' families unless they've walked in those horrible shoes, but I disagree that everyone in those shoes would flip the switch. I know for a fact that recently in my neck of the woods, a family opposed the execution of the murderer of their loved one.
Deterrent? I agree that it's a toss up. I don't think murderers spend much time weighing the pros and cons of execution vs. life imprisonment before they commit the crime.
Punishment? I stick by my first answer that life in prison is a worse punishment than death.
Deterrent or punishment? That is the question. Someone commits a crime, they deserve punishment. The objective of the state is to provide that punishment, or retribution or debt to society. If the punishment is severe enough and deters the criminal from commiting the same crime again, wonderful. But, being a deterrent is not the objective, paying a price is the objective. The death penalty provides a 100% deterrent - that criminal will never again have the opportunity to kill again as he would with mere life imprisonment.
First of all, the death penalty is not evenly or logically meted out. Scott Peterson is not nearly the cold blooded killer Charles Manson is. Second, the State of Illinois stopped the death penalty because there were so many innocent people on death row. Once someone is dead, you can't say I am sorry. Third, on a personal level I strongly believe that no man or woman has the right to take a life.
I vote for frying him, UNLESS...he is put in the same cell with a great big hairy horny guy...and his own assets fund his incarceration...and he is never, ever let out.
I caught a few seconds of Fox news this morning before work. This case was the topic and they featured a pundit who was discussing the pros and CONS of death vs life without parole. He indicated that as a high profile crime, should Peterson get life, he would be in solitary the entire time - and slowly lose his mind. He next opined, that conventional wisdom from people who had dealt with these individuals - studied them, counseled them, whatever the level of interface (and I admit I did not get the name of any study or reference), all believed that the life imprisonment under these circumstances was a far greater punishment than a death sentence.
That's quite a statement, and one with no objective evidence to back it up. Don opined, these people are going to hell. Perhaps the life imprisonment is just the appetiser for things to come?
If Society's consequence for the crime is to punish, sounds like the life sentence accompishes that in great degree.
Whirlwind was having trouble at midnite last nite understanding my remark about the Menendez brothers. I thought it was self explanatory, but let me clarify. Back when those hoodlums were being tried and convicted of murdering their parents with guns and ball bats, those in opposition to the death penalty attempted to convince us that they should languish in prison until they were old men and suffer the humiliation and torture of that. It didn't take long before these guys were placed in nice quarters and had marriage proposals rolling in and computer hookups and conjugal visits. That pissed off a lot of people, including me. That's why I mentioned it.
This comment will be baffling too, but, the voting on this thread remarkably and precisely parallels the expressions on the Kerry-Bush threads several weeks back.
Anyway, it started as a simple 'let's vote' thread and turned into a philosophical debate on the evils or virtues of the death penalty. That's good. Good debate. Some tired rhetoric, but good to bring it up occasionally.
If he get's life, we'll want to track his marriage proposals as opposed to those of Lyle Menendez. Peace.
Not a precise parallel with the Bush/Kerry debate. I was clearly for Bush but waffled on this poll.
Actually, this discussion is moot. What is it, something like 1% of all death sentences actually get carried out? With all the legal contortions that will follow, a death sentence is really just life imprisonment with the threat of the noose hanging over his head.
Proudly count MS in there with Texas too. We're a bit slower with the process, but we still roll the black hearse away from Parchman at midnight on occasion. Not nearly often enough. In 1971 while touring the state pen, I actually got to sit in the electric chair and will never forget the eeriness of that, those big square legs with leather and buckles everywhere with the line of cells to the left with arms hanging out of them and curse words and spitting being slung my way. That's one old fella that should be brought out of retirement for sure.
> In 1971 >while touring the state pen, I actually got to >sit in the electric chair and will never forget >the eeriness of that, those big square legs with >leather and buckles everywhere with the line of >cells to the left with arms hanging out of them >and curse words and spitting being slung my way.
In the vein of black humor: State agencies here in Texas are able to get some of their furniture from the penitentiary in Huntsville. Early in my tenure here, we had a large, weird wooden chair with all kinds of leather and brass fittings. Agency lore was that it came from Huntsville (as much of our furniture does), so we called it Sparky.
More to the point Ray, this is just another way for lawyers to get rich on the backs of the public. Appeals should be time limited. You have 5 or 10 years to file your appeals and get them through, after that, lights out! That way the taxpayers are spared a ton of money.
Thanks for the clarification. I really didn't know what you were talking about. I was not aware that the Brothers Menendez had received marriage proposals. Very sick, indeed. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that no Forumite who opposes the death penalty (or, like me, who are ambivalent about it) is going to offer their hand in marriage to a convicted murderer or congratulate someone who does. In any event, if they do, they'd better not expect a wedding gift from me. x:-)
Comments
It's the intended lesson that should stay with us and hopefully speak loudly to those who may be contemplating committing such acts.
Fry him........slowly.
Judy, he chose his actions -- why should his family have the privilege of seeing him and sharing things with him that Laci's family has had taken away.
I say death and be done with it.
Where would our great nation be today if there were not laws and punishments for the law breakers? The liberals of our land against capital punishment would love to make everything a "feel good" punishment in the name of political correctness and look where we are headed. Guns don't make you a killer, killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or with a car but no one is trying to ban you from driving your son or daughter to a little league baseball game with their favorite bat in your front seat.
It all falls back on personal responsibility and I feel that if you commit the crime you pay the price.
One of the other posters stated that if we don't send a message, where will it stop?????
*****Please don't take this personally but you happened to be the last response and I needed to vent*****
It's already been proven (again, and again, and again) that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. To my mind, the prospect of spending the next 40 or 50 years behind bars and losing my freedom is a much greater deterrent. Death would just give me an easy-out (for a good illustration of this, think Gary Gilmore or any of the other convicted killers who have waived all their appeals and beat feat to the execution chamber voluntarily).
But ours is a great country and right up there with all the other civilized nations who still have a death penalty - the People's Republic of China, for example.
The acts that generally lead to a death sentence can be so horrific that a rational mind just cannot grasp it. The victims and their families and friends can only think of payback, and who can blame them? Since the murderer had no thoughts of compassion and/or mercy when he/she held lives in their hands, why should we expect anything less from the punishment portion of this process?
But I also believe that there is something inherently wrong with a society that deliberates (premeditates) and then puts a criminal to death. The result is the same as the crime for which the punishment is meted out. These things arise because we want to defend ourselves from wrong acts. Beagle is right when he states that the punishments are not a deterrent to criminals. We stop the crimes while the perp's are in jail and in the case of a death sentence, this person's crimes are permanently stopped.
I don't have any big answer for this. Part of my hesitation relates to the fallibility of our system. There are a few well publicised cases documenting innocent folks that have been imprisoned for years. So if society mistakely puts an innocent person to death, should the prosecution, the jury, the judge, and the executioner face the death penalty?
When one looks at recidivism rates in our crime and punishment system, one understands that reform is more of a wish and a prayer than any sort of reality. A sentence of life without parole does not really allow for the possibility of reform in any case.
In the end, I vote for life because I do not have enough conviction regarding how right these actions are to pull the switch myself. If I could not do it, then I cannot look the other way while society does it.
If spending a lifetime in prison was to punish a criminal then why do we try to make their lives more comfortable?
Ex: Gyms, TVs, libraries, work programs, smokes, packages from outside(letters are OK), etc.
It should be if you are convicted of a violent crime all you should get is a cell, a toilet and 3 squares a day. Be permitted to go outside for exercise 30 minutes a day for good behavior. Then maybe that would deter people from commiting violent crimes.
Barbaric maybe but we should think of the victims who suffered at the hands of these criminals rather than making sure the criminals have 50lb weights and barbells or something to read.
Deciding it is not a deterrent is a fabrication of the left, the ACLU and Amnesty International. The law never mentions deterrence. The constitution which allows it does not mention that it will or should be a deterrent. It is or it is not. Whichever is the case is irrelevant. Some crimes require being put to death, regardless of the analysis of what that reaction does or does not accomplish.
Any punishment is appended to the supposition that a lesson is learned from it. Whether my daddy whips my ass with a belt or the state executes me or my wife locks me out of the house; somebody, somewhere will learn a lesson from each of those and a group of people or one individual (in the case of my daddy) has decided the result is deserved and that is all the consequence of death by execution supposes.
I feel it is hooey to suggest we warehouse people who have offended society by killing others. How is society or the family of the dead served or rewarded or obliged by that position?
Some of you would applaude the women who offered to marry the Menendez brothers who bludgeoned their parents to death and who today languish in prison for life, playing on computers, exercising and trading field peas for cobbler at the dinner table. Warehousing them has only interrupted their sure journey to hell.
This is a very high-profile case, and prosecutors and the system need to resolve it quickly or are subject to scrutiny.
The evidence is circumstancial, though strongly circumstancial; there are no eyewitnesses.
Scott's behavior is very suspicious after the disappearance. He is obviously a real jerk, but that's not a crime.
He MAY not have done this. To execute an innocent man is far worse than to let a guilty man go free.
I'm completely baffled by this comment.
Apart from that, I remain ambivalent about the death penalty for the same reasons that Marc very eloquently laid out. Thank you for that post, Marc.
I tend to believe Beagle's (i.e. the Oregon's correctional system's) contention that it's cheaper to keep 'em. But I agree with others who said that cost is ultimately irrelevant.
I agree that no one can comprehend the perspective of victims' families unless they've walked in those horrible shoes, but I disagree that everyone in those shoes would flip the switch. I know for a fact that recently in my neck of the woods, a family opposed the execution of the murderer of their loved one.
Deterrent? I agree that it's a toss up. I don't think murderers spend much time weighing the pros and cons of execution vs. life imprisonment before they commit the crime.
Punishment? I stick by my first answer that life in prison is a worse punishment than death.
Have you ever met or had to deal with a convicted murderer/rapist/violent criminal?
Have you ever toured or had a reason to even enter a maximum security prision or work in general population with prisioners?
I have. As a result of my experiences my opinions on appropriate punishment are not suitable for discussion here - suffice to say I vote for death.
Third, on a personal level I strongly believe that no man or woman has the right to take a life.
That's quite a statement, and one with no objective evidence to back it up. Don opined, these people are going to hell. Perhaps the life imprisonment is just the appetiser for things to come?
If Society's consequence for the crime is to punish, sounds like the life sentence accompishes that in great degree.
This comment will be baffling too, but, the voting on this thread remarkably and precisely parallels the expressions on the Kerry-Bush threads several weeks back.
Anyway, it started as a simple 'let's vote' thread and turned into a philosophical debate on the evils or virtues of the death penalty. That's good. Good debate. Some tired rhetoric, but good to bring it up occasionally.
If he get's life, we'll want to track his marriage proposals as opposed to those of Lyle Menendez. Peace.
Actually, this discussion is moot. What is it, something like 1% of all death sentences actually get carried out? With all the legal contortions that will follow, a death sentence is really just life imprisonment with the threat of the noose hanging over his head.
>while touring the state pen, I actually got to
>sit in the electric chair and will never forget
>the eeriness of that, those big square legs with
>leather and buckles everywhere with the line of
>cells to the left with arms hanging out of them
>and curse words and spitting being slung my way.
In the vein of black humor: State agencies here in Texas are able to get some of their furniture from the penitentiary in Huntsville. Early in my tenure here, we had a large, weird wooden chair with all kinds of leather and brass fittings. Agency lore was that it came from Huntsville (as much of our furniture does), so we called it Sparky.
....Better watch that thin limb you're out on. There are some mighty strange birds on this Forum sometimes. x:-)
And I don't understand the ambivalence. Why ride the fence? Isn't that like situational ethics?
I like the view, metaphorically speaking. x;-)
Other than that, although I hate to keep relying on Marc to do the heavy lifting, he nailed it and I couldn't have said it better.