davjohns

I was trying to be nice. If we are laying money, I'll take the live guy. You can have the dead one. On a related note, we are arguing lots of 'what if', 'should be', 'could be' without lots of facts. I'm trying to find something that gives us an idea how many people walk after life without parole sentences. I came across the case of Kenneth McDuff who was sentenced to death, commuted to life and later paroled. Killed eight more people thereafter. Again, I don't like the exception from which we make rules. It's just chilling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff If anyone can find some stats on escapes, paroles, pardons, etc. after 'life without' sentences, it would be nice to discuss facts for a change. I'm very persuaded by Wendy's acceptance of the risks involved with 'life without'. I just want to see what kind of risks we are really talking about. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

No offense, but you sometimes miss the glaring holes in your arguments. Dead people almost never escape. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Sorry. That was a typo. I type pretty fast and sometimes my hands outrun each other. I meant life without. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I didn't mean to imply that you said that. I meant that it was left out. You are OK with accepting the inherent risk of our current system. They may very well walk free at some point. The amenities of prison surely vary from state to state. However, I have yet to see one so austere that I would not prefer it to some other options. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I have to consider this a serious indictment of the system and the flawed people who managed it. I do not see it as an indictment of the viability of execution as a means of redress. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think someone else indirectly suggested this. Life with parole, even with the inherent risks that I've outlined, is preferable to execution. Correct? So we are willing to accept that these men may walk among us again? We are comfortable with them watching cable TV, eating three squares a day, not working, surfing the internet, watching movies, exercising in a provided gym, having visitors (even conjugal visits) and, perhaps one day walking free if the legal system or parole board can be persuaded by less evidence than the jury had or emotional pleas from the family (theirs...obviously the family they raped and killed will not get a vote)? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Nope, but as a society you have failed. The village has failed. Here are some questions to consider: How many people convicted of heinous crimes have serious psychological issues? Does "The Village" and the family not have a responsibility to help those dealing with severe psychological diseases? I touched on this earlier. I agree that when we are forced to destroy one of our number, we should practice some introspection to determine where society might have contributed and could do better. I don't think the degree of culpability warrants punishment so much as corrective action...depending on the degree of culpability of other parties...which could include other criminal acts. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think when assessing individuals, the company they keep is an indicator of the individual. In assessing legal realities, however, you've gone far afield. Even if I were to allow the analogy, it could only be an indicator and hardly a sound argument. Sorry. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

as the thread goes on "death penalty is revenge" "makes hannibals of us all" "put them all in the same cell" It's not even a page and the emotional arguments are starting to poke their noses out. Davjohns - it's really a matter of perspective. You can try to have the practical and cost vs potential future threat debate, but the problem is that once a person has decided it's a visceral discussion rather than logical, then it's turns from a debate to an argument which then becomes a battle to 'win' the argument. In other words, no one invested in the emotional argument can acknowledge that other people might just have a true practical position to discuss. You'll get a small show of attempts (a couple of them will be honest) the rest are for show before the same old thread just appears and takes control. If you push it too far, then the name calling will commence. Easier to just skip right to it. You're a mean person that takes joy in torturing small puppies and pulling the wings off of bugs. you must like guns and think people with curly hair are a lower form of species. This truly made me laugh. And there is some real truth to it. I can't see that anyone has addressed my question with anything but abstract ideas and emotional responses. I have the same emotional responses. I do not hunt becauase I don't like the feeling after killing something. I've been there. Logically, however...situations like this one have only one reasonable result in the real world. My opinion. Nobody herein has given me a rational argument to the contrary. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Um...I have to presume we will cycle guards to and from this facility. Supplies will probably have to be delivered. We are unlikely to forbid visitors. There are a host of logistical and legal issues that will make it unlikely that escape can not be had. Then, there's my overarching concern about pardon, commutation of sentence, parole, etc. that happen routinely and negate the entire intent of the original sentence. I know it may be a fairly isolated case, but Manson was given the death sentence and now comes up for parole regularly. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Agreed. I would also suggest that we end the allowance for repeated appeals that clog the court system. Not trying to quibble...your answer perplexes me. You are ok with placing prisoners in a situation with the intent that other prisoners kill them. That would at least jibe with your response (#1) that it is a question of economics. The obvious question is 'how much is it worth to do what is needed?'. Also, your second comment (#2) fails to address the question. In a case such as the one presented, is it justified? When doubt can hardly be an issue, what do we do? Also, if the system is so falible, how do you justify placing prisoners with other prisoners with the expectation they will kill each other? It's merely execution by proxy. I'm not sure I can reconcile your answer in a coherent philosophy. And I surely can't apply that philosophy to the instant case. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

OK. Apparently the practical problem is only going to be addressed with philosophical answers. I think you are saying here that you would suggest these two be sentenced to life without parole and accept the risk that they might still get out. Is that a fair assessment of your response? I really don't want to twist anyone's words. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Ok. I thought that might be the case. We'll put you down as one who supports the death penalty. Thanks for clarifying. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Pull the cord. Or throw me out of a plane and don't waste a rig. Ultimately, I like the death by boobies (or sex) solution. Is that really an option? I'll definitely put it in my living will! I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Increase the security level of his captivity, like Hannibal Lecter. But not killing him, which makes Hannibals of us all. It is not 100% without further risk, but that's the price to pay for being a civilized society. How restrictive do we become (going down this road) before it is torture? Are we saying that one's actions might deserve torture before they demand execution? If the torture leads the person to insanity (possibly dangerous insanity) have we attained a greater good than execution? Is it less injurious to society to have guards who strap a human down, feed them through a tube, etc. on a daily basis, or to throw a switch, hang your head and walk away once? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Please re-examine that answer. You are suggesting we send them off to be killed by other prisoners. I consider this more barbaric than a state sanctioned execution. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I respectfully disagree. I think you posted this while I was writing an explanation. I think there are times that we have to hang our heads and admit that there is nothing left to do but destroy the dangerous person. I do not want revenge. No revenge will suffice. Reparations are not possible. Nothing will bring back those who were tortured and killed. We can only protect the rest of society with finality by removing the cancer. I think it should never me approached lightly, in anger or other emotion, or quickly. I think with solemn concern for others and recognizing that life is sacred, we have to make a decision to end a life that has proven it contains a mind that is dangerous to others and has passed the point of reasonably returning to a normal state. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I was pretty sure that was the case. And please understand...I don't disagree with you philosophically. But as a practicality...there are people whose actions demand their removal in a permanent manner. I hate it. But it happens. My opinion. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Let me clarify a little bit: I do not think of myself as an ADVOCATE of the death penalty. I just see that there are cases where no other end seems justified. It is regrettable. It may be a failure of society. It may be a genetic aberation of the individual. I don't know. I just know that sometimes it is the only solution I can (lamentably) accept. In the instant case, under the laws available...what is the right answer? Are we simply going to argue that it costs too much to do what must be done? Are we going to point to other cases to justify not doing what is right in this one? I think people will avoid answering in this case, because it reduces the argument to something else. If you admit that this case justifies the death penalty, the argument is then 'where do we draw the line'? I'm happier with that debate. It admits that some people will force society to remove them from our midst permanently. I've always been an advocate of giving people what they earn / demand by their actions...with compassion when possible...without when necessary. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I caught the crossover from another thread. Philosophically, I could agree with you. I have always thought that some people earned torture that I would oppose just because I would be concerned about the effects on those who did the torturing. Similar line of thought. We don't want society as a whole to be analogous to what they are destroying. Still...as in the instant case...nothing else seems to fit some situations. And with appropriate safeguards, the death penalty is practicable. I don't delve too deeply in the laws of states in which I'm not licensed. Are you saying there are states that have 'life without' provisions that have never been commuted? My main concern is that there are so many cases where those with the best evidence recommend / impose a sentence and a subsequent review by less informed individuals reduces that sentence. Even if a true 'life without' were possible...I can't help but think that these two deserve something else. Like the case of Timothy McVeigh, how attrocious must your crime be before you abrogate your right to live? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Not. Yours was the last post. I hit reply to tag on to the end. This is the second time someone thought I was responding to them specifically when they were merely the last post. Is there a preferred method of adding on that prevents this miscommunication? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Brilliant! Congrats to him! I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

In theory, I could agree with you. The problem is that, in practice, there is no such thing as life without parole. And while I support the idea of reparation, hard work, etc., I think it is impracticable. We currently have to provide cable TV and gyms to prisoners. Hard labor doesn't happen anymore. So, is there a more practical answer? What do we do with these two savages? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I wish people on this board would read: “We expect that watching the news should help people learn, but the most popular of the national media sources – Fox, CNN, MSNBC – seem to be the least informative.” Yes. Fox has a bias. So does CNN, MSNBC...most, if not all news media has a bias. Recognize the bias (I find it quite easy) and filter. When your sole argument against something is that it comes from Fox, you are making your own bias clear. Nobody here has presented counter evidence. They just attacked the source. Poor debate skills indicative of an emotional response rather than a reasoned one. Out of curiousity...what is Kallend a professor of? Not to be insulting. I just notice that we are often on opposite sides of a debate. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Opponents of the death penalty like to point to mistakes and make a rule from the exceptions. I understand this. I think it is reprehensible in the extreme that people can be wrongfully convicted and executed. However, there are just certain people that have clearly voided their right to life and I will sleep better once they are dead. Sorry if this offends you. Using the exception to support the rule: there has been a trial lately where two men invaded a house, raped the wife and 11 year old daughter, beat the husband with a bat, set fire to the house, etc. Their argument? The man didn't defend his family well enough (loosely paraphrased). It is much worse in greater detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders Confession, text messages, video tape, DNA, eye witness (husband), picutres of the daughter's rape, etc. were all very conclusive on the events. So...were the juries wrong in recommending the death penalty? Are we ready to keep these two in prison at an exhorbitant cost for decades? Parole? Can they be rehabilitated? Want them to date your daughter when they get out? I'm sorry. While there are cases that indicate we need to be very careful in the use of this punishment and the system can always be improved, there are also cases that convince me that some people need to be destroyed just as a surgeon would not hesitate to destroy cancer cells. No good can come of keeping them alive. If not the death penalty for these two...what? As long as they breath, they can get out. The Lockerbie assassin is living well in Libya. Manson comes up for parole routinely. The list is long. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.