The Death Penalty

[Professor Walsh]

Todd Willingham killed his children. Well, the jury said so. It turns out he didn't.

Four minutes ago I looked at my two kids who'd both fallen asleep in the double bed, strewn across it like a couple of soft toys forgotten by some deity that got distracted. I cannot imagine the pain of being wrongly prosecuted for the murder of your own children. The death penalty is final. Once carried out, it can never be undone. I'd rather have every child murderer in the world alive eating grapes from gold plates in the most luxurious jails imaginable, than having one person wrongly killed for the murder of his or her child.

 

[Goby]

Four minutes ago I looked at my two kids who'd both fallen asleep in the double bed, strewn across it like a couple of soft toys forgotten by some deity that got distracted. I cannot imagine the pain of being wrongly prosecuted for the murder of your own children. The death penalty is final. Once carried out, it can never be undone. I'd rather have every child murderer in the world alive eating grapes from gold plates in the most luxurious jails imaginable, than having one person wrongly killed for the murder of his or her child.

BTW, Todd was a jerk. A complete jerk. He beat his wife, he beat his ex wife. He took money that was given to him to bury his children and partied. He said really bad stuff to his ex wife (and mother of the children) right before he died. But he never hit his children. And he didn't kill them.

The fact is that there was no arson. The State said there were 20 reasons why it was arson, and all fire experts have said that the 20 reasons are boloney. And his lawyer blew it by not hiring their own expert. And the science of fires was in its infancy when the trial started. If that fire occurred today, it was have easily been proven to be an accident.

So the jury heard fire science in 1994, but by 2004 the leading expert said that it was definitely NOT arson.

And Rick Perry let him die. 🙁


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWA5RRLPBVE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWA5RRLPBVE[/ame]

 

[patriot1123]

I have such a jumble of inconsistent thoughts and emotions about this issue.

I find the notion of putting a human being to death horrifying on a visceral level. Watch The Green Mile for a completely visceral illustration of what I'm saying.

OTOH, if someone killed my child, I would (if I could) shoot them dead. In a New York minute.

IMO the best argument against the DP is the possibility that one.single.innocent person would be put to death. One is too many. That argument is dispositive, and makes me oppose the DP.

But I don't buy the other arguments being made here. To me, when someone deliberately kills another human being, that person is consenting to being killed themselves. They are declaring that they are willing to live under different rules than those that prevail in society. Putting that person to death is nothing more than subjecting them to the system of rules that they have chosen, a system where killing is okay. They get to choose.

Which is probably why I actually cheer under my breath when time finally runs out for folks like Tim McVeigh and John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy.

 

[prophecygrrl]

Todd Willingham killed his children. Well, the jury said so. It turns out he didn't. Gov. Rick Perry commissioned a panel to investigate. On the eve of the findings, Gov. Perry fired three of the members of the panel.

Gov. Perry is evil. Instead of looking at the facts, he talked about the comments made by Willingham before he died. He called his ex vile names because she was at the execution and went public before the execution that she though he did it.

The State of Texas's arson expert used hillbilly science, and the defendant did not have an arson expert. EVERY arson expert who has studied the case has said that there is no way it was arson.

In the Sept 7, 2009 edition of the New Yorker David Grann comprehensively examines the Todd Willingham case in which an innocent person was executed by Texas. The 16,000 word article examines every aspect of the case and concludes that there is no doubt that an innocent person has been executed. There is scientific evidence to prove that the fire was not arson.

The Death Penalty is wrong in EVERY case because it is very unlikely that any case will be 100% perfect.
http://camerontoddwillingham.com/

That article was what convinced me to be 100% against the death penalty. It's very, very powerful...everyone should read it. Doesn't matter which stance you take. It's very thought-provoking.

 

[KellGreen]

I have such a jumble of inconsistent thoughts and emotions about this issue.

I find the notion of putting a human being to death horrifying on a visceral level. Watch The Green Mile for a completely visceral illustration of what I'm saying.

OTOH, if someone killed my child, I would (if I could) shoot them dead. In a New York minute.

IMO the best argument against the DP is the possibility that one.single.innocent person would be put to death. One is too many. That argument is dispositive, and makes me oppose the DP.

But I don't buy the other arguments being made here. To me, when someone deliberately kills another human being, that person is consenting to being killed themselves. They are declaring that they are willing to live under different rules than those that prevail in society. Putting that person to death is nothing more than subjecting them to the system of rules that they have chosen, a system where killing is okay. They get to choose.

Which is probably why I actually cheer under my breath when time finally runs out for folks like Tim McVeigh and John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy.

I agree.

I will add: Growing up in the Pacific NW with at least 2 prolific serial killers may have influenced my thoughts on this. I feel that, as it is, it's far kinder than it should be, in the sense that those who slowly kill someone after tortuing and/or raping them, then further defiling what they have left a body, die far too kindly by comparison. Part of me feels they should be put to death in the manner in which they have killed. A needle, or even hanging, is far less painful and horrible than what they have done. Even in less severe cases, I don't think anyone deserves to retain their right to living when they have stolen that from another.

Of course, though, the system is flawed, and terribly skewed, and not remotely fair. In some ways I'm torn, because of the injustice so thoroughly embedded in our current justice system, but I don't think those who murder innocents deserve to continue to live. They don't deserve that which they have so viciously stolen from another. I remember growing up with The Green River Killer still at work, and have even had a classmate who was found (this was a teenager) raped and mutiliated on the side of a freeway. So, again, maybe my exposure to these kinds of monsters has excessively influenced my views on the matter.

 

[HalloweenRain]

You know, threads like these really let us get to know one another. I'm glad that even though several of us have opposing opinions, we all still LIKE each other.
I'm pro-capital punishment, but my reasons have so much more to do with emotion that I can't safely expound them here without seeming overly pissed off.
I can say that, although I'm sure some people are genuinely sorry for the crimes they committed, I don't believe anyone with the capacity to abuse a child should be given the benefit of the doubt. My grandfather molested me when I was a child, he also sexually abused my oldest sister, my mother, six of my aunts, four of my uncles, and his younger sister. The idea that a man who sexually assaults little girls and boys can be given the opportunity to roam around and prey on the most helpless and innocent makes me sick.
It has taken many many years to get over the pain and fear caused by that monster. To be truthful some times I still have panic attacks because the assault was so brutal.
I feel like IF he had been put away, he would have been out in 10 years, free to touch more children. He never felt remorse, not even on his deathbed. I wish that he had been punished. He stole the innocence from myself and many, many others. He ruined my childhood and made me question the kind of mother I would be. I rose above it, but I can't say the same for my sister. Knowing that his cruelty lived on, and continues to hurt makes me realize that not everyone is good. Not everyone wants to change. Some people may ACT sorry, but go on to abuse and hurt again, and again. I'll never take that chance with my children. Nobody who hurts a child gets a second chance with me, they CAN'T redeem themselves in my eyes. To believe in the good in man is fine. However once they cross that border, they aren't men, they are monsters. To me, monsters don't deserve that chance.

 

[Professor Walsh]

In Norway, a person can be sentenced to "forvaring", according to my dictionary that can be translated as "custody" or "safe-keeping". This can be used when there a person who has committed grave acts of for example arson, sexual abuse or violence, and there is I high risk of the person repeating the offence. After the initial sentence has run its time, the risk is assessed every five years. If the risk of repeated offence is still considered to be high, the offender can in reality be held for the rest of his/her life.

 

[Mithol]

You know, threads like these really let us get to know one another. I'm glad that even though several of us have opposing opinions, we all still LIKE each other.
I'm pro-capital punishment, but my reasons have so much more to do with emotion that I can't safely expound them here without seeming overly pissed off.
I can say that, although I'm sure some people are genuinely sorry for the crimes they committed, I don't believe anyone with the capacity to abuse a child should be given the benefit of the doubt. My grandfather molested me when I was a child, he also sexually abused my oldest sister, my mother, six of my aunts, four of my uncles, and his younger sister. The idea that a man who sexually assaults little girls and boys can be given the opportunity to roam around and prey on the most helpless and innocent makes me sick.
It has taken many many years to get over the pain and fear caused by that monster. To be truthful some times I still have panic attacks because the assault was so brutal.
I feel like IF he had been put away, he would have been out in 10 years, free to touch more children. He never felt remorse, not even on his deathbed. I wish that he had been punished. He stole the innocence from myself and many, many others. He ruined my childhood and made me question the kind of mother I would be. I rose above it, but I can't say the same for my sister. Knowing that his cruelty lived on, and continues to hurt makes me realize that not everyone is good. Not everyone wants to change. Some people may ACT sorry, but go on to abuse and hurt again, and again. I'll never take that chance with my children. Nobody who hurts a child gets a second chance with me, they CAN'T redeem themselves in my eyes. To believe in the good in man is fine. However once they cross that border, they aren't men, they are monsters. To me, monsters don't deserve that chance.

My grandfather molested my mother and my aunt and two of my cousins. He was only put away for 18 months. But I think that's due to a deeper flaw in the justice system, that is unrelated to the death penalty. Even if the death penalty was legal here, he still would have been sentenced to only 18 months. And although I have no personal experience with molestation, my mum has told me that she doesn't think the death penalty is right for people like him, nor does she wish it on him. But to each their own, I suppose.

The death penalty still seems like nothing more than revenge to me.

 

[HalloweenRain]

To me, it isn't revenge, had my grandfather been given the death penalty when it had come to light about the molestation of his children, I would have been spared, as would my sister, (and by extension) her children. I understand your opinions, and I never came into this looking to change anyone's mind.
The death Penalty isn't about revenge in my eyes, it's about protection. As a mother myself, I know now that if someone hurt either one of my children as I was hurt, I would not say "nay" to their destruction. Not for revenge, but to make sure that no child would ever suffer at their hands again. I don't believe in second chances to people that hurt children. Maybe I'm harsh, but maybe, just maybe you're a little wide-eyed.
Your mom must be a very strong woman, and I applaud the unshakable ideals she holds. Every experience is different, and to live through what she did and still be strong is amazing. Props to momma, and props to survivors who try to make a difference through their values and morals.
However, I am not a person who believes in mercy, when mercy is not due.
I know how to be kind and loving, I know not to hurt others for my gain or pleasure. I understand right from wrong, but as this thread proves, that is very subjective.

 

[Ianigsy]

I don't feel that I have the right to preach after the last few posts, but I don't believe that all child abusers are coming from the same place mentally- certainly somebody who systematically commits abuse over the course of their life for their own gratification has a different problem from somebody who crosses a line once. Western society has become much more open to talking about such things in our lifetimes, not least where abuse within the family is concerned, but it still takes a child to know that they're being abused and that there are people who can help them.

From a personal point of view I think that at least some child abusers are mentally ill rather than evil, but I'd question what support we as a society would provide for somebody who walks into a doctor's surgery asking for help because they're sexually drawn to children. If we aren't prepared to provide somebody in that situation with support and mechanisms to help prevent them from turning into abusers, then having a death penalty for child abuse is uncomfortably close to having a death sentence for some types of mental illness.

But I just want to add that I'm not for a second saying that any abuse that's happened in anybody's family wasn't ultimately down to the abuser. Having only recently found out about some domestic violence that happened in my aunt and uncle's household- and was stopped dead in its tracks when my aunt stood up for her children from her first marriage- I can't imagine how you put the pieces back together and rework relationships in the family.

 

[kittenpoker]

Wow. So much here!

Halloweeenrain, (I always mess up mentions, so I gave up trying but hopefully you'll see this) I'm so so sorry for what you and people you love have been through, and you're right these things leave scars that never really go away. My heart really does go out to you! and I'm sure, in some ways, and I hope this doesn't come out weird, but maybe you're a better mom because of the pain you've been through....If that hurts then it didn't come out right.... let me know and I'll try and fix it.

You're point about it not being about revenge but protection... this is stirring thoughts in me...I need to consider this more. But thank you for that.

 

[Goby]

I just remembered a really crazy case I had. I represented a dad who owed child support for a child he never met. He never met the child because the mother murdered the child.

So I had to call Idaho Death Row to talk to the lady to settle the child support owed to her for the child she murdered!! BTW, she was never charged or convicted of murdering that child or the child's 1/2 brother. She was charged and convicted of murdering her next family in the same fashion (arson) for the same reason (insurance proceeds).

My phone call with her was one of the scariest phone calls I ever had. She was so nice! (Seriously!!) She sounded like your typical 45 year old mother. What scared me is that she sounded so regular.

Here she is, along with her story. BTW, the above is not confidential and everything I posted was contained in court documents I filed (In case anyone was wondering if the above was privileged).


http://crime.about.com/od/female_offenders/a/Robin-Rows.htm

 

[InsaneMystic]

But I don't buy the other arguments being made here. To me, when someone deliberately kills another human being, that person is consenting to being killed themselves. They are declaring that they are willing to live under different rules than those that prevail in society. Putting that person to death is nothing more than subjecting them to the system of rules that they have chosen, a system where killing is okay. They get to choose.

That swings both ways. If a society, by allowing the DP, says there may be instances where killing is ok, why should we be forced to accept that "for fun" is not reason enough? If the right to live is not universal, the why on Earth should I allow some legal system to forbid me the right to kill you if I don't like your face, or because you got something I want, or because of the timeless "just to see you die"? Seems very presumptuous of the state to intrude on my rights of pursuit of happiness (including by murder, if killing peeps happens to make me happy) if they claim the right to end lives themselves.

Either killing is intrinsically wrong (then the DP is wrong, period), or it isn't (then, for sake of equality, democracy, and civil rights, it's a scandalous outrage that murder is criminalized. Free all of the so-called "offenders" by general amnesty. Unconditionally. Right. Now.).

A legal system implementing the DP while outlawing murder ain't so different from the Soviet highups living in luxury towering above poor masses in so-called "communism" (a sytem which by definition is equal access to all resources for everyone). Blatant hypocrisy, and not a system deserving any kind of respect.

Besides (yes, quite aware of Godwin's Law, so sue me)... if the DP is ok, than what, exactly, was so bad about the Nazis' interior policy? (Leaving the War out of it for a moment, I'm just talking about the perfectly legal, courtesy of Der Führer's decree, operation of the SS's Death Camps.) DP for being Jewish, a Commie, Sinti/Roma, homosexual, or mentally handicapped - that's enough for some people to throw a fuss over even 66 years after old Adolf snuffed it, because...?

And for a contemporary example, stoning adulterous women to death in Shariah-Islamic states? What right in the world does a pro-DP person have to ever complain about that? Show some respect for other nations' rights to come up with and enforce their legal systems, if you please?

If you're ready to draw the line of "right to live or not" somewhere, anywhere, then you lose every right to complain if someone else draws it between you (or someone you care for/identify with) and them, especially if they have legal authority. Everything else just shows some kind of "Holier Than Thou" presumption that I, quite frankly, am appalled by.

In Norway, a person can be sentenced to "forvaring", according to my dictionary that can be translated as "custody" or "safe-keeping". This can be used when there a person who has committed grave acts of for example arson, sexual abuse or violence, and there is I high risk of the person repeating the offence. After the initial sentence has run its time, the risk is assessed every five years. If the risk of repeated offence is still considered to be high, the offender can in reality be held for the rest of his/her life.

Can't rep you again, but that sounds very close to the concept of "Sicherungsverwahrung" here in Germany. (Which, btw, is often discussed over here time again, as even that - keeping a convict locked away after he's served his original sentence - can be seen as unconstitutional by some!)

 

[patriot1123]

That swings both ways. If a society, by allowing the DP, says there may be instances where killing is ok, why should we be forced to accept that "for fun" is not reason enough?

You misunderstood my position. I said nothing about what "society" "says." What I said is that, if someone deliberately takes another human life, then I think it's fair to regard them as having repudiated any protection for their own life. They have consented to live under rules where it's okay to kill, and they have therefore consented to the DP.

The right to live is absolute -- but (morally speaking) it may be waived. The killer waives his right to life.

It may only be waived by the person themselves, not by someone else for them.

 

[InsaneMystic]

You misunderstood my position. I said nothing about what "society" "says." What I said is that, if someone deliberately takes another human life, then I think it's fair to regard them as having repudiated any protection for their own life. [...]
The right to live is absolute -- but (morally speaking) it may be waived. The killer waives his right to life.

It may only be waived by the person themselves, not by someone else for them.

It may explicitly waived, granted. But then we're talking assisted suicide/voluntary euthanasia, and not the DP. And personally, I don't see a reason why assisted suicide shouldn't be legal to everybody. (It goes beyond ridiculous, right into moronic, if a country has the DP and outlaws assisted suicide. So you can kill someone against his will within the law, but you're a criminal if you grant death to someone who expressly doesn't want to live anymore? Rrrrrrrright. : scratch)

If you want to say that any actions can ever implicitly waive basic human rights, then Hell to the no! Otherwise you give serious credence to the point brought up by countless accused rapists of "if you forcefully have sex with a scantily clad woman known for promiscuity, especially a prostitute, shouldn't she be assumed to be implictly asking for sex, all the time, thus waiving her right to say no, thus rendering any possible rape allegation void right from the start?". Can of worms doesn't begin to describe it.

As long as a court sentences a convict to the DP, that's not "waiving" of the convicts rights. Unless the judge asks him if he wants to accept the sentence (and an answer of no means, the sentence is legally rendered null and void - and in that case, why bother with all the courtroom mumbo jumbo in the first place?), you are forcing death upon him.

They have consented to live under rules where it's okay to kill, and they have therefore consented to the DP.

And by enforcing the DP, society say he's been right about those rules, because the legal system will play by them, too. So what sense does it make to punish him in the first place, when his actions are fully validated by the system? I don't see how murder then could be considered a "criminal" thing to do - he's operating safely within the rules of society, and that's not something anyone should be punished for.

 

[patriot1123]

If "A" commits murder, then "A" is implicitly waiving his own right not to be killed. I don't know how else I can say it.

That said, I'm still against the DP because of the possibility that even one innocent person is put to death.

 

[Mithol]

If "A" commits murder, then "A" is implicitly waiving his own right not to be killed. I don't know how else I can say it.

That said, I'm still against the DP because of the possibility that even one innocent person is put to death.

How exactly do they waive their right to life by killing someone? I'm just curious as to the reasoning of it.

I believe that killing a person is intrinsically wrong. I don't see what makes it right to kill a murderer. They are still a person.

 

[patriot1123]

How exactly do they waive their right to life by killing someone? I'm just curious as to the reasoning of it.

I really don't know how differently I can articulate it, than what I've already said.

When a person engages in certain conduct, they waive the right to object to that conduct being directed back to them.

 

[caritas08]

How exactly do they waive their right to life by killing someone? I'm just curious as to the reasoning of it.

I believe that killing a person is intrinsically wrong. I don't see what makes it right to kill a murderer. They are still a person.

Okay, I'm not advocating the death penalty here but just for the sake of argument. Locking someone up and taking away their freedom is wrong, yet we do it to murderers and people who have committed crimes. Taking someone's money is wrong, yet we make people pay fines for traffic infractions etc.

Killing someone is wrong but do you think our grandfathers were wrong to kill German and Japanese soldiers in WW2?

The only way society can function without turning to anarchy is to use the rule "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you."

I'm not advocating the death penalty but you can't give people who have committed crimes against humanity the same rights that every person who has not committed a crime has. It all gets down to self defense. We kill in war out of self defense. Many advocates for the death penalty claim it is a form of defense (and with the amount of murders and manslaughter criminals commit after they have gotten out on parole it's not a wholly invalid argument). If you've ever know a prison guard their job is not fun and their lives (and lives of their families) are put in danger every day. These criminals (behind bars) find out the home addresses, car license plate numbers, and names of their family members. They frequently get the people that work for them (who aren't behind bars) to go after the people responsible for holding them in prison. I have a friend whose sister was brutally murdered by a serial killer and another friend who was kidnapped and raped for several days (fortunately she escaped) but these are dangerous people we're talking about here.

I'm not saying the answer is the death penalty (but I definitely understand people who do). I personally think we need to do away with parole for violent crimes and have stricter and longer sentences especially for sex offenders and people who hurt children. I'm sorry these criminals are psychologically suffering, "need help" are mentally ill etc. but if we want society to be even remotely safe for our children, we need to make sure we stop as many criminals we can (there are so many more who get away).

 

[HalloweenRain]

"Mithol agrees: Surely a life sentence would have also spared you. The fact is that death penalty or no, paedophiles are not sentenced harshly enough anyway."

You know I'm sure that yes, if life imprisonment was always for LIFE, and there was no possibility that the offender would ever get out for any reason even crazy acts of chance(E.g. earthquake that crashes the walls of the prison and allows them to escape) I wouldn't be for the death penalty. But dangerous criminals are let out every day. At least death is final, and when they are gone I know at least for SURE that there is nothing to fear from that particular offender.

I do feel that those sentenced to death should be absolutely guilty. Not based on what a jury decides, but based on admissions of guilt, or unshakable proof.