Right. He told them the entire story and said that he had voices in his head telling him that he could rape her. :rolleyes: They found that he wasn’t insance, which was the reason why he confessed.
He wasn’t insane, although his psychiatrists said he had mental problems. Yeah, the guy who killed Cory and her four-year-old had mental problems. Hard to believe.
But what if he gets along just fine in prison, and his conscience doesn’t bother him one iota - are you okay with that too?
I don’t think assumed quality of life is a good argument against the death penalty. Prisoners should be treated humanely and not suffer unduly. That’s why we don’t allow torture. I too hope that someone in prison for a truly horrible crime does not enjoy his stay there, but if the crime is truly horrific, I think terminating the offender’s membership in human society and the club of life is appropriate. There’s no sliding scale that we can use to impose the exact amount of punishment that extreme crimes might merit because the government has an obligation to treat all prisoners serving time equally. If a crime is too far beyond the pale (as decided by a jury of peers), then I say pull the switch.
Well said, Marc. I have changed my position on the death penalty also, as a result of discussions here. My feeling that certain individuals deserve to die, and even to suffer in dying, hasn’t changed. But I have come to realize that, despite the confident statements of a certain Southern governor, the State does sometimes take the life of an innocent. That should never happen. “Reasonable doubt” simply is not a high enough standard to deprive an individual of life. If we make exceptions, even for persons who have confessed or those who were televised in their crimes, we are bound to make mistakes sooner or later.
That said, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings much to see the murderer who stabbed out his own little daughter’s eyes destroyed in some painful way. I suppose perfect consistency, like perfect justice is impossible. At any rate, given a vote on capital punishment today, as opposed to a year ago, I would vote nay.
First, Elysian, I want to express my sympathy to you and to Mr. Croomer for your loss. What a terrible way to lose anyone you cared about.
Second, I have to say, even as a supporter of the death penalty, I wouldn’t want you involved in choosing the fate of her murderer, nor to have you actually involved in his execution, if it does happen. The rule of law is not about vengeance - and it’s a vital line that I wouldn’t want to see crossed.
Finally, for all those who say that the only reason that there is to execute a prisoner is for vengeance, I would beg to differ - it is also the one, sure and certain way to ensure that a convicted murderer will not be released to kill again. There are many serial murderers who have been caught after a string of killings, only to be found to have been released murderers. The only felon who’s name I can recall off the top of my head is Arthur Shawcross, and had he been exectuded in the 70’s when convicted for the torture murders of two young boys or men, he wouldn’t have killed another several women in Rochester after his release. And I, and many other people in the electorate, believe that judges don’t always consider the risks associated with the people they order released.
This isn’t to imply that I don’t see the arguments against the death penalty. Just that I don’t think it’s all about vengeance, either.
We can try and provide a working deterrent to future murders since life in prison apparently isn’t a strong enough one for many with the potential to kill.
I agree that the penalty of death shouldn’t be enforced to satisfy desires for revenge and it’s hardly an acceptable form of punishment since the violater can’t learn from it. But if such a horrific and permanent event awaits anyone who commits murder then maybe it will deter some from going through with it and save a few innocent lives. That’s the only reason I’d agree with implementing it - to give pause to those who would consider murder in the future.
It doesn’t make members of society killers. Society can and should set the bar extremely high. You won’t be killed for rape, robbery, kidnapping, extortion, etc. But if you commit premeditated murder or, reasonably, multiple or particularly egregious murders, you will die. The offender knows that beforehand and he alone makes and is responsible for his decision.
If it will cause someone considering murder to reconsider, if it will potentially save an innocent’s life, then I’m for it.
I agree this probably isn’t the best thread for a discussion and I’m not trying to engage in a debate. But had the person who took Elysian’s friend’s life known he would definately die if he went through with the act, maybe there’s a chance she and her daughter would still be on this Earth.
I’m really sorry, Elysian. When horrible things like this happen I suppose all we can wish is that something will be learned that will save others from a similar grief in the future.
Some people do deserve to die. I agree wholeheartedly with that. Your friend’s killer does. And they may have the right guy (I don’t want to read the links. I’m at work and feeling blue and I’m afraid I’d read one paragraph and start bawling).
But sometimes they don’t have the right guy, and there’s no going back once someone is dead. I’ve never had enough courage to do something irrevocable.
Elysian, I’m so sorry about your loss. One of the worst things about the death of someone you aren’t close to any longer is knowing about all the wasted time. I’m so sorry.
That’s not a forgone conclusion. There’s a strong argument that a person that would do something like that is hardly thinking of any sort of consequences. And looking at crime statistics over the decades, there seems to be no correlation between the DP and violent crime rates. Inconclusive at best.
I wonder if the fact there isn’t a reliable standard (uniform inforcement if you will) is in part responsible for that. Adoption of the DP varies from state to state. Rules governing it’s usage vary from state to state. Even within the state it’s legality can change over time or the governor, as we’ve seen recently, can issue sweeping, all-encompassing pardons. If you’re on Death Row it’ll likely be decades before your sentence is carried out, if ever at all.
Maybe removing the confusion and having a single simple, blunt, understandable code is in order.
Well, proving someone guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” seems to me to be a pretty blunt and understandable starting point, and yet it hasn’t prevented over 100 people being found guilty, placed on Death Row, and then released after new evidence was found clearing them of the crime.
But your argument here supposes that the death penalty does “provide a working deterrent.” Do you have any evidence correlating use of the death penalty with lower homicide rates in the United States? Or elsewhere, for that matter?
lieu, that’s an excellent point, and it’s interesting to speculate about that. But I’ve heard evidence that the deterrent effect is quite different. In fact, what I’ve heard is that the reason DP sentences are carried out more or less in secret is because public executions would whip the public up in a frenzy of murderous rage. London’s most violent period was when they had public executions every day. When they stopped doing that, the murder rate went down.
Of course, one could argue which is the cause and which is the effect.
The only problem with this hypothetical is that every reputable study done on the subject suggests that an extant death penalty is not a deterrent.
mhendo, I’m not sure that even “beyond a reasonable doubt” is enough. As mentioned, society has to set the bar extremely high to prevent us from becoming guilty of the crime we’re trying to prevent. I’d figure the language governing such would have to include “overwhelming, non-circumstantial evidence” before such a penalty could be considered.
Thank you, jsgoddess and everyone else who has expressed their sympathies.
No, you really shouldn’t read the links if you are already feeling blue. It will make you feel like throwing up, or at least it did me. It’s hard to believe there is such evil out there, waiting to strike people unexpectedly and for no reason. Just take care of yourself and be as safe as you can.
I’m glad this has started such a reasonable debate.
Bricker, if that can be reliably demonstrated then, as mentioned, I’d not support it for any other reason.
Even if he feels no remorse for what he’s done to Katie, her family or her friends, he must feel something about the fact that his wife left him and his kids had to go through the ridicule because their dad is that guy who kidnapped and killed a convenience store clerk.
Let’s say he doesn’t care about all that stuff, either. Let’s say his prison term is like a vacation full of happy fluffy bunnies and sunshine. Am I okay with that? :shrugs: Not a whole hell of a lot I can do about it, right? And he still has to die alone in a prison infirmary. He’s a number now, he’ll never be anything more than that.
I didn’t say his quality of life (assumed “poor”) in prison is a good argument against the death penalty. I said that capital punishment was not an option in this case and I, personally, am okay knowing that he probably isn’t having the time of his life right now. I don’t think he’s a monster and I certainly think you would have to be to strangle somebody, burn their remains, and then never think about it again. I hope he has nightmares. He said in his confession that she “looked scared”. I hope that son of a bitch remembers her face until the day he dies. And if he doesn’t? Whatever.
If the state did allow capital punishment, would I feel better knowing he was going to die at the hands of the state rather than just dying? No, not really. What difference does that make to me? His death, whenever and however that happens, won’t change a single thing in my life. Just like his level of suffering (or not) in prison (by his own conscience (or not)) doesn’t really change anything. I hadn’t even thought about him for years until this thread. He has no significant station in my life, and why should he?
I don’t want to get into a death penalty debate. I just wanted to express my sympathy to Elysian. I hope I’ve cleared up my post for you, neuroman.
Silver Fire, thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you’re saying - that to you (and by extension, society at large), it doesn’t really matter whether a killer gets locked up in prison for life, or is executed. Either way he won’t have the opportunity to commit new crimes on the outside world. I basically agree with that. I only favor the death penalty in the truest biblical sense of “eye for an eye” - that the punishment should fit the crime. If someone pre-meditates the murders of several people, for example, I see no reason why he should continue to reap the fruits of living after he’s robbed four or five others of the rest of their lives.
I’ll remove my toes from the pool of continued death penalty debate in this thread, I just wanted to share a couple of thoughts.
Elysian, you have my sympathies as well.
That assumes that the alternative to the death penalty is releasing criminals. A system in which the death penalty was not allowed, but was replaced with life in prision (actual life. No parole) would solve the problem that you’ve presented. And in that case, choosing death over life in prison is about vengeance.
This gets to the root of my issues with the death penalty as it is implemented in the US today. In order for the threat of punishment to have any deterrent effect, the punishment must be swift and certain. In our society it is neither.
First of all, our criminal justice system is heavily weighted on the side of the defendant, with regard to rules of evidence, police procedure, confessions being inadmissable due to technicalities, etc. I’m not saying whether that’s right or wrong, but just that it is true.
There’s also a lot of pressure on prosecutors to “cut a deal” and accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge to avoid having to go to trial. Thus, someone who has actually committed multiple homicides may go to prison for jaywalking. OK, that may be a slight exaggeration.
Then, even if a defendant is tried, convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, he will typically spend 15 - 25 years on death row while exhausting all of his appeals (at a cost to taxpayers of about $30,000 per year – at least in my state).
The end result is that, even in a state with a death penalty in place, a person who is pre-meditating a murder would rightly assume that his chances of being executed were slim to none.
In an ideal (and probably unacheivable) system where all truly guilty persons could be tried and executed quickly and truly innocent persons could be released, I think that the death penalty would be a meaningful deterrent to capital crime.
Even if you could ever be 100% certain that someone is guilty enough to deserve such a completely irreversible and uncompensateable punishment, even then it would not be enough of a deterrent to most homicides, and do more to promote a moral mindset that killing is sometimes good than to make people stop and think hmm maybe this’ll get me killed.
It is that simple. And if you don’t believe me, just look at the OP - with all respect to the circumstances, the power that primitive feelings such as revenge have over reason and respect for life is as evident there as in the crime referred to.