# So what should happen to these two defendants? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 14, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740 "2010-09-14T17:07:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/61 "2010-09-15T14:18:06Z")
In his opening statement, the defense attorney referred to the beatings, rapes, kidnapping, robbery, murders and arson as “events that got out of hand.” They were willing to plead guilty in exchange for life in prison, but the prosecutor wants Death. And I agree. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/62 "2010-09-15T14:44:00Z")
Ideally- Death followed by however long a Hell that God decrees. I’d settle for life without parole, Annie-Xmas’s icky drink meal & MeanOldLady’s beating-robot. A-X, MOL- we disagree on a lot, but right now, I want to marry the both of ya! TriPolar- say it! say it! ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/63 "2010-09-15T15:20:03Z")
> [@Projammer](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > And private property (specifically that of **ProJammer** ) should be taken for public use without just compensation. > > > > It’s more economic that way. > > You are certainly welcome to present your arguments to Judge Taurus. > > Come back and let us know how that works out for you. Big man - quaking in my boots here. Good to see what your view of the constitution is. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/64 "2010-09-15T15:21:58Z")
> [@Corner\_Case](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Your questions are bullshit non-sequiturs. > > I’m not trying to doge the point. It’s just that you are being so absolute in your requirement for 100+% evidence. We’re not perfect so we can’t be 100% sure of anything, but I don’t want to act like that means we’re 100% uncertain. If we’re not 100% certain, we can’t kill people. That doesn’t mean we can’t _convict_ them, only that we have to respect the small possibility of error (and we have learned since the advent of DNA that that possibility isn’t really so small). > [@](#): > > **“I’m just trying to clarify whtehre you would insist that those innocent people be somebody besides yourself, or whether you believe that you’re special.”** Well, I don’t think you’ll believe me, but, yes, if I was caught in a house standing over a dead body with the smoking murder weapon in my hand, a video tape showing I did it, and I knew in my mind I was innocent - I would fight to find evidence to exonerate me, plead and work and want all the appeals I could muster, [sub]and here’s the part you won’t believe[/sub], I would understand if I was convicted, sentenced to prison, and executed. I wouldn’t like it. I would yell against it! I would know it’s wrong since I knew in my mind I was innocent, but I really would understand. Geeze, I was caught with the gun in my hand! I’m really not trying to be evasive. I would undstand if I was one of the “innocent people wrongly convicted” Does that answer your question? Yeah, but let’s make it a little harder. Instead of you, what if it was your son, your daughter, your spuse, your brother or sister? Would you be willing to sacrifuice one of your own “innocent” children for the mere satisfaction of an active death penalty (an institution which serves no actual practical purpose, I might add). > [@](#): > > What I don’t feel is that people are behaving in a way or with motices such that innocent people are wrongly convicted most of the time or mostly on purpose or mostly anything. But it’s just a feeling, I have no cites. Thjis remains a red herring. I have made no assertion or suggestion that the errors happen by malicious design. I presume they are all perfectly innocent mistakes. > [@](#): > > **“My question is whether you are willing to be one of the innocent people killed in order to have the system you want.”** I think we have that system. That mostly people are guilty when convicted and not innocent. Every system needs improvement, but I think we have a damn good one. Unless you’re one of the mistakes. > [@](#): > > **“If you really want a system which will guarantee – GUARANTEE – that innocent people will die…”** When did I _want_ that? It is the sad part of an imperfect system. But a system that had no death penalty I feel is a less perfect system. If you want the death penalty, then you want a system that will guarantee rthe executions of innocent people. Calling it “sad” does not alter the fact that you want it. I think you’ll also have to go a long way to explain why there is any downside to NOT having a death penalty. The public is just as protected without it, and the possibility of recersing error is preserved. > [@](#): > > **“You’re saying you want everybody else to play Russian Roulette except for you”** I never exempted myself. I think that a system where the “preponderance of evidence” points in one direction is better than “no shadow of a doubt”. But then we get into what’s a preponderance and where does it overlay a shadow and all that. I don’t know, I’d have to have examples. And before you go off again, I’m not talking about sweeping away the Constitution or the appeals process. I’m talking about talking about them. Give me the sole power right now to change the system and I wouldn’t make a single move without some years of thought. I’m just expressing a point of view. I like to be Devil’s Advocate [sub]No, you don’t! Oh, shut up, yes I do![/sub] - and I do believe what I’m saying, I’m not just engaging in what-ifs. The standard is "beyond a _reasonable_ doubt, not “beyond a shadow.” That latter phrase is a poetic convention, not a legal phrase. Youir suggestion that we lower the standard to a “preponderance of the evidence” is so preposterous, and so guaranteed to convict and kill even more innocent people that I’ almost at a loss for words. Do you have no moral center at all? The “preponderance” standard only means, “more likely than not,” and allows for massive reasonable doubt. It’s used only in civil lawsuits, not in criminal cases, and CAN’T be used in criminal cases, because the Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/65 "2010-09-15T15:22:44Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > However, I would be happy for some criminals to be allowed to keep their belt and be kept in a cell with a convenient beam and chair. Why? Why should they have any choice in what happens to them? > [@Faruiza](#): > > I don’t know, but the reason I’m still leaning towards removing the worst of the worst from the planet is because I can’t wrap my head around allowing someone to keep something they took from someone else in violence. So, you think that someone who steals clothing at gunpoint should be forced to be permanently naked? :rolleyes: The life they have is not the one they took from someone else. What you seem to desire is not restitution but revenge. You hurt us, so now we are going to hurt you back. > [@Corner\_Case](#): > > What good (or right or benefit) does it serve society to declare “we will take you out of society until you die of natural causes”? It serves society by (a) protecting it from those who would do others harm while (b) maintaining the integrety of our rules, instead of saying “killing is bad, unless we do it, in which case it’s okay, even innocent people who happen to have the bad luck to be poor and Black.” > [@](#): > > You say it is cruel and unusual to kill a murder/rapist/pedophile/etc., but not cruel to lock them away from most human contact until they expire? I’m not saying it’s “cruel and unusual,” I’m saying it’s a double standard, it’s unethical, and it’s a punishment given disproportionately to the poor and minorities. > [@](#): > > It’s cruel to deprive them of visitors, books, exercise, but not cruel to have the victims, or their families, or the public fear escape, retribution, and victimization of others? Why are the assailants rights more important than the victims? Please provide a cite for the percentage of life-without-parole prisoners in the past 50 years who have escaped prison and committed other violent crimes. > [@](#): > > The worst criminal, caught in the act, unrepentant, boasting about doing other crimes, could come to see the light while in prison and turn into a saintly person who saves millions. I don’t like the odds and the risk to society. What risk to society? These people would never be released, even if they were surrounded with a nimbus of light and every religious icon they passed wept blood. > [@](#): > > I think murders/rapists/pedophiles/etc. - those who physically, mentally, or emotionally remove a person from society - need to be given one appeal, six months to exercise it, and if the conviction is sustained then they be executed immediately and painlessly. Your timeline is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > Why doesn’t the above apply to the executioner? Because the convicted have already removed themselves from society due to their acts and the execution is a mercy for society. No, they haven’t removed themselves from society. They have merely demonstrated themselves to be \*a threat to \*society. They are still human. > [@Sailboat](#): > > We are most at risk of making a mistake when we are least in control of ourselves. Quoted for fucking truth. > [@Magiver](#): > > > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > > How is it best for society to kill people? > > It prevents someone from killing again, including other prisoners. I ask you for the same cite as upthread: percentage of life-without-parole convicts who have escaped and committed further acts of violence. Prison violence is a separate issue and should be dealt with separately. > [@Corner\_Case](#): > > I would rather not convict innocent people. I’m not perfect. Our \*entire justice system \*is built on the principle that it is better to let a guilty person walk free than to convict someone who is innocent of that crime. If you don’t like it, you should work on rewriting our Constitution and legal system. Or maybe you could just move to a country that’s more in line with your values. Perhaps another country that still uses capital punishment, like China, Iran, or North Korea. Who could resist such bastions of freedom? > [@](#): > > Don’t forget, everytime the state kills a guilty person, the innocent people can breathe a little easier. No, innocent people can breathe \*exactly \*as easily as if that person had been removed from society in another way. And every time the state \*kills \*a “guilty” person, innocent people have to wonder whether or not the person was truly guilty. > [@Corner\_Case](#): > > You worry so much about making a mistake that everyone else must suffer. How is it suffering to not kill another human being? The only benefit to killing them versus locking them away until they die is revenge. And that’s not the job of the state, and it’s not a legitimate reason to kill. > [@aruvqan](#): > > Those killers are just like rabid dogs to me. […] Sometimes society needs to treat a damaged individual like a rabid dog or a cancer and remove it permanently. People are not dogs. People are not tumors. People are people. We don’t get to pick and choose when to treat them differently, just because we don’t like them, or don’t like something they have done. Historically, when we have done so, it has been in the contexts of slavery and genocide. The system you support is used to remove the “cancers” of those who are often too poor, or of the wrong color, to be treated like rich white people who commit the same crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/66 "2010-09-15T15:23:29Z")
> [@Corner\_Case](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > You really find reasonable doubt to be annoying, don’t you? > > No, I find unreasonable doubt to be annoying, don’t you? Your examples were all of reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/67 "2010-09-15T15:36:37Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Anyway. I don’t even need to read what they did to tell you my answer: life without parole. I understand that in countries without a death penalty, activists are targeting life without parole as being “cruel and unusual”. Not to hijack the thread, but if we didn’t have a death penalty, would you be as accepting of LWOP? ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/68 "2010-09-15T15:37:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If you really want a system which will guarantee – GUARANTEE – that innocent people will die (and please don’t raise that horseshit about peple’s intentions Good or bad intentions have nothing the fuck to do with it. People with good intentions still fuck up, especially in highly emotionally charged cases), then you ought to be willing to be one the innocent people executed (because you are certainly willing for the next guy to be one. If you are not willing, then your argument has no moral validity or consistency because you want a special exception for yourself. You’re saying you want everybody else to play Russian Roulette except for you. Um, no. I can be for all sorts of laws and rules and systems, yet still hope to avoid the negative consequences of those systems. And, while I can’t speak for **Corner Case** , I’m assuming that he or she _ **is** _ willing to live in a society with the possibility of being condemned to death for a crime he/she didn’t commit. Whether **Corner Case** is willing to “be one of the innocent executed” is, frankly, a stupid question, and I think you know that. **Corner Case** is willing to take the inherent risk of living in a society with the death penalty. I’d say that absolves him/her of any lack of “moral validity”. There is no special exception. > [@Sailboat](#): > > I was _infuriated_ reading about the case. I really feel like punishing them somehow. > > And the police may be absolutely certain these particular guys are guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, and they may be right about that. > > But it bears mentioning that the truly outrageous, infuriating crimes are the ones we _most_ need to be careful about. When our emotions are worked up – and especially when _everyone’s_ emotions are worked up – it’s possible that honest mistakes will be made, or details glossed over in the rush to get these guys punished, or some cocksure detective might hide one piece of evidence that doesn’t fit just to make sure the guys he _knows_ are bad go down, and so on. > > We are most at risk of making a mistake when we are least in control of ourselves. This is an incredibly important point, regardless of one’s stand on the death penalty. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/69 "2010-09-15T15:42:07Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > And, while I can’t speak for **Corner Case** , I’m assuming that he or she _ **is** _ willing to live in a society with the possibility of being condemned to death for a crime he/she didn’t commit. Whether **Corner Case** is willing to “be one of the innocent executed” is, frankly, a stupid question, and I think you know that. **Corner Case** is willing to take the inherent risk of living in a society with the death penalty. I’d say that absolves him/her of any lack of “moral validity”. There is no special exception. It might absolve the person if the mistakes were evenly distributed throughout society. But they aren’t. A poor person is significantly more likely to be one of the mistakes on the altar of revenge. Unless a person is in one of the groups more likely to be wrongfully accused, convicted, and executed, then by being willing to accept those errors, they are being willing to sacrifice other people at a greater rate than themselves. And that is lack of moral validity. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/70 "2010-09-15T16:04:31Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > Not to hijack the thread, but if we didn’t have a death penalty, would you be as accepting of LWOP? Yes. As long as there is a reasonable process for appeals, I recognize that some people need to be permanently segregated from society. I just don’t think that the way we do so should be irreversable, i.e., death. I’m sure the poor and minorities will still be convicted at a higher rate, but at least there’s a chance to correct the errors and salvage some part of their lives. > [@villa](#): > > It might absolve the person if the mistakes were evenly distributed throughout society. But they aren’t. A poor person is significantly more likely to be one of the mistakes on the altar of revenge. > > Unless a person is in one of the groups more likely to be wrongfully accused, convicted, and executed, then by being willing to accept those errors, they are being willing to sacrifice other people at a greater rate than themselves. And that is lack of moral validity. This needs to be emphasized and repeated. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/71 "2010-09-15T16:29:06Z")
If we could lock up the really really dangerous people, making sure they would never escape or have one second’s worth of enjoyment, I would not want the death penalty. Ted Bundy became his own lawyer so he could gain access to the photos of his crime scenes, and dead bodies. He used them to jerk off in his cell. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/72 "2010-09-15T16:42:21Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > The system you support is used to remove the “cancers” of those who are often too poor, or of the wrong color, to be treated like rich white people who commit the same crimes. If memory serves those two rabid dog tumor assholes are white. BTK is white. Ted Bundy was white. Albert DiSalvo was white. About the only serial killer/mass murdered I really remember that was black is Wayne Williams[Atlanta child Murders] Just a quick romp through crime library does show a couple orientals in California, and a tiny sprinkling of blacks. The majority of killers that I would see executed happen to be white. I will concede the not rich part though, not that many rich people in the US, though firmly middle class and upper lower class. A few homeless/vagrant whites in the mix. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/73 "2010-09-15T16:50:42Z")
What about Timothy McVeigh and OJ Simpson? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/74 "2010-09-15T16:52:40Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > If we could lock up the really really dangerous people, making sure they would never escape or have one second’s worth of enjoyment, I would not want the death penalty. We already can do this, and we already do. > [@](#): > > Ted Bundy became his own lawyer so he could gain access to the photos of his crime scenes, and dead bodies. He used them to jerk off in his cell. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Renee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/renee/32/287_2.png) [@Renee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/75 "2010-09-15T17:00:22Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > However, I would be happy for some criminals to be allowed to keep their belt and be kept in a cell with a convenient beam and chair. > > Why? Why should they have any choice in what happens to them? Because it would save taxpayer money and trouble? Seems reasonable to me. Hell, I see no reason at all to prevent suicide in most of the prison population. You’re a violent criminal and want to off yourself? Be my guest. Install security cameras if you’re worried about guards “helping” prisoners commit suicide. If you’re not in prison and want to kill yourself, it’s easy enough, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/76 "2010-09-15T17:00:37Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > > The system you support is used to remove the “cancers” of those who are often too poor, or of the wrong color, to be treated like rich white people who commit the same crimes. > > If memory serves those two rabid dog tumor assholes are white. BTK is white. Ted Bundy was white. Albert DiSalvo was white. About the only serial killer/mass murdered I really remember that was black is Wayne Williams[Atlanta child Murders] Just a quick romp through crime library does show a couple orientals in California, and a tiny sprinkling of blacks. The majority of killers that I would see executed happen to be white. I will concede the not rich part though, not that many rich people in the US, though firmly middle class and upper lower class. A few homeless/vagrant whites in the mix. You’re only talking about serial killers which are a tiny minority of those on death row. You see them because they are the most sensationalized, but for every white serial killer there are dozens of poor blacks and Hispanics you never heard of convicted of much more garden variety murders. A lot of thm are gang bangers and drug dealers and the like. Even the wrongly convicted are rarely angels, but that doesn’t mean they still can’t be wrongly convicted, and that’s where the chance of error and/or basic indifference in the sytem and by jurors is likely to show uo, One Crip with dreadlocks is as good as another. If he didn’t commit this murder, he probably did something else. That’s where the mistakes are made. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/77 "2010-09-15T17:01:39Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > What about Timothy McVeigh and OJ Simpson? What about them? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/78 "2010-09-15T17:04:28Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Ted Bundy became his own lawyer so he could gain access to the photos of his crime scenes, and dead bodies. He used them to jerk off in his cell. I going to politely ask for a cite on that. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/79 "2010-09-15T17:06:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > > > If we could lock up the really really dangerous people, making sure they would never escape or have one second’s worth of enjoyment, I would not want the death penalty. > > We already can do this, and we already do. No convicted killer has ever escaped from prison? > [@](#): > > Ted Bundy became his own lawyer so he could gain access to the photos of his crime scenes, and dead bodies. He used them to jerk off in his cell. > [@](#): > > So what? So we can’t guarentee they will not have a second’s worth of pleasure. And I wonder how thw victims’ families felt about that. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > > > What about Timothy McVeigh and OJ Simpson? > > What about them? Kind of disputes the black/white thesis of murder conviction and death penalty. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740/80 "2010-09-15T17:09:27Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > The majority of killers that I would see executed happen to be white. So you want to change the death penalty to only apply to really heinous crimes? Because you ignored pretty much everybody but high-profile serial killers. What’s your cutoff? > [@Renee](#): > > Because it would save taxpayer money and trouble? Seems reasonable to me. Good point. Of course, then we run into the problem that \*nobody \*is allowed to kill themselves. Not really fair to let someone convicted of a heinous crime off themselves and not a person dying of a terrible medical condition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-should-happen-to-these-two-defendants/553740.md?page=5)