So what should happen to these two defendants?

[Corner_Case]

@Shot_From_Guns

1.) What if someone is someone committed a horribly violent murder, but one that there is no risk they will repeat (i.e., they are not “lethal”)?

They still have to pay for that crime. This is the case now when a murderer is given X years and allowed parole. Name some situations and we’ll discuss (see below*).

@Shot_From_Guns

2.) How do you determine if someone is “nonrehabilitable”?

I don’t know, I’m not a psychologist, but there are some psychologists who evaluate this.

@Shot_From_Guns

3.) If someone commits a horribly violent murder but is “rehabilitable” by your criteria, do you think they should be eligible for parole?

“Hell No!” is my first response, but then I think about it… Yes, if the person is rehabilitated (and I’m not qualified to have criteria) that means they are not driven by the same motivations that caused the act in the first place. It is then similar to point 1 - serve a sentence society demands.

@Shot_From_Guns

4.) Why “should” they be executed?

If they are a lethal danger to society.

@Death Penalty information Center

here
U.S. death penalty cases. In “US: Death by Discrimination - The Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases,” Amnesty states that:

Even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims.

More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries.

and

University of North Carolina found that defendants whose victims are white are 3.5 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those with non-white victims.

So murder victims are evenly distributed but it’s more death-penalty-worthy to kill a white person. I don’t like this and this needs to be addressed by society.

• Here’s a real twisted situation: You have a serial killer who kills indiscriminately. You catch them and they avow to keep killing no matter what. Death Penalty in my opinion, right? What if they are a multiple personality? What if every psychologist agrees that the other personality is sane, never murdered, and poses no lethal danger. The problem is no one can prevent the evil personality from surfacing.

First thoughts: Sentence the evil personality to death after a trial. Ask the good personality if they want euthanasia or if they would allow medical experiments to remove/kill the bad personality. The good personality gets the choice, all the time. If the bad personality is removed/killed then the sentence has been fulfilled. If no medical people have an interest in this research then offer the good personality euthanasia or life in prison. It would be cruel to inflict that on a good person. Not a great set of choices, but we’re not perfect. If I knew there was no medical science to kill a second personality and it is proven to me that I harbored a serial killer, then I’d opt to rid society of him/me.

[sub]Sorry for using “preponderance” of evidence earlier. I was really thinking a kind of “no reasonable doubt” meaning but I used the wrong term.[/sub]

[jordanr2]

@Inigo_Montoya

@jordanr2

** Some stuff * *Does doing that, or fantasizing about doing that, add anything to the sum total of goodness in the world?

Why ever would you assume the existence of a relationship between “goodness” and “reaction to vile action?” Humans are full of empty bravado. I should be very surprised if any of the posters you refer to would actually participate in the acts they prescribe. It’s one thing to snatch the moral high ground and pose as wise, just, and tough; it’s another altogether to actively harm and prolong the suffering of another. Anyone who can do that is no less dangerous than the prisoners.

Oh, agreed. I just find it peculiar that people even fantasize about these things. Why would it brighten someone’s day to imagine inflicting awful physical torment on another human being, no matter what they’d done?

People who are pro-death penalty should be made to look the condemned in the eye as they push the button that ends the life. I wonder how many would change their minds once they realized what they’ve done.

Also agreed (though since the death penalty should be discontinued worldwide, I’d hate to see anyone have the chance to do this). I have yet to see an argument against this that’s not a bunch of rationalization.

[jordanr2]

@Corner_Case

• Here’s a real twisted situation: You have a serial killer who kills indiscriminately. You catch them and they avow to keep killing no matter what. Death Penalty in my opinion, right? What if they are a multiple personality? What if every psychologist agrees that the other personality is sane, never murdered, and poses no lethal danger. The problem is no one can prevent the evil personality from surfacing.

First thoughts: Sentence the evil personality to death after a trial. Ask the good personality if they want euthanasia or if they would allow medical experiments to remove/kill the bad personality. The good personality gets the choice, all the time. If the bad personality is removed/killed then the sentence has been fulfilled. If no medical people have an interest in this research then offer the good personality euthanasia or life in prison. It would be cruel to inflict that on a good person. Not a great set of choices, but we’re not perfect. If I knew there was no medical science to kill a second personality and it is proven to me that I harbored a serial killer, then I’d opt to rid society of him/me.

Hmmm. Do multiple personalities actually work this way outside of movies? (I think I see what you’re shooting for, but still.)

[raventhief]

I have mainly skimmed this thread, so maybe I missed stuff, or jusr don’t know enough about the legal system, or am just confused. It costs more to execute someone than to keep imprison them for 50+ years, providing nourishing food and shelter - do the prisons where someone is serving LWOP provide medical treatment when their bodies get sick or worn out or whatever? Because of appeals? Because someone on death row gets X number of appeals, and Lwop means X - 1 (or 5 or 10)? So once someone serving Lwop exhausts the number alloted to him, how could his innocence later be proven? If someone comes forward and volunteers the info, or it somehow comes to light? I really am curious, I am staying out of the discussion of whether or not its right or wrong. I just want to understand.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Wheelz

High-horse holier-than-thou claptrap.

Everyone might not have it in them to throw the switch, but it doesn’t automatically make them wrong. And if someone did to my family what the scumbags in the OP did, I have little doubt I’d find it in me.

And to those who say the death penalty is about revenge and bloodlust, I have to reply: So what? I think the families of the victims deserve revenge, and I make no apologies for believing that.

This is important. As a believer that under no circumstances is the death penalty OK, and for moral, not practical reasons, here’s my response: if I had the authority and the capacity to kill people in the blink of an eye, I think there’s very close to zero chance at all that I’d have gotten this far without killing anybody, because I’ve been so upset that I was irrational about it plenty of times. And nothing that terrible has even happened to me. Nobody in my immediate family has ever been murdered or raped or anything, I’ve never been the victim of a violent crime, etc. And yet I’ve definitely been angry enough that, if it was immediately up to me, somebody’s head would have been exploded. It would have been a terrible thing to do, and I’d have regretted it immediately, I imagine, but I’m fairly certain I’d have done it.

My point is that at each of those times, the only thing I was qualified to do was make a terrible mistake. When you premise your belief in the death penalty upon “if someone in my family…” what you’re basically doing is saying “If I was in the worst possible position to make anything like a reasonable decision about this…” And that’s a terrible premise for a judicial system to start from. The whole point of having a judge and jury is so we don’t have to deal with vendettas and blood feuds in the first place. Of course you’d kill people if it was your family. That’s why, when it’s your family, you aren’t the one we ask to do the right thing.

[Chimera]

My personal opinion is that the Death Penalty should only be used where there is incontrovertable evidence that the person is guilty. Not ‘reasonable doubt’, but NO doubt.

With these guys, there is no doubt of any kind.

This really does limit it to the John Gacys, Jeffrey Dahmers, Manson family people, BTK, about whom we are absolutely certain, and about whom we can be certain that there is no redemption.

Having limited it to these kinds of circumstances, I then want to go with the Russian system, where one day, at a time completely unknown to the prisoner, they are taken to the showers just like any other day, but this time a bullet is put in the back of their head. (If you’ve ever seen Citizen X). No years of waiting and appealing, no drama of setting a date and getting an audience to witness it like it’s some big fucking formal ceremony. No giving them that audience to make them feel important. Just “One day, we’re going to put a bullet in the back of your head. You will die alone, without ever seeing it coming. Then we will cremate your body and flush the ashes down the sewer where they belong”.

[jordanr2]

@Chimera

This really does limit it to the John Gacys, Jeffrey Dahmers, Manson family people, BTK, about whom we are absolutely certain, and about whom we can be certain that there is no redemption.

How can we “be certain that there is no redemption” with anyone? Read John Waters on the Manson Family’s Leslie Van Houten for an eye-opener.

[carnivorousplant]

@jordanr2

How can we “be certain that there is no redemption” with anyone?

I don’t see how there can be for cutting a fetus from a pregnant woman.
Upon reflection, I don’t see how there can be redemption from intended murder unless you can bring a person back to life.

[jordanr2]

@carnivorousplant

@jordanr2

How can we “be certain that there is no redemption” with anyone?

Upon reflection, I don’t see how there can be redemption from intended murder unless you can bring a person back to life.

in that case, you’re not really the target of my question.

[Doxy]

Execute them.
Or find a way to send them into some sort of isolation from society. An island perhaps, where they can live like the animals they are.

[Wheelz]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

As a believer that under no circumstances is the death penalty OK, and for moral, not practical reasons, here’s my response: if I had the authority and the capacity to kill people in the blink of an eye, I think there’s very close to zero chance at all that I’d have gotten this far without killing anybody, because I’ve been so upset that I was irrational about it plenty of times. And nothing that terrible has even happened to me. Nobody in my immediate family has ever been murdered or raped or anything, I’ve never been the victim of a violent crime, etc. And yet I’ve definitely been angry enough that, if it was immediately up to me, somebody’s head would have been exploded. It would have been a terrible thing to do, and I’d have regretted it immediately, I imagine, but I’m fairly certain I’d have done it.

My point is that at each of those times, the only thing I was qualified to do was make a terrible mistake. When you premise your belief in the death penalty upon “if someone in my family…” what you’re basically doing is saying “If I was in the worst possible position to make anything like a reasonable decision about this…” And that’s a terrible premise for a judicial system to start from. The whole point of having a judge and jury is so we don’t have to deal with vendettas and blood feuds in the first place. Of course you’d kill people if it was your family. That’s why, when it’s your family, you aren’t the one we ask to do the right thing.

You make some excellent points, and I’ll concede that some of my earlier remarks were colored by my reaction to the horrible story in the OP.

But I do think it’s naive to believe that the criminal justice system is supposed to be all about rehabilitation and not punishment. (I know you didn’t say that, Jimmy, but others here have implied as much.)

Some criminals are able to turn their lives around, sure, but it’s not society’s job to make sure they do. And there are actions that should – justly, IMO – cause one to forfeit one’s right to be rehabilitated. Further, there are certain actions that should – also justly, IMO – cause one to forfeit one’s right to continue to live.

There can be an element of “revenge” involved in the process without automatically precluding it from also being “justice”. Some may find this distasteful but I believe it to be true.

[Morgenstern]

Here’s an example of how a convicted sex offender who raped and murdered two teen girls then escaped the death penalty by giving up the location of one of the bodies. He received life without.

Chelsea and Amber

I"m normally anti-DP, but circumstances like this might make me reconsider as to that specific defendant.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@Wheelz

But I do think it’s naive to believe that the criminal justice system is supposed to be all about rehabilitation and not punishment.

I guess my question is, “What is the point of punishment?” My tiny mind can only find two reasons:

1. Rehabilitation: I do this with my kids when they make mistakes that cross the line from “oops, I’ve just learned a bit more about how the world works” and wandered into “I knew going into it that it was the wrong thing to do.” Basically, the point is to impose an unpleasant restriction or task that is intended to be a deterrent to behavior that is known to be wrong. Maybe it even clarifies why the behavior was wrong: i.e. making a vandal clean up tag marks in the neighborhood so the offender can see what a pain in the ass it is

2. **Revenge **(I can’t think of a better word): This would be imposing an unpleasant restriction or task that doesn’t have any educational value at all: i.e. 10 years staring at concrete blocks and steel bars for selling drugs (as opposed to finding out why the person was selling drugs and taking steps to give them viable alternatives)

User name aside, I really don’t see how revenge is useful to either party. All it does is embitter the punishee and it doesn’t undo the deed, or prevent future ones. It’s a waste of time and resources.

[Morgenstern]

@Inigo_Montoya

@Wheelz

But I do think it’s naive to believe that the criminal justice system is supposed to be all about rehabilitation and not punishment.

I guess my question is, “What is the point of punishment?” My tiny mind can only find two reasons:

1. Rehabilitation: I do this with my kids when they make mistakes that cross the line from “oops, I’ve just learned a bit more about how the world works” and wandered into “I knew going into it that it was the wrong thing to do.” Basically, the point is to impose an unpleasant restriction or task that is intended to be a deterrent to behavior that is known to be wrong. Maybe it even clarifies why the behavior was wrong: i.e. making a vandal clean up tag marks in the neighborhood so the offender can see what a pain in the ass it is

2. **Revenge **(I can’t think of a better word): This would be imposing an unpleasant restriction or task that doesn’t have any educational value at all: i.e. 10 years staring at concrete blocks and steel bars for selling drugs (as opposed to finding out why the person was selling drugs and taking steps to give them viable alternatives)

User name aside, I really don’t see how revenge is useful to either party. All it does is embitter the punishee and it doesn’t undo the deed, or prevent future ones. It’s a waste of time and resources.

I think there needs to be a #3 added to your list.

3. Protection of Society Self-explanatory probably.

[Annie-Xmas]

The night before his execution, Ted Bundy admitted to killing multiple women, including some who were still listed as “missing” and who he was not suspected of killing.

These families now have closure. If he were given life without parole, they wouldn’t.

[silenus]

@Morgenstern

@Inigo_Montoya

I guess my question is, “What is the point of punishment?” My tiny mind can only find two reasons:

1. Rehabilitation: I do this with my kids when they make mistakes that cross the line from “oops, I’ve just learned a bit more about how the world works” and wandered into “I knew going into it that it was the wrong thing to do.” Basically, the point is to impose an unpleasant restriction or task that is intended to be a deterrent to behavior that is known to be wrong. Maybe it even clarifies why the behavior was wrong: i.e. making a vandal clean up tag marks in the neighborhood so the offender can see what a pain in the ass it is

2. **Revenge **(I can’t think of a better word): This would be imposing an unpleasant restriction or task that doesn’t have any educational value at all: i.e. 10 years staring at concrete blocks and steel bars for selling drugs (as opposed to finding out why the person was selling drugs and taking steps to give them viable alternatives)

User name aside, I really don’t see how revenge is useful to either party. All it does is embitter the punishee and it doesn’t undo the deed, or prevent future ones. It’s a waste of time and resources.

I think there needs to be a #3 added to your list.

3. Protection of Society Self-explanatory probably.

We put down rabid dogs. We don’t stick them in the pound until they die. These killers are less than dogs, but they deserve the same treatment. They should be removed from society permanently. Feeding them for years is a waste of resources. .38 in the ear and feed the remains to the buzzards.

[jordanr2]

@Annie-Xmas

The night before his execution, Ted Bundy admitted to killing multiple women, including some who were still listed as “missing” and who he was not suspected of killing.

These families now have closure. If he were given life without parole, they wouldn’t.

How do you know, and why do you presume to speak for these families? What does “closure” mean, anyway?

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Wheelz

But I do think it’s naive to believe that the criminal justice system is supposed to be all about rehabilitation and not punishment. (I know you didn’t say that, Jimmy, but others here have implied as much.)

I guess it depends on what determines what it’s “supposed” to be. But you’re right. In fact, there are studies demonstrating that even among people who claim that the purpose of punishment is rehabilitation or deterrence, there’s an element of “just deserts” in how most of them perceive justice that must be accounted for to explain the kinds of punishment they’d choose. The factors that ought to be relevant to a decision-maker if he’s using, say, a deterrent method of determining a criminal sentence just aren’t. What are relevant fairly across the board, as it turns out, are the factors that we’d expect to affect an approach that values punishment for punishment’s sake. Most people who think deterrence or rehabilitation are the proper goals of criminal justice are unsatisfied by criminal sentences that strictly speaking ought to be sufficient for those aims, because they tend not to be equivalent to the sense of moral outrage the crimes caused.

So psychologically speaking, there’s no question, I don’t think, that criminal justice serves society’s need to see wrongdoers punished emphatically, and not in the service of some utilitarian objective. On the other hand, we have a whole system of laws set up that specifically doesn’t say that the wicked shall be smitten, or anything of the sort. So it might be the case that the criminal justice system definitely isn’t supposed to be about retribution on behalf of society, but it’s naive to suggest that it isn’t anyway.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@silenus

We put down rabid dogs. We don’t stick them in the pound until they die. These killers are less than dogs, but they deserve the same treatment. They should be removed from society permanently. Feeding them for years is a waste of resources.

We put down rabid people, too, for what that’s worth. Your logic is breaking down, you’re better than this.

I agree they need to be removed from society, and probably permanently, because they’re a demonstrated danger. But killing them eliminates their real value as psychological case studies. We don’t just kill people with cancer, hepatitis and Parkinson’s; we keep them alive and continually try to determine the cause and cure for their illness. Learning about the disease may not help those who are sick today, but the knowlege can be used to prevent or identify the malady in others.

The guys in the OP (as well as the gal in Virginia who got sent to God last night) are clearly abnormal. If we can find out why, we might be able to prevent someone else from enjoying the effects of illnesses like theirs.

[Annie-Xmas]

Experts do study serial killers from the time they are caught until they are executed. How many years is it necessary to study any person until you know everything abbout them?

Robert Ressler, who founded the FBI serial killers unit, and knows more about them than anybody, describes this run-in with one in his book Whoever Fights Monsters

Kemper is one of the most deadly dangerous - and fascinating - serial killers of modern times in that he is extremely intelligent, articulate, and insightful, and is therefore able to offer investigators great insight into his own mind. He is, in fact, so ingratiating and pleasant that at times even those who should be the least vulnerable to his charms fall prey to them. In the late 1970’s, I interviewed Kemper several times as part of the Criminal Personality Research Project. I became comfortable enough with Kemper that an interview was conducted one-on-one, with no other federal agent or law enforcement officer present. Upon concluding their discussion, I pressed a buzzer to alert the guards that I was ready to leave. When no one came to unlock the door, I pressed the buzzer again. After three attempts at summoning a guard Kemper spoke up. Kemper said “Relax. They’re changing the shift, feeding the guys in the secure areas. Might be fifteen, twenty minutes before they come and get you.”

Kemper was playing the part of the master manipulator. He wasn’t letting up either.

“If I went in apeshit in here, you’d be in a lot of trouble, wouldn’t you? I could screw your head off and place it on the table to greet the guard.”

I tried to reason with Kemper, assuring that there would be trouble if anything untoward happened. Kemper replied, “What would they do - cut off my TV privileges?”

Kemper,I knew, was exactly right. While killing me might earn his extra time added to his sentence or a stint in solitary confinement, there wasn’t much that could be done to Kemper that would be any worse than spending the rest of his life in prison. Not to mention killing a federal agent would undoubtedly give him great respect and notoriety in the prison population.

I began hinting that he might be armed, telling Kemper that FBI men might be given special privileges for carrying weapons into a prison. When asked what the weapon might be, I hedged, saying, “I’m not going to give away what I might have or where I might have it on me.” Kemper pressed the issue, and finally asked, “[Is it] martial arts then? Karate? Got your black belt? Think you can take me?” The mood had shifted, and I took this as an opportunity to begin a conversation about martial arts.

Finally, a guard appeared to allow me to leave and return Kemper to his cell. As I was exiting the room, Kemper touched my shoulder and said, “You know I was just kidding, don’t you?”

After that incident, Ressler realized that Kepler had manipulated him into trusting him. He made it an FBI rule that they never interview killers alone, as it was just too damn dangerous.