Well, to the Dope’s credit, only one poll responder pulled that stunt.
I respect that. It’s a consistent point of view. I just think that since we can never be 100% certain we need to choose. 1) The evidence might have an error, but it’s good enough to lock someone away and deprive them of living a life or 2) The evidence is is good enough, and the people in society deserve to live life free from the burden of those who seek to destroy it.
I would do everything I could to prove them innocent. I would seek criminal action against people that destroyed evidence or were malfeasant. But me and my family should not be treated to any higher or lower standard than anyone else.
You keep phrasing your questions so strangely. It’s like you are saying “They are about to repeal the death penalty. Are you going to let your innocent child be killed to keep it?” If the majority wants to keep unrepentant/sociopathic murderers/et.al in life in prison, then I think that’s a waste of resources and an unnecessary physical and psychological burden on society, but the majority has spoken.
It serves a practical purpose from other points of view.
That’s why I mentioned that we would have to get into definitions. I am not a lawyer and I don’t even play one on TV.
Good. And when that is obtained I would like to act in accordance with it.
How to handle the “double standard” is a good question. I approach it from the point of view that my life is just as valueable as the other guy. Then, that value extends outward from self, to family, to neighborhood, city, country, world, etc. - to larger and larger societal groups. The society has a right to a life as well. Just as I would sacrifce myself for the greater good, I would also sacrifice another for the greater good.
That is an entirely different argument. Those people who practice this are deserving of punishment themselves.
I have no cites, just my opinions. There may be none who have escaped. My main contention is that support of these people (who have already been judged as not being allowed to be in society) is a burden.
It’s my opinion.
He.
I would like for eveyone to receive a fair trial, the ability to research the evidence, and present their case. The appeal gives you the chance to see the prosecution’s POV and research to refute it. If there is no reasonable doubt and the decision is made, then honor your convictions. If the judgement is to remove someone from society forever then do it without equivocation. If they are judged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and judged to be a continued lethal danger to society, then do not torture them or society - just remove them quickly and permanently.
If I missed any questions, please let me know. Sorry, for the delay in responding, real life continues to intrude.
Don’t you see one significant difference? If you haven’t killed them, you can at least partially rectify your mistake.
But you would be treated to a higher standard. It isn’t plausible to say everyone gets a fair shake, so we accept mistakes. The mistakes are overwhelmingly carried by particular groups in society - the most notable group being those raised in poverty who live in poverty. People with parents able to do things to prove them innocent don’t tend to end up wrongly on death row.
You aren’t being neutral here. You are supporting a system that enshrines discrimination. It’s the equivalent of a white Christian saying that he supports abolishing all funding into Tay Sachs disease and Sickle Cell. He can stand there and say that it places him and his family at the same risk, but it simply doesn’t.
The death penalty in the United States is broken, because it is applied fundamentally unfairly. Until you can fix that, don’t try and dress up your willingness to accept the mistakes as in some way noble and expect us to believe you and your family would suffer the same risks.
And re a 6 month appeal window…
Do you have any clue how these cases tend to get overturned? How long it takes? How much easier limiting things to 6 months would make miscarriages of justice?
People tend ot stop investigating once a person is dead, because there are plenty of living people who need help. It can take eyars for the evidence to come forward - maybe it is the actual killer, who confesses once he becomes so sick that he feels he needs to clear his conscience. Maybe it is the cop who after retirement gets an attack of conscience and admits to fudging evidence. These things don’t happen in six months.
I’m working with someone who has been in prison for a crime he did not commit for 20 years. I am sure it is a crime that many here would have seen him executed for. The current system already screws prisoners trying to appeal royally anyway. I guess we should commend you for your honesty - it probably is kinder to just say “screw you, we don’t care about guilt or innocence, we are going to kill you because you are poor” than to put people through the charade of the moment.
Of course I do. Thankfully, it is not up to me to figure out what is best for criminals.
No it isn’t. Why does it all have to be so black and white to you? Why should anyone get to benefit from perpetrating violence on another person? Hell, now that you mention it, maybe someone who takes clothes from someone at gunpoint should be naked under some circumstance that makes it punishment. LIKE I SAID, I don’t have really set opinions on the death penalty. I don’t always know what the best thing to do is in every circumstance. I recognize that. It’s a failure of being human. But the beauty of being human is that we’re flexible. Not every story has the same ending. Every event has circumstances that are unique to that one time. I try to avoid a mindset that uses the terms “never” or “always” because sure as shit, I’ll be faced with a circumstance that negates those words.
Nope. Again, here’s a new what if!
Your being obnoxious to someone who isn’t even strenuously arguing against your deeply held beliefs.
No, you didn’t. Tell you what. If you want people like me who SIT ON THE FENCE to take your arguments to heart, or even seriously, dial back the sarcasm. I’m not an idiot. I’m pretty sure that’s clear, although you will inevitably take this opportunity to proclaim that’s not the case. Rational discourse is fun. Adversarial sniping is not, and not productive if you want someone to hear you.
It’s awfully damn hard statistics about the number of escapees “just” in jail for murder and who has gotten life with out parole, or people probably would have answered you by now; the reconviction of murder rate is around 6% but obviously that includes people who were paroled as well as those who escaped. I’m pretty sure you’d have just as hard a time coming up with hard statistics about the later proven innocent.
I’ll tell you what, though, I’ll give you examples of convicted murderers who escaped since 1960, and you give me an example of one person who was executed since 1960 who was later realized to be innocent. Ready?
2010:
Daniel Renwick, Tracy Province, and John McCluskey - all convicted of murder before their recent escapes. Tracy and John are thought to be responsible for two more murders this summer.
2009:
Jeffrey Grinder and Calvin Adams - hey look! life with out parole.
Jason Gainey - escaped along with three others charged with murder
Kandelario Garcia-Ramos - found five days later
Mark Booher & Charles Smith - escaped prison with a rapist.
2007:
Danny Martin Gallegos and Juan Carlos Diaz-Arevalo - took hours before guards noticed they were gone.
2006:
Richard Lee McNair - escaped not once, not twice, but 3 times after his murder conviction.
2003:
Jerry Vernon - was on the lam for years after escaping while serving a life sentence
2002:
John William Roland III - captured after a week
2001:
Elmer Edward Solly - finally captured 27 years after escaping while visiting his mother
Lee John Knoch- murderer/torturer escaped with a rapist
O.C. Borden, Gary Ray Scott and Steve Murphy- the first two serving life without parole, the third serving life, and three other inmates escaped maximum-security prison when the fence malfunctioned.
James Robert Thomas - life without parole plus another 400 years of sentencing for rape (sorry, abc news link isn’t working)
2000:
The Texas 7- two of the seven were serving for murder before escaping and killing a police officer
James Prestridge- with help of another prisoner, this murderer escaped while being transported to another facility
1999:
Kenneth Williams - sentenced to life without parole, escaped, commited two more murders
Yeah… going all the way back to 1960 seems like overkill, so I’ll stop here. How’s finding a person who was wrongly executed in the past 50 years going?
I’m against the death penalty, even in egregious cases like this one.
Life in prison, without possibility of parole- that’s my vote.
Should Hayes and/or Komisarjevsky repent, their penance and/or road to forgiveness can be actualized in and through the penal system. No matter how unlikely that might be, such redemption is possible, if not probable, while it is cut off entirely by the State taking their lives when it is not compelled to do so.
There’s no need for the State to take action to protect the public from them, further than it must.
For monsters like these, is there any obligation to provide them with standard prison accomodation? I’m thinking they ought to be held in solitary, with (maybe) one hour/month in the yard for good behavior.
Their living conditions ought to ones that encourage early death.
I’d administer the lethal injection if they need volunteers. I’ve never done one before, which would make me an even better candidate.
I’m not a death penalty proponant, so no, INHO, they shouldn’t be executed. They police who surrounded the home for a half hour doing absolutely nothing while the family was being killed inside should certainly face some repercussions. “It was protocol” they said. “We didn’t think anyone was in immediate danger”. It wasn’t until the husband came outside that they went in. They aren’t responsible for the crime - that’s all on the killers. They are responsible for their inaction.
StG
I don’t like the death penalty, so I’m going to have to say life in prison with no chance of parole.
They should be kept locked away anyway, for our safety, but in terms of punishment probably the most apt punishment would be that device from ST:Voyager that makes you experience your crime from the perspective of your victim.
It keeps a dangerous person from committing more crimes.
It’s just not a matter of cruelty, it’s most importantly a matter of irreversibility. But even besides that, there are different levels of cruelty, and of appropriateness of punishment.
We don’t need to cater to irrational fears. Otherwise we’ll have to execute the criminal and also hire a voodoo priest to banish their spirit so the victims aren’t forced to fear that killer will become a poltergeist or zombie.
What part of “no chance of parole” is confusing you? A saintly redeemed monster has plenty of opportunities for charitable work from within the prison system.
Convictions just aren’t reliable enough, and even if they were, executions aren’t very effective for most of the reasons they are suggested.
You are, of course, to be commended for your willingness to kill those who are sick enough to be willing to kill.
I chose death, but am now thinking it would be too good for them. A long, painful torture resulting in death would be preferable.
In addition to escapes, there is always the chance that a really manipulative criminal will work the system to his advantage to get out early. I think the case of Ronnie Biggs is a great example of how a skilled sociopath can manipulate the gullible into releasing him (he’s been claiming that he is on death’s door since 2001, finally managed to get a release on “compassionate grounds” after serving just a third of his sentence of 30 years for a violent robbery, but once he got on the outside it appeared that he had a miraculous improvement in his health - go figure!).
When I think of violent sociopaths like the people who killed this poor family, I don’t want revenge or to torture them, just as I would not want to torture a vicious dog that had mauled a toddler. It’s just that, in both cases, it’s really for the best to humanely euthanize such a vicious creature. Sociopaths don’t change. They don’t start caring about people’s rights suddenly after a lifetime of hurting others. At most, they just get better at learning how to ape normal behavior so they don’t get in trouble or how to ape remorse to make people think they’ve “changed”. Sociopaths don’t grow consciences.
I certainly would sleep better knowing that someone who had viciously raped and killed my loved ones had been humanely put to sleep than worrying that some gullible do-gooder idiot might feel sorry for the criminal and let them out of prison early for one reason or another.
I grew up a few towns away from Cheshire. My high school was rivals with Cheshire High School and we have many family friends in that town. So I’ve been following this story from the beginning. But still, I hope that the defendant does not get the death penalty as I’m opposed to it.
Sort of funny story, though. A few years ago, I received that letter for jury duty. My company would pay my salary for the period and I had no other legitimate reasons not to serve. So I was selected for the jury. It was a murder case, although I was confused why there was a trial, since the defense attorney mentioned the circumstances of the crime in his opening statement. That sounded like a stipulation as to the facts to me. The district attorney said not to worry about that and also that the death penalty “wasn’t an issue here.” I didn’t understand that part at the time and assumed that if we convicted the defendant of first-degree murder with special circumstances he would receive the death penalty at a later phase of the trial, perhaps not involving the jury. Since the guy was caught literally red-handed (covered in the blood of his estranged wife) and we found the special circumstances were present (principally laying in wait and also premeditation based on the fact that he brought the kitchen shears/murder weapon with him) I voted for first-degree murder with special circumstances, believing that I was sentencing him to death. But I found out from the other jurors after we voted that in fact the district attorney was not seeking the death penalty and in fact the only reason for the trial was to ensure that he would never get parole (by virtue of the first-degree conviction with special circumstances).
So despite my opposition to the death penalty, I voted in a way that I believed would send someone to the death chamber.
Death. Preferably yesterday.
I hope that poor, poor husband/dad is able to somehow find peace. I can’t even imagine how someone could get out of bed ever again after going through something like that. 
Given limited resources, do you think it is a better use of pro bono legal time to spend on preventing the execution of innocent people, or investigating the potential innocence of people already dead?
And how precisely can the innocence of a person excuted 50 years ago be determined - all we can get to is the point of reasonable doubt about their guilt, and death penalty proponents in that situation simply turn around and claim “you haven’t proved anything.”
Even if we had a recent case, with forensic evidence that was discovered to be someone else’s, that wouldn’t prove the executed person was not guilty - it would simply prove they weren’t the only person guilty.
People are more resilient than you give them credit for. Witness holocaust survivors, who have gone on to lead productive, happy lives after living through that absolute hell.
Good luck starting a crusade against the U.S. justice system, then.
Perhaps you should take some time to consider why this may be the case.
Not being killed after committing a murder isn’t benefitting from perpetrating a crime, unless they killed someone in order to steal their organs and have them transplanted into themself.
You made a silly statement, you got a silly answer.
Rational discourse is fun, when I agree with you. Rational discourse where I take your illogical statement to its illogical end, apparently, is not.
I’ll give you credit for at least making the attempt, though I’ll note that you didn’t provide evidence of further post-escape crimes for most of them, nor did you note them as a percentage of the population.
As for an innocent person executed, I think **villa **hit the nail on the head. With the desperately limited resources available to assist people who’ve been wrongly convicted, and the absolute end dates for such assistance created by execution, it’s unrealistic to expect that any effort at all will go to clearing the names of people who are already dead, when it means that someone else might die.
Why, thank you.