the danger is far from over. you're believing dangerous folks just quit being dangerous once behind bars? news flash... it is on for causing pain to the staff & fellow convicts of the penal system. please understand these folks do nothing but wish to harm others. 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, they wish to cause suffering; this all ends once they are put down
Chadwick, that's so unrealistic. First off, the bars and the enclosure and the heightened security of course greatly reduce their danger. If what you were saying had any actual truth to it, then staff and fellow convicts would be being hurt and murdered on an industrial scale in every prison in every country that does not have the death penalty. That is simply not happening. There are - as there will always be - situations where security lapses and exceptions do happen, but it is extremely rare considering how many murderers are incarcerated. It is very much the exception not the rule, so to use that as a justification for wholesale execution of all murderers is a completely invalid argument. It makes about as much sense as making all air travel illegal on the grounds that, on very rare occasions, planes might crash.
Tell Jeremy Phillips' mother that Chadwick is being unrealistic:
At least in this particular case... the Death Penalty would have served as a deterrent because the killer would not have been afforded the moment to kill again... just as he said he would.
Seriously? Did you even read my post? Come on - did I not just say in my post that exceptions do happen, but exceptions do not provide justification for a whole industrial scale death penalty system? Besides which, that is not - as you well know - what is meant by deterrent effect. Obviously that is true that were he dead he couldn't have killed again, but it is specious reasoning to conclude justification for the death penalty from that. And to illustrate the point, the article you posted says this:
"The real question surrounding the death is how a man who has said his need to kill is like a hunger ended up with a cellmate in a medium-security prison."
What it suggests plainly is that the security system failed, not that there is a necessary justification for the death penalty. The fact that had he been executed he would not have been able to is tangential to the core issue.
Note also that the article begins: "Usually when serial killers are caught, they are locked up for good and the public can take comfort they will never kill again." Which is exactly what I said in my post. But I've already spelled this out over and over again, and you're being rather selective in what you choose to comment on.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
when did i say all murderers are wholesale for execution? that is not at all a fact.
another news flash... dad worked at the iowa state penitentiary 30 years. i can not list all the violence endured as it would take countless hours of typing. i grew up surrounded by prison guards, cops, state police, sheriff deputies & decent wonderful people. daily life threats to dad, his pals & their families are a joke. but every blue moon there is the freak-show actually going to try & burn a families house to the ground, raping & killing everyone & loving it. the dude didn't really meet his own goal very well
some dudes behind bars will not ever be better, will not ever change & will always desire to harm someone, anyone & it happens all the time.
yes the guys in the backroom gambling hall in chicago are all packing heat, one get killed as a self defense gunfight breaks out. dude gets life in prison. this guy is not a terrible person. he actually looked out for dad's wellbeing & a mutual respect rules.
do not believe for a moment i have no idea what i am talking about. i have an entire horde of corrections officers at my fingertips for conversation, goodtimes, compassion & the mutual love of our father/friend & both good & bad memories & so the iowa state flag (presented to us by the warden at dad's final day above ground) rests in its place at my brother's house.
Chadwick; fair enough - you didn't actually say that - those are my words. But it certainly is the impression that you give off in the force and hatred you consistently express in your comments, when you talk about putting people down etc.
I am by no means saying that violence doesn't happen, and obviously from what you're saying here, you have more direct knowledge of that than I do. I won't dispute that. However, for the most part, in doing their jobs - hard and often violent as those jobs may often be - prison guards, cops, state police, sheriff deputies are severely limiting the amount of damage that inmates can do. Which was my point to begin with.
That said, as I have already said, exceptions can and do happen. But that is a case for strengthening and improving security systems. It is a logically flawed argument to conclude that it is a legitimate justification for a death penalty system.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Here's where I begin to get annoyed. I conceded to Byrnzie that any study which suggests that the dp does act as a deterrent is flawed because, as reasonable as it might sound to some, it stands on hypotheses and speculation. In the same breath, I speak to the illegitimacy of studies that have found the dp doesn't work as a deterrent because it places its findings on the same flawed data. And... both Byrnzie and Wolf refuse to acknowledge this.
Except the data isn't flawed. It's just you who says the studies are flawed. Yet the the studies are based on all of the evidence pertaining to the death penalty as it's currently applied, and all of the studies arrive at the same conclusion: the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Nothing flawed about that. The data is accurate. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Among other posts that clearly spoke to the illegitimacy of the incredibly skewed data (review my posts that detailed the numbers the state of Ohio has provided)... Wolf offered this: The conclusions of that meta-study was that deterrence as an issue was a moot point in the discussion since no studies on either side are credible. "According to a consensus of criminologists, economists and other academics who have reviewed deterrence studies from both sides and officially declared them useless. The National Academy of Sciences picked apart decades of deterrence research last year and recommended "that these studies not be used to inform deliberations" on capital punishment."
To which he later added, But for now, I hope I've made it clear to you that while I reject that the study you are referring to is credible enough to support the death penalty, I accept that there are no credible studies showing a definitive lack of deterrent effect on the other. However, I still maintain that when you think about what deterrence actually consists of, it sounds highly improbable. But now I think we should take the advice of those who carried out the meta-study and take that issue off the table.
Agreed?
To which- because I haven't done so already- I will agree.
And... Wolf... in the event you are reading... this is what I was referring to when I said this is why this is no longer a discussion people. If one side of the discussion presents something that is mostly irrefutable and the other side dismisses it- failing to see the logic- because it doesn't fall into line with what they want to believe... then there is no point in talking.
In April 2012, The National Research Council concluded that studies claiming that the death penalty affects murder rates were "fundamentally flawed" because they did not consider the effects of noncapital punishments and used "incomplete or implausible models." A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder.
The murder rate in non-Death Penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in States with the Death Penalty.
Overall National Murder Rates of Death Penalty and Non-Death Penalty States
The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.
Most of the world has abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Eighteen states in the United States have done the same. We have a historic opportunity to make New Hampshire the 19th state in the country to abolish the death penalty! JOIN US AND HELP MAKE HISTORY!
The world is moving closer to abolition, but we're not there yet. Amnesty's 2012 death penalty report shows progress but also steps back for human rights.
There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. North Carolina’s murder rate declined after executions stopped. The death penalty has failed to deliver on the much touted promise that it makes the people of North Carolina safer.
Over the past several years, there has been a steep drop-off in the use of the death penalty. No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006. The number of death sentences handed down by juries has been declining for years, and in 2012 for the first time, no one received the death penalty in North Carolina. Even prosecutors have declined to seek the death penalty in all but a handful of cases.
Yet, according to the N.C. Department of Justice, the state murder rate has declined in the years since executions stopped. Given this fact, there is no credible argument that the death penalty deters crime.
In fact, most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness. They represent a group that is highly unlikely to make rational decisions based on a fear of future consequences for their actions. The idea that the death penalty has the power to stop murder is naive and clearly proven false by the facts. Studies that have shown the death penalty reduces crime have been discredited by rigorous research.
Nationally, murder rates are significantly lower in states that don’t use the death penalty than in those with a death penalty statute — and have been consistently for the past two decades. In some years, the murder rate in non-death penalty states was as much as 46 percent lower than in death penalty states. In a 2008 survey, police chiefs from across the country ranked the use of the death penalty at the bottom of a list of effective crime fighting tools. They said more law enforcement resources were the most needed tool for reducing violent crime.
the danger is far from over. you're believing dangerous folks just quit being dangerous once behind bars? news flash... it is on for causing pain to the staff & fellow convicts of the penal system. please understand these folks do nothing but wish to harm others. 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, they wish to cause suffering; this all ends once they are put down
Chadwick, that's so unrealistic. First off, the bars and the enclosure and the heightened security of course greatly reduce their danger. If what you were saying had any actual truth to it, then staff and fellow convicts would be being hurt and murdered on an industrial scale in every prison in every country that does not have the death penalty. That is simply not happening. There are - as there will always be - situations where security lapses and exceptions do happen, but it is extremely rare considering how many murderers are incarcerated. It is very much the exception not the rule, so to use that as a justification for wholesale execution of all murderers is a completely invalid argument. It makes about as much sense as making all air travel illegal on the grounds that, on very rare occasions, planes might crash.
Tell Jeremy Phillips' mother that Chadwick is being unrealistic:
At least in this particular case... the Death Penalty would have served as a deterrent because the killer would not have been afforded the moment to kill again... just as he said he would.
Seriously? Did you even read my post? Come on - did I not just say in my post that exceptions do happen, but exceptions do not provide justification for a whole industrial scale death penalty system? Besides which, that is not - as you well know - what is meant by deterrent effect. Obviously that is true that were he dead he couldn't have killed again, but it is specious reasoning to conclude justification for the death penalty from that. And to illustrate the point, the article you posted says this:
"The real question surrounding the death is how a man who has said his need to kill is like a hunger ended up with a cellmate in a medium-security prison."
What it suggests plainly is that the security system failed, not that there is a necessary justification for the death penalty. The fact that had he been executed he would not have been able to is tangential to the core issue.
Note also that the article begins: "Usually when serial killers are caught, they are locked up for good and the public can take comfort they will never kill again." Which is exactly what I said in my post. But I've already spelled this out over and over again, and you're being rather selective in what you choose to comment on.
Come on... you don't expect me to address every aspect of your posts do you?
I am not so sure that we could not call the execution of a serial murderer a 'deterrent'. The traditional idea of deterring someone from committing a murder plays out in our heads much differently, but in reality... the DP prior to this situation manifesting itself would have had the effect of physically deterring another murder.
I often hear from opponents that if one innocent man is put to death wrongly... then the DP cannot be administered. How do these people feel about Jeremy Philips? He's not the only one our weak penal system has failed by neglecting to deal with our most sadistic and brutal murderers in the manner they require.
You say the prison system failed... I say the judicial system failed at the point of sentencing. This guy had killed multiple people of all ages and genders... and said he was going to kill again. And he did.
If one side of the discussion presents something that is mostly irrefutable and the other side dismisses it- failing to see the logic- because it doesn't fall into line with what they want to believe... then there is no point in talking.
Except this has nothing to do with what anyone 'believes'. The statistics speak for themselves. The statistics are not influenced by any individuals beliefs, but stand independently of anybody's beliefs. The statistics presented above refer to the deterrence, or non-deterrence, of the death penalty as it is applied to different States in the U.S, and the statistics suggest that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. In fact, the opposite is true: States that employ the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those that don't employ it. Which supports what I said earlier, and which has been acknowledged by criminologists and sociologists, that teaching people that murder is an acceptable solution leads people to regard murder and violence as solutions - thereby exacerbating violence and murder.
how many deadly knife fights must a guy witness? how many bodies cut into pieces must a guy find in a laundry cart? how many aggresive rapists behind bars keep on keeping on? how many chow lines are interupted with contract killings that were drafted out across the country far, far away? how many decent men will get their heads caved in with mop ringers? it is very easy to make a pipe gun a.k.a. homemade shotgun.
guess where a great deal of knives, brass knuckles & other weapons are hid inside a maximum security penitentiary? flowerbeds, yes, flower----beds. at any given time there are hundreds of homemade knives & other weapons in the dirt scattered around the joint. metal detectors find them, inmates make more & hide them. some are made of plastic or glass. it is a very goodtime & a whole lot of laughs
sure, many cell houses hold dudes who only get out one hour a day to shower or visit exercise pens. these dudes still attack staff, spit, bite, throw urine, other body fluids & enjoy a good wrestling match as they are covered in their own solid waste. do they deserve the death penalty for smearing crap all over themself? no
but why are they in prison in the first place? rape, torture, sadistic life styles, on & on. child predators are often times 70 & 80 yrs old & been at their sick ass games for decades. they are released & off they go looking for kids. nothing has changed except they are aging & very monsterous. they should be removed permanently
Seriously? Did you even read my post? Come on - did I not just say in my post that exceptions do happen, but exceptions do not provide justification for a whole industrial scale death penalty system? Besides which, that is not - as you well know - what is meant by deterrent effect. Obviously that is true that were he dead he couldn't have killed again, but it is specious reasoning to conclude justification for the death penalty from that. And to illustrate the point, the article you posted says this:
"The real question surrounding the death is how a man who has said his need to kill is like a hunger ended up with a cellmate in a medium-security prison."
What it suggests plainly is that the security system failed, not that there is a necessary justification for the death penalty. The fact that had he been executed he would not have been able to is tangential to the core issue.
Note also that the article begins: "Usually when serial killers are caught, they are locked up for good and the public can take comfort they will never kill again." Which is exactly what I said in my post. But I've already spelled this out over and over again, and you're being rather selective in what you choose to comment on.
Come on... you don't expect me to address every aspect of your posts do you?
I am not so sure that we could not call the execution of a serial murderer a 'deterrent'. The traditional idea of deterring someone from committing a murder plays out in our heads much differently, but in reality... the DP prior to this situation manifesting itself would have had the effect of physically deterring another murder.
I often hear from opponents that if one innocent man is put to death wrongly... then the DP cannot be administered. How do these people feel about Jeremy Philips? He's not the only one our weak penal system has failed by neglecting to deal with our most sadistic and brutal murderers in the manner they require.
You say the prison system failed... I say the judicial system failed at the point of sentencing. This guy had killed multiple people of all ages and genders... and said he was going to kill again. And he did.
I'm one of those people and I've already and repeatedly made it perfectly clear how I feel about such cases. You're going in circles now. And maybe if you did deal with all the aspects of my posts, that wouldn't happen and I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.
Yes, I say the prison system failed but I also think the legal system failed at the point of sentencing by placing him in a medium-security prison. But as I've already said, and you haven't addressed, it is a logical fallacy conclude that the death penalty is therefore the appropriate penalty. And the article you yourself posted explicitly says so itself, in the quote I pulled from it. He would almost certainly not been able to kill again had he been sentenced appropriately to life without parole in a maximum security prison as he should have been. This is not a difficult point to grasp. And it brings us straight back to the issue of the unnecessariness of the DP, which I've said more than enough on and you never really addressed in any substantive way.
Also, it doesn't take much to see evidence of extreme and severe mental illness in his "hunger" to kill and his admitting of it. The logical sentence for him would have been life without parole in a maximum security psychiatric prison. You have said nothing that I find even remotely convincing that his case any more than any other justifies the manifestly flawed, dangerously delinquent and fundamentally unjust death penalty.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I'm probably going to save my breath (fingers) from here on out. It's obvious we have people on both sides of the issue who are very passionate about it and will not be swayed.
I see a lot of grey in most areas of life, but this issue is one that I only see black and white. Murdering someone is wrong and is not an appropriate punishment for any crime committed. And what's worse (or at least more sad) than that, is the concept that people would actually take comfort from the murder of another person no matter what things they did.
some have empathy for evil folks, others have zero empathy for evil folks. it is hard for me to support the lives of vicious living. these beasts revel in the suffering of others. zero, zero & zero tolerance, none, zip
for one moment please think of the evil lifestyles many lead; understand the depths of the hideous mind & soul. i truly believe many good folks have no idea & maybe have been sheltered a bit to much in their lives. let us not ever be the heads in the sand type of people
Who is "supporting the lives of vicious living"? I just don't think they should be murdered after being caught. That's not supporting anything about them.
I don't think anyone on this earth is leading a faultless life. Good thing we all don't get what's coming to us.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
also i have nearly zero hatred flowing through my body. i make it a point to try & never use the word hate. i look at it like this
good vs' evil. evil bullshit deserves to be silenced. i did not make up the rules, i just know what is right. very simple stuff & again, a murderer does not have to be a monster... circumstances & more circumstances
If one side of the discussion presents something that is mostly irrefutable and the other side dismisses it- failing to see the logic- because it doesn't fall into line with what they want to believe... then there is no point in talking.
Except this has nothing to do with what anyone 'believes'. The statistics speak for themselves. The statistics are not influenced by any individuals beliefs, but stand independently of anybody's beliefs. The statistics presented above refer to the deterrence, or non-deterrence, of the death penalty as it is applied to different States in the U.S, and the statistics suggest that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. In fact, the opposite is true: States that employ the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those that don't employ it. Which supports what I said earlier, and which has been acknowledged by criminologists and sociologists, that teaching people that murder is an acceptable solution leads people to regard murder and violence as solutions - thereby exacerbating violence and murder.
There are too many variables that make such 'statistics' meaningless. The very first pie chart you offered was soliciting its data by asking, "Do you feel executions lower homicide rates?" So, in other words... what's your hunch? Further, one can generate any statistic they wish with the right manipulation: for example, where was the sample group chosen from? Proponents could sample criminologists from Texas and likely get a different result.
I'm not advocating for widespread usage of the DP, but it is quite obvious that without the teeth to serve as an authentic deterrent given it's very minimal usage (what was my rough calculation in Ohio... something like 0.00017 percent of homicide cases received it?)... it is impossible to tell whether or not it actually would or would not work as one. This is why the 'experts' in the science field (that Wolf offered) have dismissed any findings from such 'hunch' surveys because they recognize the fundamental flaws that prevent any true findings from revealing themselves.
I'm probably going to save my breath (fingers) from here on out. It's obvious we have people on both sides of the issue who are very passionate about it and will not be swayed.
I see a lot of grey in most areas of life, but this issue is one that I only see black and white. Murdering someone is wrong and is not an appropriate punishment for any crime committed. And what's worse (or at least more sad) than that, is the concept that people would actually take comfort from the murder of another person no matter what things they did.
some have empathy for evil folks, others have zero empathy for evil folks. it is hard for me to support the lives of vicious living. these beasts revel in the suffering of others. zero, zero & zero tolerance, none, zip
for one moment please think of the evil lifestyles many lead; understand the depths of the hideous mind & soul. i truly believe many good folks have no idea & maybe have been sheltered a bit to much in their lives. let us not ever be the heads in the sand type of people
Who is "supporting the lives of vicious living"? I just don't think they should be murdered after being caught. That's not supporting anything about them.
I don't think anyone on this earth is leading a faultless life. Good thing we all don't get what's coming to us.
getting what is coming to me does not at all include the death penalty & is very far from it. those leading faultless lives has nothing to do with vile bastards committing the most grotesque of acts upon decent people. my life sure as shit has not been without fault & self destruction. i am not a vile predator although it would be a hoot to hunt down certain groups of no moral having oxygen stealing freaks. it should be a movie... hunting down monsters
Note also that the article begins: "Usually when serial killers are caught, they are locked up for good and the public can take comfort they will never kill again." Which is exactly what I said in my post. But I've already spelled this out over and over again, and you're being rather selective in what you choose to comment on.
Come on... you don't expect me to address every aspect of your posts do you?
I am not so sure that we could not call the execution of a serial murderer a 'deterrent'. The traditional idea of deterring someone from committing a murder plays out in our heads much differently, but in reality... the DP prior to this situation manifesting itself would have had the effect of physically deterring another murder.
I often hear from opponents that if one innocent man is put to death wrongly... then the DP cannot be administered. How do these people feel about Jeremy Philips? He's not the only one our weak penal system has failed by neglecting to deal with our most sadistic and brutal murderers in the manner they require.
You say the prison system failed... I say the judicial system failed at the point of sentencing. This guy had killed multiple people of all ages and genders... and said he was going to kill again. And he did.
I'm one of those people and I've already and repeatedly made it perfectly clear how I feel about such cases. You're going in circles now. And maybe if you did deal with all the aspects of my posts, that wouldn't happen and I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.
Yes, I say the prison system failed but I also think the legal system failed at the point of sentencing by placing him in a medium-security prison. But as I've already said, and you haven't addressed, it is a logical fallacy conclude that the death penalty is therefore the appropriate penalty. And the article you yourself posted explicitly says so itself, in the quote I pulled from it. He would almost certainly not been able to kill again had he been sentenced appropriately to life without parole in a maximum security prison as he should have been. This is not a difficult point to grasp. And it brings us straight back to the issue of the unnecessariness of the DP, which I've said more than enough on and you never really addressed in any substantive way.
Also, it doesn't take much to see evidence of extreme and severe mental illness in his "hunger" to kill and his admitting of it. The logical sentence for him would have been life without parole in a maximum security psychiatric prison. You have said nothing that I find even remotely convincing that his case any more than any other justifies the manifestly flawed, dangerously delinquent and fundamentally unjust death penalty.
Going in circles? This has gone entirely in a different direction. Are you using canned comments?
You say he wouldn't have been unable to kill again in a maximum security prison with a rather high degree of certainty- despite the fact he was saying he would find a way to (as the article also mentioned). Maximum security prison doesn't guarantee anything.
You also say it is unnecessary and now here... we are going in circles. I have spoken to this assertion. To you... it might seem unnecessary, but to the majority of parents who have been robbed of their most precious commodity in horrific fashion... it's necessary. I support them whether you think it is bloodlust, vengeance, or whatever other somewhat demeaning label you wish to call it other than what the parents and people like me call... justice.
I'm too pragmatic to subscribe to philosophies such as 'eye for an eye makes the world blind'. I deal in reality and in reality... there are people who suffer for decades- far removed form the initial emotional surge of sorrow- as they lobby to keep the murderer of their child behind bars, while others actively work to not only save them... but free them.
and reality is that if we have the death penalty innocent people will be put to death, period..there is no contesting this. And if one were to argue that the system could be made "more accurate" its not now so don't understand how anyone would not at least want to stop executions for the time being.
If we sentence life without the possibility of parole then no chance they kill again though I acknowledge your point they could potentially kill behind bars yet think that risk can be mitigated by proper restraint once incarcerated and this would in my view far exceed the horror of killing another human put up on charges.
As to if the DP is a deterent, sure there are various sources for each position but if you have a lunatic (and many that kill are) I would use reasonable assumption that the DP isn't going to sway thier choices.
The DP is immoral. Its unjust. Its the wrong message we as a civilized society want to portray as a solution to a problem. We are justifying and this is exactly what killer do. Two wrongs do not make a right.
There are vile evil humans that are wasting oxygen but lets not join them in killing.
I see both sides of this coin pretty well I think. I used to be all for the DP. Now I dont agree with it because of its cost, the mistakes, and that it might not even be a deterrent. Im actually OK with people wanting revenge though. I dont think that's necessarily a bad thing - to have that feeling. If you have that feeling after your loved ones are raped or murdered, it could be a completely natural reaction. Ive had it feelings of revenge (not on the scale of death though). But until you are able to be the one who administers those deadly drugs, pulls the lever on a zillion amps of juice into someones cranium, or pulls the floor out from underneath a man with a noose around his neck...I dont think you should be in favor of the DP. Just my opinion..
"...practically every time a prosecutor seeks the death penalty, they pull hundreds of thousands of dollars out of our local criminal justice system, dollars that therefore cannot be spent, say, on the homicide unit and getting uncaught killers off the street. And given that we have counties in this country where 50 percent of the killings can go unsolved each year, we are much better off spending our dollars on catching uncaught killers than killing the killers we’ve already caught and put in cages." - Benjamin Jealous (NAACP President)
The Ohio Parole Board and Gov. John Kasich unanimously turned him down, with the board finding that Smith is among ‘the worst of the worst.’ ‘Smith took the life of an innocent 6-month-old infant while using the baby to sexually gratify himself,’ the board said in its decision. ‘It is hard to fathom a crime more repulsive or reprehensible in character.’
After the execution, Autumn's aunt, Kaylee Bashline, pumped her fists in the air as if in victory and gave a hug to Autumn's mother, Kesha Frye. ‘Autumn didn’t get a chance to live her life. Even in prison, he still gets to live. He’s getting fed, he gets shelter,’ Bashline said. ‘He got all that, and what did she get? She got to be killed and put in the ground where none of us gets to see her anymore.’
According to published reports, Gacy was a diagnosed psychopath who did not express any remorse for his crimes. His final statement to his lawyer before his execution was that killing him would not compensate for the loss of others, and that the state was murdering him. It is reported that his final spoken words were simply, "Kiss my ass."
Raping and murdering 33 young boys demands a consequence. The entire death penalty argument ultimately boils down to what type of consequence is appropriate given the crime. Perspective is significant for people engaged in this topic. At times, it seems as if people's arguments germinate from where their focus lies:
Opponents use arguments that tend to reflect a focus towards the person on trial: state murder; cannot bring the victims back; possibility of innocence; etc. Opponents have an eye on society and the potential effects implementing the death penalty has on our integrity- suggesting such a measure has the effect of eroding our level of humaneness among other things.
Proponents use arguments that tend to focus on their concern for victims and their survivors: the need for justice; closure for the families; a punishment that meets the level of the crime; etc. Proponents consider society as well with regards to the impact the death penalty might have on it- refuting potential damages to it by its application and speaking to the merits of it.
The 'debate in the nutshell' is hardly inclusive, but I wished to offer it to frame the following question:
Is the 'middle way' possible with such a topic? What would the 'middle way' even look like?
I continually question my position on this topic and this is why I find myself arguing on this very forum. I'm not so concerned with convincing anyone other than myself for what should be given what we are forced to deal with periodically.
I'm very impressed with opponents of the death penalty. I'll be honest, I'm not there with you, but regardless, I appreciate the forum to test my beliefs in such a manner. I wish more people would contribute so that I could spend a little more time reading than writing.
i think solitary confinement is the "middle way" do a little research into the effect it has on the brain and you may come to see it as a heinous punishment that fits many heinous crimes! i also think solitary should be reserved for the worst and most dangerous criminals and we should stop filling our prisons with minor drug offenders.
i think solitary confinement is the "middle way" do a little research into the effect it has on the brain and you may come to see it as a heinous punishment that fits many heinous crimes! i also think solitary should be reserved for the worst and most dangerous criminals and we should stop filling our prisons with minor drug offenders.
I could live with such a consequence. I think you would discover though, unless attitudes have changed, that some of the same people arguing against capital punishment would argue against solitary confinement as well. It's been placed in this very thread that not only do we need to preserve life for people like Gacy... but we have a responsibility to make concerted efforts to rehabilitate and provide humane prison conditions for them as well.
We should stop filling prisons with minor drug offenders.
people without safe levels of empathy should be isolated! i can imagine some "bleeding heart liberals" (im progressive as hell but these people do exist and we do credit to conservatives by denying it) going too far with rights to VIOLENT prisoners, but i sympathize somewhat. isolation is practical, even necessary, to protect inmates and guards, but torture for it's own sake steps into that area of tainting society as a whole. humane conditions can still be pretty spartan, and i can live with that. i do agree that any concession given a person like Gacy can feel like a luxury but again there is the "lowering to his level" idea.
i think solitary confinement is the "middle way" do a little research into the effect it has on the brain and you may come to see it as a heinous punishment that fits many heinous crimes! i also think solitary should be reserved for the worst and most dangerous criminals and we should stop filling our prisons with minor drug offenders.
good article byrnzie! i know all about solitary confinement, i have personally witnessed the slow, eternal torture of a solitarily confined prisoner. if you look back through this thread you will remember that i have said several times this is worse than death and that's why i would only willingly accept this for the most heinous and continually dangerous offenders.
There should be no racial bias with regards to seeking and attaining the DP. There is though and this fact reflects exactly how far society still has to grow. The nature of the crime(s) should be the major determinant whether or not execution should stand as the punishment.
Interestingly, if you look back at the cases I introduced and profiled that demand execution given the nature of them, not one of the murderers was white.
As far as Ault (?) feeling remorseful for 'pulling the switch'... this is understandable and likely very normal. The criminals we are forced to deal with leave many 'victims' in their wake. I would imagine there are plenty of police, emergency attendants, lawyers, clerks, judges, jurors and all sorts of others (not to mention the families) who are haunted by things they have been forced to witness as we work our way through the hand some sick bastard has forced us to play.
Comments
Seriously? Did you even read my post? Come on - did I not just say in my post that exceptions do happen, but exceptions do not provide justification for a whole industrial scale death penalty system? Besides which, that is not - as you well know - what is meant by deterrent effect. Obviously that is true that were he dead he couldn't have killed again, but it is specious reasoning to conclude justification for the death penalty from that. And to illustrate the point, the article you posted says this:
"The real question surrounding the death is how a man who has said his need to kill is like a hunger ended up with a cellmate in a medium-security prison."
What it suggests plainly is that the security system failed, not that there is a necessary justification for the death penalty. The fact that had he been executed he would not have been able to is tangential to the core issue.
Note also that the article begins: "Usually when serial killers are caught, they are locked up for good and the public can take comfort they will never kill again." Which is exactly what I said in my post. But I've already spelled this out over and over again, and you're being rather selective in what you choose to comment on.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I am by no means saying that violence doesn't happen, and obviously from what you're saying here, you have more direct knowledge of that than I do. I won't dispute that. However, for the most part, in doing their jobs - hard and often violent as those jobs may often be - prison guards, cops, state police, sheriff deputies are severely limiting the amount of damage that inmates can do. Which was my point to begin with.
That said, as I have already said, exceptions can and do happen. But that is a case for strengthening and improving security systems. It is a logically flawed argument to conclude that it is a legitimate justification for a death penalty system.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Among other posts that clearly spoke to the illegitimacy of the incredibly skewed data (review my posts that detailed the numbers the state of Ohio has provided)... Wolf offered this:
The conclusions of that meta-study was that deterrence as an issue was a moot point in the discussion since no studies on either side are credible. "According to a consensus of criminologists, economists and other academics who have reviewed deterrence studies from both sides and officially declared them useless. The National Academy of Sciences picked apart decades of deterrence research last year and recommended "that these studies not be used to inform deliberations" on capital punishment."
To which he later added, But for now, I hope I've made it clear to you that while I reject that the study you are referring to is credible enough to support the death penalty, I accept that there are no credible studies showing a definitive lack of deterrent effect on the other. However, I still maintain that when you think about what deterrence actually consists of, it sounds highly improbable. But now I think we should take the advice of those who carried out the meta-study and take that issue off the table.
Agreed?
To which- because I haven't done so already- I will agree.
And... Wolf... in the event you are reading... this is what I was referring to when I said this is why this is no longer a discussion people. If one side of the discussion presents something that is mostly irrefutable and the other side dismisses it- failing to see the logic- because it doesn't fall into line with what they want to believe... then there is no point in talking.
The Death Penalty and Deterrence
In April 2012, The National Research Council concluded that studies claiming that the death penalty affects murder rates were "fundamentally flawed" because they did not consider the effects of noncapital punishments and used "incomplete or implausible models." A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder.
The murder rate in non-Death Penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in States with the Death Penalty.
Overall National Murder Rates of Death Penalty and Non-Death Penalty States
The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.
Most of the world has abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Eighteen states in the United States have done the same. We have a historic opportunity to make New Hampshire the 19th state in the country to abolish the death penalty! JOIN US AND HELP MAKE HISTORY!
The world is moving closer to abolition, but we're not there yet. Amnesty's 2012 death penalty report shows progress but also steps back for human rights.
Failure to Deter Crime
There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. North Carolina’s murder rate declined after executions stopped. The death penalty has failed to deliver on the much touted promise that it makes the people of North Carolina safer.
Over the past several years, there has been a steep drop-off in the use of the death penalty. No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006. The number of death sentences handed down by juries has been declining for years, and in 2012 for the first time, no one received the death penalty in North Carolina. Even prosecutors have declined to seek the death penalty in all but a handful of cases.
Yet, according to the N.C. Department of Justice, the state murder rate has declined in the years since executions stopped. Given this fact, there is no credible argument that the death penalty deters crime.
In fact, most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness. They represent a group that is highly unlikely to make rational decisions based on a fear of future consequences for their actions. The idea that the death penalty has the power to stop murder is naive and clearly proven false by the facts. Studies that have shown the death penalty reduces crime have been discredited by rigorous research.
Nationally, murder rates are significantly lower in states that don’t use the death penalty than in those with a death penalty statute — and have been consistently for the past two decades. In some years, the murder rate in non-death penalty states was as much as 46 percent lower than in death penalty states. In a 2008 survey, police chiefs from across the country ranked the use of the death penalty at the bottom of a list of effective crime fighting tools. They said more law enforcement resources were the most needed tool for reducing violent crime.
I am not so sure that we could not call the execution of a serial murderer a 'deterrent'. The traditional idea of deterring someone from committing a murder plays out in our heads much differently, but in reality... the DP prior to this situation manifesting itself would have had the effect of physically deterring another murder.
I often hear from opponents that if one innocent man is put to death wrongly... then the DP cannot be administered. How do these people feel about Jeremy Philips? He's not the only one our weak penal system has failed by neglecting to deal with our most sadistic and brutal murderers in the manner they require.
You say the prison system failed... I say the judicial system failed at the point of sentencing. This guy had killed multiple people of all ages and genders... and said he was going to kill again. And he did.
Which supports what I said earlier, and which has been acknowledged by criminologists and sociologists, that teaching people that murder is an acceptable solution leads people to regard murder and violence as solutions - thereby exacerbating violence and murder.
guess where a great deal of knives, brass knuckles & other weapons are hid inside a maximum security penitentiary? flowerbeds, yes, flower----beds. at any given time there are hundreds of homemade knives & other weapons in the dirt scattered around the joint. metal detectors find them, inmates make more & hide them. some are made of plastic or glass. it is a very goodtime & a whole lot of laughs
sure, many cell houses hold dudes who only get out one hour a day to shower or visit exercise pens. these dudes still attack staff, spit, bite, throw urine, other body fluids & enjoy a good wrestling match as they are covered in their own solid waste.
do they deserve the death penalty for smearing crap all over themself? no
but why are they in prison in the first place? rape, torture, sadistic life styles, on & on. child predators are often times 70 & 80 yrs old & been at their sick ass games for decades. they are released & off they go looking for kids. nothing has changed except they are aging & very monsterous. they should be removed permanently
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Yes, I say the prison system failed but I also think the legal system failed at the point of sentencing by placing him in a medium-security prison. But as I've already said, and you haven't addressed, it is a logical fallacy conclude that the death penalty is therefore the appropriate penalty. And the article you yourself posted explicitly says so itself, in the quote I pulled from it. He would almost certainly not been able to kill again had he been sentenced appropriately to life without parole in a maximum security prison as he should have been. This is not a difficult point to grasp. And it brings us straight back to the issue of the unnecessariness of the DP, which I've said more than enough on and you never really addressed in any substantive way.
Also, it doesn't take much to see evidence of extreme and severe mental illness in his "hunger" to kill and his admitting of it. The logical sentence for him would have been life without parole in a maximum security psychiatric prison. You have said nothing that I find even remotely convincing that his case any more than any other justifies the manifestly flawed, dangerously delinquent and fundamentally unjust death penalty.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I don't think anyone on this earth is leading a faultless life. Good thing we all don't get what's coming to us.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
good vs' evil. evil bullshit deserves to be silenced. i did not make up the rules, i just know what is right. very simple stuff
& again, a murderer does not have to be a monster... circumstances & more circumstances
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I'm not advocating for widespread usage of the DP, but it is quite obvious that without the teeth to serve as an authentic deterrent given it's very minimal usage (what was my rough calculation in Ohio... something like 0.00017 percent of homicide cases received it?)... it is impossible to tell whether or not it actually would or would not work as one. This is why the 'experts' in the science field (that Wolf offered) have dismissed any findings from such 'hunch' surveys because they recognize the fundamental flaws that prevent any true findings from revealing themselves.
it's a fulltime job & very rewarding
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
You say he wouldn't have been unable to kill again in a maximum security prison with a rather high degree of certainty- despite the fact he was saying he would find a way to (as the article also mentioned). Maximum security prison doesn't guarantee anything.
You also say it is unnecessary and now here... we are going in circles. I have spoken to this assertion. To you... it might seem unnecessary, but to the majority of parents who have been robbed of their most precious commodity in horrific fashion... it's necessary. I support them whether you think it is bloodlust, vengeance, or whatever other somewhat demeaning label you wish to call it other than what the parents and people like me call... justice.
I'm too pragmatic to subscribe to philosophies such as 'eye for an eye makes the world blind'. I deal in reality and in reality... there are people who suffer for decades- far removed form the initial emotional surge of sorrow- as they lobby to keep the murderer of their child behind bars, while others actively work to not only save them... but free them.
and reality is that if we have the death penalty innocent people will be put to death, period..there is no contesting this. And if one were to argue that the system could be made "more accurate" its not now so don't understand how anyone would not at least want to stop executions for the time being.
If we sentence life without the possibility of parole then no chance they kill again though I acknowledge your point they could potentially kill behind bars yet think that risk can be mitigated by proper restraint once incarcerated and this would in my view far exceed the horror of killing another human put up on charges.
As to if the DP is a deterent, sure there are various sources for each position but if you have a lunatic (and many that kill are) I would use reasonable assumption that the DP isn't going to sway thier choices.
The DP is immoral. Its unjust. Its the wrong message we as a civilized society want to portray as a solution to a problem. We are justifying and this is exactly what killer do. Two wrongs do not make a right.
There are vile evil humans that are wasting oxygen but lets not join them in killing.
After the execution, Autumn's aunt, Kaylee Bashline, pumped her fists in the air as if in victory and gave a hug to Autumn's mother, Kesha Frye. ‘Autumn didn’t get a chance to live her life. Even in prison, he still gets to live. He’s getting fed, he gets shelter,’ Bashline said. ‘He got all that, and what did she get? She got to be killed and put in the ground where none of us gets to see her anymore.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317685/Steven-Smith-case-Ohio-death-row-inmate-raped-killed-girlfriends-baby-EXECUTED-parole-board-finds-worst-worst.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy
Raping and murdering 33 young boys demands a consequence. The entire death penalty argument ultimately boils down to what type of consequence is appropriate given the crime. Perspective is significant for people engaged in this topic. At times, it seems as if people's arguments germinate from where their focus lies:
Opponents use arguments that tend to reflect a focus towards the person on trial: state murder; cannot bring the victims back; possibility of innocence; etc. Opponents have an eye on society and the potential effects implementing the death penalty has on our integrity- suggesting such a measure has the effect of eroding our level of humaneness among other things.
Proponents use arguments that tend to focus on their concern for victims and their survivors: the need for justice; closure for the families; a punishment that meets the level of the crime; etc. Proponents consider society as well with regards to the impact the death penalty might have on it- refuting potential damages to it by its application and speaking to the merits of it.
The 'debate in the nutshell' is hardly inclusive, but I wished to offer it to frame the following question:
Is the 'middle way' possible with such a topic? What would the 'middle way' even look like?
I continually question my position on this topic and this is why I find myself arguing on this very forum. I'm not so concerned with convincing anyone other than myself for what should be given what we are forced to deal with periodically.
I'm very impressed with opponents of the death penalty. I'll be honest, I'm not there with you, but regardless, I appreciate the forum to test my beliefs in such a manner. I wish more people would contribute so that I could spend a little more time reading than writing.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
do a little research into the effect it has on the brain and you may come to see it as a heinous punishment that fits many heinous crimes!
i also think solitary should be reserved for the worst and most dangerous criminals and we should stop filling our prisons with minor drug offenders.
We should stop filling prisons with minor drug offenders.
He is a little judgemental on 'too-cool-for-school' guys in China yapping loudly on their cell phones when entering a pub.
Interestingly, if you look back at the cases I introduced and profiled that demand execution given the nature of them, not one of the murderers was white.
As far as Ault (?) feeling remorseful for 'pulling the switch'... this is understandable and likely very normal. The criminals we are forced to deal with leave many 'victims' in their wake. I would imagine there are plenty of police, emergency attendants, lawyers, clerks, judges, jurors and all sorts of others (not to mention the families) who are haunted by things they have been forced to witness as we work our way through the hand some sick bastard has forced us to play.