posted on July 27, 2003 09:23:47 AM new "I'm not going to argue justification because it is irrelevent"
I believe that justification may be at the core of this specific case and a major motivating factor in the Parole board's decision to grant Krueger an early parole. The revelation of his justification was silenced by the guilty plea. There is no trial or jury to research and with this news article as our only source of information, we do not know how the parole board came to their decision and therefore we have no basis on which to call their decision wrong.
posted on July 27, 2003 09:30:14 AM new
The simple fact Helen, is that for three life sentences, he should of never even been up for parole after only 13 years...
The justice system in this case errored luckily on someone that did turn their life around.
However this person did "take" 3 lives and coming from you, I am surprised that you find any justification in that.
posted on July 27, 2003 07:43:10 PM new
HOW ARE 18 YEARS OLD TREATED BACK IN THOSE DAYS??
THESE KIDS COULD BE FORCED INTO SEXUALLY COMPROMISING POSITION??
texas is still quite anti - gay,2 men are not allowed to share a one bedroom apt.
burgerflipper,you go first!!!!!
posted on July 28, 2003 05:41:58 AM new
i am not advocating murder of gay,i am saying what made an 18 years old pump 40 bullets in some adult body??
it could be robbery,may be the 2 kids have too much money with them,may be it was sexual assault??
2 kids facing 3 grown men,not a pretty sight!
burgerflipper,you go first!!!!!
posted on July 28, 2003 06:30:56 AM new
Aren't we missing the point?
He wasn't sentenced to 13 years, he was sentenced to 3 life terms....
Yet, he "saw the light" as some may say and struggled to change his life. He worked hard to improve himself, followed the rules and behaved himself.
Because of his efforts he accrued enough time for early release. To actually be released that early, with those charges, had to to require a gargantuan effort on his part. But what is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS is that he was truly reformed and had become a respected and productive member of society.
Judging from the "kill'em dead" attitudes of some of the posters, you would never qualify for any early release in the same situation. But because of his efforts, he probably became a better individual than any one of us. He teaches us that there is a "second chance", that people can change and become better. And maybe the human race can survive....
But alot of you just bitter for no good reason and want him dead or just plain locked up to rot away.
I don't look at his early release as a failure of the criminal justice system. I look at it, and his actions after it, as a success of the criminal justice system. Get real people, the parole board lucked out and released the right guy.
posted on July 28, 2003 08:53:51 AM new"The sad reality is that justice is irrelevant in the criminal justice system. Always has been."
While the criminal justice system is certainly not infallible, justice is, in fact "relevant".
Law enforcement, the court system and corrections have fair treatment or justice as
their foundation and reason to be.
I can understand your comment though, in light of the number of failures that we see. Capital punishment,
and racial discrimination come to mind immediately.
posted on July 28, 2003 11:21:41 AM new
If I had been at the scene and saw why he shot perhaps I would have an opinion. I am not as quick to think a conviction OR a lack of one means I have the story in any detail.
At 18 you may do stupid things but you also may not know how to deal with the judicial system at all.
posted on July 28, 2003 11:50:25 AM new
If a friend of yours was shot and killed, and that person completely rehabilitated themselves in prison, wouldn't you want them released asap so they can contribute back to society, regardless of how many years they spent there? Isn't rehabilitation better than wasting away in jail doing nothing? If punishment is the only reason why we jail people, it's not working. We have to give these people a reason to feel needed so they don't commit more crimes when they get out.
P.S. This shouldn't apply to child predators or sexual predators. I don't believe they can be helped, unfortunately.
posted on July 28, 2003 12:30:28 PM new
Kraft - No. Call me mean, vindictive, spiteful, whatever but when you decide to take the life of another person in a premeditated manner in my opinion you forfit it all. You give up that right to live among society again.
You forget - I'm the one that thinks that sentences of life without possibility of parole are a waste of money. If they are deemed not fit to ever live free in society again, then society should not bear the burden of their room and board. I'm staunchly pro death penalty. (and yes - I do aknowledge that there nees to be some serious reform in the justice system before such a thing were ever enacted).
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 28, 2003 01:06:03 PM new
Are you assuming premeditation fenix, or is that the case with this guy? While I agree that 13 years for 3 lives seems unfair, you have to ask yourself - unfair to who? No amount of time spent in jail is going to punish anyone. It just temporarily gets that person off the street for a while - nothing more.
As far as the death penalty goes, for me, the reason for not wanting it is because a person's value is worth much more than the sum of their crimes(s). Our anger about the crimes themselves usually prevents us from seeing other facets of that person.
posted on July 28, 2003 01:27:36 PM new
So fenix03...
Would staying longer in prison have resurrected the 3 dead guys, or is the reason you believe this person should have stayed longer is so you can exact YOUR revenge for an incident neither affected you, nor did you even KNOW of it until this article.
If justice meted out what YOU believe to be "justice", our President would be Al Gore because G. Bush would be sitting in jail for DWI or Cocaine use or Military AWOL.
But you want to go after someone who actually did good and turned their life around...
Why?
[ edited by mlecher on Jul 28, 2003 01:28 PM ]
posted on July 28, 2003 03:00:08 PM new
Krafty - I am assuming premiditation in the hypothetical that you presented. Generally a Murder conviction implies premeditation as opposed to Manslaughter.
If you believe that jail time is not punishment then what do you think is? What is your suggestion for punishment if it is not jail?
As for unseen facets. The only reason that we are blinded to them is because the individual in question deemed that another person and THEIR facets were no longer deserving of being seen as well.
~~~~~
M - Don't make asusmptions.
1) I'm outraged at the justice and parole system not at an individual that benfitted from it's faults. As I have stated REPEATEDLY in this thread, the person is irrelevent to me, the way that sentencing was carried out is what I find appaling.
2) You are right, if I had my way Gore would be president as opposed to Bush but it has nothing to do with jail And yes -while I believe that usage of drugs or alcohol should not be illegal, I do believe that driving while under the influence of them should be a criminal offense but I don't think they should carry a 20+ year sentence.... he'd be out by now
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 28, 2003 04:40:42 PM new
Duh! Sorry - I thought you were referring to the guy in this case fenix! I do understand you though. Your beef is with ANY person that only serves 13 years for 3 murders. The only thing in question here is should a rehabiltated murderer get out early. If not, why bother to help yourself be a better person?
posted on July 28, 2003 05:44:53 PM new
That's an excellent question, Kraftdinner. Personally, I don't believe in punishment that has revenge as it's only goal.
Why spend the time and money? I believe in jailing people who may be a danger to the community. The funds that we waste on jailing non-violent criminals could be better spent on rehabilitation programs.
The man was sentenced to 3 life terms, not 13 years. Yes, it wasn't "life without parole", that particular sentence didn't exist 40 years ago, I believe. However, he freely admitted to his crime for whatever reason and while in prison he actively turned his life around. You don't seem to understand, in your demand for the Lord's vengence on all you see as unholy, that to get out in 13 years form 3 life terms requires an extraordinary effort on the part of a prisoner. And because of his efforts, he was rewarded to return to society and help us pay for the upkeep of other prisoner with his taxes. But rather, your solution, is to keep him locked up, demonstrating to all prisoners that there is no hope for them as your society will continue to grind them under your heel no matter what they do because WE NEED OUR VENGENCE
You don't seem to understand, in your demand for the Lord's vengence on all you see as unholy, that to get out in 13 years form 3 life terms requires an extraordinary effort on the part of a prisoner.
There is no clearer indication that you are completely clueless as to what I have said thruout this thread than this statement. Argue points of law with me all day but don't bother trying to crawl into my mind. The fact that you would reference religion asmotivation shows how clearly offbase you are.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 28, 2003 07:40:32 PM new"Personally, I don't believe in punishment that has revenge as it's only goal."
That's because you have a huge amount of compassion Helen... mlecher too.
Jails are bursting at the seams, courts are totally back-logged... do you just build more and more jails? Can't you just picture things in 50 years?... you'll either be IN jail OR working for one.
Prisons are referred to as the "punishment industry" and they represent BIG bucks so they will be around for awhile.
"As prisons proliferate in U.S. society, private capital has become enmeshed in the punishment industry. And precisely because of their profit potential, prisons are becoming increasingly important to the U.S. economy. If the notion of punishment as a source of potentially stupendous profits is disturbing by itself, then the strategic dependence on racist structures and ideologies to render mass punishment palatable and profitable is even more troubling."
posted on July 29, 2003 06:18:57 AM new
Then fenix, why did you want this man to remain in prison, if not for revenge? To teach him a "lesson"? By his actions, he obviously already learned his lesson and was rightly released.
Which leaves only one other reason...
Because he "deserved" it, he needs to be "punished"? Sorry, that is REVENGE!
But, pray, tell us some other reason why a functioning member of society should continue to be locked away for some people's pleasure and at taxpayer's expense? Or maybe even killed for their entertainment(Yeah, we got another one!!!)
What we really focus on is what the parole board did RIGHT this time and apply it to future parole boards. The society would be safer.
posted on July 29, 2003 08:52:22 AM new
Punishment is not revenge.
Punishment is teaching people to take responsibility for your actions.
Revenge is taking the lives of three people around him.
You and I obviously have a vastly different idea of the purpose a prison is supposed to serve. I believe that prison is where you take responsibility for your crimes. You committed again society and so you are removed from it. Hopefully this unpleasant experience will deter you from doing it again. BTW - while you are in this exhile of sorts we will try to teach you coping skills, maybe a trade, give you the opportunity to get some education so that once you are released you will be less likely to re-offen.
Today our system has got some screwy ways of dispensing justice. Almost a year ago a guy stole a truck with an infant inside and drove the car across the border. Because there were almost immediately alerts on it he ditched the car at a dump and left the baby in there in sweltering heat. Luckily someone happened across the car before anything happened to the child. A couple days later the guy was arrested. Last week he was sentenced. Grand theft Auto, Kidnapping, Child Endangerment.... 320 days... time served between arrest and sentencing. Where is the deterent in that sentence?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
"The fact that after 21 years Yarris was lucky enough to have this evidence discovered
is by no means proof of the system working," said Jeff Garis of Pennsylvania Abolitionists
United Against the Death Penalty.
"The true killer has escaped justice, a young man's life was destroyed and the limitations
of our justice system have been exposed."
Since DNA evidence is available in only a small number of homicide cases - approximately 15% --
this exoneration should cause us to consider the fact that 85% of death penalty cases can never
be 'scientifically verified.' An erroneous conviction of this magnitude is ample evidence of a problem.
The vast majority of reasonable people - both for and against the death penalty - can agree that no
executions should take place until we can be certain that there aren't other innocent people on death row."
posted on July 29, 2003 10:30:00 AM new
Helen - why should we not carry out a death sentence on someone that has either pleaded guilty, admitted his guilt, chosen not not fight the death sentence or has been proven guilty by way of DNA just because the there is a question about the guilt of the guy in the next cell? There should not be a blanket hold, it should be on a case by case evaluation;
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 29, 2003 11:38:46 AM new "Helen - why should we not carry out a death sentence on someone that has either pleaded guilty, admitted his guilt, chosen not not fight the death sentence or has been proven guilty by way of DNA just because the there is a question about the guilt of the guy in the next cell? There should not be a blanket hold, it should be on a case by case evaluation;"
In answer to your question above, A death sentence should not be carried out simply because
someone pleads guilty. Criminals and people with mental or emotional disorders plead guilty to
crimes that they did not commit every day. And test results are not always a reliable indicator of guilt
either, as this case illustrates. Finally, to kill someone because they have chosen not to fight the death sentence is
premeditated murder of a horrific caliber.
Doesn't the possibility of executing an innocent person bother you, fendix03???
posted on July 29, 2003 12:39:30 PM new
Helen - the difference is that I believe that a person who pleads guilty to a death penalty case is guilty. When people plead guilty to crimes they are innocent of it's generally a plea down. Death penaly is not a plea down. As for those that do not fight - unlike you Helen - I don't believe that everyone in jail is a victim of the system.
Do I have a problem putting a convicted or confessed murderer to death. NO. Not a bit. They have attached no value to someone elses life, why should I attach a value to theirs? They made that decision. They forfeited that right.
Hell - I think the executions should be public like they are in SA. Friday night on chop chop street. Seems to work as a very effective deterent. in the Mudrer stats for year 2000
United States - 5.54 murders per 100,000.
Saudi Arabia - 0.71 murders per 100,000.
I think that are doing something right.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really Common Sense, why do so few people actually have it?
"They have attached no value to someone elses life, why should I attach a value to theirs?"
So, you are reflecting their values...They see no value in another's life and so, neither do you, in their life.
"The death penalty is disgusting, particularly if it condemns an innocent. But it remains an injustice even when it falls on someone who is guilty of a crime."
Giuliano Amato, Prime Minister of Italy, 14 September 2000, commenting on a scheduled execution in Virginia USA
And yes -while I believe that usage of drugs or alcohol should not be illegal, I do believe that driving while under the influence of them should be a criminal offense but I don't think they should carry a 20+ year sentence.... he'd be out by now