posted on June 26, 2002 08:08:53 PM new
I'm having trouble with my thoughts on the death penalty. John Walsh was on Larry King tonite and said that once the line is crossed and a child has been hurt, the perpetrator should be treated differently. If a child has been murdered, they should be executed.
I've been against the death penalty forever, but when children are involved I agree that a line has been crossed. What do you think?
posted on June 26, 2002 09:07:01 PM new
Kraftdinner,
I've always thought I was against the death penalty, too, but it seems as I get older, see and hear of so much awful violence in this world and my small area, my mind is changing.
I'm afraid putting someone to death for a heinous act really can be a deterrent to others with the same thoughts but I also think all of the appeals and delays that happen now mitigates or eases that threat for a would be killer.
I honestly can't say what my reaction would be if a member of my family were murdered. Would I take the high road knowing that killing the killer wouldn't bring my loved one back or would I want vengence. Putting he/she away for life might cost another prisoner their life if that murderer is really nasty. I guess it might depend on the circumstances. In the case of a child murderer I have to agree with John Walsh. I know they think the Smart girl is still alive or at least I heard that on the news. When I watch tapes of her playing the Harp or in her plays. I can't help thinking how much she has to offer and what she could give the world one of these days. And she is only one of thousands of missing children. Just think what the others who don't get the publicity might have to offer the world someday but they are either dead or being so warped that their talents and essence are destroyed.
One thing I can be sure of in my mind. I don't think a retarded person should be executed.
posted on June 26, 2002 10:29:24 PM new
KD, I wouldn't change my mind. It seems that all too often, politicians and other groups who have a cause to promote keep sticking into the equation the Child Factor or Famlies. As a matter-of-fact, when I see or hear the arguement about "kids", it sets off alarm bells that says that someone's trying to manipulate me. It should for you too. I mean, does killing an 80-year old male deserve any less consideration by you than an 8-year old girl being killed? Really.
Capital Punishment is not a deterrant. Matter-of-fact, life-long imprisonment is a better deterrant against crime than anything else. You are only keeping the honest people honest. When someone is sick enough to go kill someone else, they do not stop and say, "Hey! I could get the Electric Chair for this!" and then stop what they were about to do. No, they go through with it and worry about the consequences later, or if at all if they don't get caught. I'm much more concerned witht the Stae's right to kill a Citizen. They should not have that right - ever. And once you justify it for one case, you can't stop there with the next arguement, can you?
Lastly, how can anyone gurantee that all person on Death Row are actually guilty of the crime for which they have been convicted of? The ongoing horror of innocent people being dragged off to their Death to "Pay" for some crime which they did not commit happens so often that any sane and rational person would have to agree to stop it altogether.
posted on June 26, 2002 11:11:26 PM new
The death penalty is wrong for several reasons. First, there is the possibility of executing an innocent individual.
There is a disproportionate number of poor and black people executed without access to good legal representation.
Most people who kill other people are mentally ill and should be in an insane asylum.
There is no deterrence. value in executing people, since most murders are crimes of passion.
Finally, it is barbaric and immoral to execute people for revenge.
posted on June 26, 2002 11:14:23 PM new
We like to value human life in this wonderful free country of ours. I say don't kill an unborn child and don't kill a killer.
Give the gift of life to the unborn and give the loss of freedom to the killer.
posted on June 26, 2002 11:25:35 PM newMost people who kill other people are mentally ill and should be in an insane asylum.
Where'd you get that information?
Capital punishment probably isn't much more of a deterrent than life in prison. And while there is a "chance" that an innocent person might be executed, that does not relate to the vast majority of murderers who are justly convicted.
IMO, there is only one fitting punishment for the murder of a child, and it ain't life in prison.
posted on June 27, 2002 12:47:26 AM new
I did change my mind about the death penalty, 13 years ago when the 4 year old across the street was abducted and brutally murdered. This poor kid was Westley Dodd's 3rd murder victim in a matter of weeks. The things that Dodd did before and after the murder still sicken me to this day (I also happened to have a four year old at the time, so it hit way too close to home).
In this case, he was caught while attempting to abduct his 4th victim. He plead guilty, did not want all the automatic appeals. when the state was slow to execute him, he attacked guards in an attempt to illustrate that he was still a danger and was executed pretty quickly after that.
Here there was no chance that the guy was innocent. He made it clear that if he got out, he would continue to kill small boys - so in that sense, it was a deterrent to him at least, even if it wasn't to anyone else.
I don't know about the death penalty for most cases, but when it involves small children who are brutally murdered so someone can get their jollies, I'm in favor. As an alternative, it has to be real life in prison with absolutely no chance of parole...people don't get cured of this sort of thing.
Helen: I don't think most people who murder are mentally ill. From what I've read, most murders are either drug related. Some are, as you say, crimes of passion against someone you know. I am very much against executing anyone with mental incapacitations. Having two siblings who have had severe psychotic episodes, I know how little control one can have under those circumstances.
posted on June 27, 2002 03:07:17 AM new
argh - Trouble is you bring up one example of someone that we are almost certain is guilty and then want to apply that case to the hundreds of people who have undoubtedly been strapped down and died knowing they were innocent. Once you kill them it is too late. You can't ever say Opps - we were wrong.
Some of these people - Bush for example - refuse to believe that there is ever a mistake. They have no trouble lying to us or to themselves knowing all the people who have been set free on new information. They will say - we got them all! We are perfect! Bull.
posted on June 27, 2002 05:48:04 AM new
I understand that mental illness is difficult to use as a defense. But it seems clear to me that Westley Dodd was mentally ill and I doubt that it would be difficult to find well respected psychiatrists to agree with me.
Since my opinion on this point has been questioned here twice, I realize that I could be wrong but I would like to understand my wrong perception if there is one.
So, if anyone can tell me how this guy can kill and brutalize two children and still be considered normal mentally, I would surely like to consider your answer.
posted on June 27, 2002 06:18:15 AM new
I agree with you - but the laws have standards that don't have anything to do with commonly accepted medical standards - which are always changeing.
It is still the perception among most people that mental illness is a personal weakness and failure of choice.
Since the medical standards have not advanced to a point that the doctors can say Ok - see here you have such and such level of neuro transmitters and such and such a level of hormones. - The person is mentally ill - then if it is not measured it is all opinion.
The lawyaers can find as many opinions as they can doctors.
posted on June 27, 2002 06:52:56 AM new
Right! The fact that diagnosing mental illness is not a science adds more weight to the case aganist capital punishment if in fact any is needed.
posted on June 27, 2002 08:26:17 AM new
IMO it is easy to have an opinion against the death penalty while living in the ivory tower. When one is affected directly by death etc of a loved one, the death penalty opinion reverses.
What I don't understand is how can a "pro-lifer" be for the death penalty?
posted on June 27, 2002 08:31:43 AM new
As for the mental illness defense, I was reading a Reader's Digest the other day that was a few years old. There was a story about a man who got off completely because of his mental condition (murder charge?), he was incompetent (didn't understand the situation, etc). Years later, he graduated from college as a doctor.
Apparently he was competent in the first place. Either that or we have an incompetent doctor running around.
[ edited by clarksville on Jun 27, 2002 08:32 AM ]
[ edited by clarksville on Jun 27, 2002 08:34 AM ]
posted on June 27, 2002 10:52:59 AM new
eye for an eye works good for me.
It worked good for the people who founded this country too,
Slit their damm throats or throw em to the sharks. The real problem is not that Texas has the death Penalty and has executed 18 people they need to execute 18,000 the problem is the scarce use of it. This nation is bein terorized by a horde of repeat offenders take the scum out and slaughter them like rats.
Don't ask me for one dime for #*!@ farms and rehabilitation scams.
This is not to say that a person should not have a fair trial. when they are found guilty firing squads or garroting would work. I cant think of one time when an executed killer has done it again. the idea that this does not work is the wishful thinking of the demoratic parties weather wing.
posted on June 28, 2002 03:26:11 AM new
Look at Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. I wouldn't have wanted them to escape from prison and be loose in my town. Even though Dahmer died in prison I think they should have used him as a guinea pig instead of using defenseless animals. The death penalty is not wrong. It was wrong for Gacy to bury innocent young boys in his garage and basement and cover them with lime when his wife asked what that smell was. He knew exactly what he was doing. If it's a case of circumstantial evidence then let them stay in prison but these are just 2 examples of why the death penalty should remain. Some people are just plain evil. JMO! Barbara
posted on June 28, 2002 05:46:42 AM new
The dahmer case, Yeah right here we have a guy who keeps frozen heads and sex organs in the fridge and a 55 gallon dsrum of acid in the livingroom kitchen dinette combo of his little apartment.
and Guess what the legal system in Milwaukee finds he is not insane. what a crock. What a scam what a big lie.
The fact of the matter is is that because he was wanted so badly they ignored the rules.
they also did not fire his probation officer or any of these other highly p[aid seat polishing government employees that are sucking the life out of that city while producing nothing.
The 2 cops that handed the little asian kids back guess what some pile of work from the bar assn got them their jobs back, want them on your emergency call ?
Then we have the fact that the state of wisconsin knowingly put dahmer with scarver, now scarver was a useless pile of work with a crimminal background much like dahmers except he liked rape and violent assault the high school where he went was terrorized by this scumbag who dailey professed his hatred for his fellow classmates by race. of course its ok of the perp is non white it's only whites that arent allowed to do this. The fact is is that wisconsin arranged his murder and if he was rich or powerful heads would be rolling.
NOw then all said yes I would have given him the death penalty. But I would not have had to engage in this farce he had, better yet circus comedy of errors sickening display of blatent disregard for established procedure.
So then I support the death penalty its just that I want the accused to have the rights we are supposed to have under the law.
And while we are at it Bonliar is going to love this Mr Gacy was in fact the Illonois Regional head of the republican party. a fact that the news media seems to love leaving out. Had he been a communist or a klans man that would have topped the articles off, but he was not. he was a certified died in the wool republican bigshot who used his position to help carry out his deeds.
The fact is is that many of these people here have never been confronted with one of these wonders of human equality and diversity out there that some jack wad has plea bargained out of jail more times than you have had a parking ticket. They simply cannot comprehend terror on a personal level.
they want to feel safe behind a wall of platitudes when maybe they need to have a street cop take them on a tour of the morgue.
posted on June 28, 2002 09:36:27 AM new
The problem is not the death penalty per se, but the administration of it. As long as people commit murders, the death penalty is part of the social contract- I pledge my life,liberty and property against my unlawful taking of your life, liberty, and property.
As long as people like OJ Simpson, Ted Kennedy, and Claus Von Bulow go free, I can not in good conscience support the death penalty.
There have been hundreds of people that went to the gas chamber, gallows, or electric chair based upon less conclusive evidence than that in the Simpson case- the only difference was a $10 million defence.
Being drunk and killing the passenger in your car means jail for the poor, but not for the rich.
Juries need to send a message by either justly convicting all criminals, or convicting none.
posted on June 30, 2002 09:40:14 PM new
Arg, the Dodd case is really an example of a different problem. Dodd was convicted of sexually molesting kids before and he begged not to be let out of prison at the end of his sentence. He warned prison officials and judicial officials that he would reoffend if let out, as his compulsion was uncontrollable for him. He was let out and reeoffended, caught, and served a second time. Once again, he asked not to be let out and he warned that he would start to kill his victims next time. However, the system would not let him stay in prison, making society safer. On his last time, he mutilated that poor young boy and released him before he could kill him in order to get caught. This time, he did everything that he could to get a death sentence and once he got one, he refused all appeals as he wanted to be put to death. He finally convinced everyone that he was set on his fate and he was promptly executed.
Dodd had received therapy for his compulsions, but it did not help him. What benefits that he did get from it expired when he could not pay for his own treatment and had run out of allowable benefits from the state. Incarceration was the only way that he felt that he was able to defeat his compulsion.
Several states, as far as I recall, did pass laws that ion extreme cases that the prisoner could be held indefinitely. It is also a cry for help for the mentally and criminally ill people in America. Jailing them does not equate psychiatric treatment, and it harms them instead of helping them. It costs much more to warehouse them in prison than to pay for out treatment. It's certainly cheaper than Bush's 20 Billion-Dollar Bailout of the airlines industry last year.
So, Arg, maybe its not really Dodd that you should be feeling such angry thoughts about.
posted on July 1, 2002 01:22:38 PM new
I think the ONLY reason the death penalty is questionable is because of the chance of innocent people being executed. Otherwise, there are many criminal acts for which the perpetrators should be shot on the spot.
posted on July 1, 2002 05:41:30 PM new
Thanks so much for responding everyone.
I searched to try and find out if child murderers/serial killers, etc., were on the rise or if there's just more media coverage, and came across a Crime Library page with lists of these types of killers and what they've done.
Here's the link: (P.S. This isn't a very 'happy' site.)
Although I haven't read every case, these are the types of people I'm talking about. When I was younger, I thought everyone could be rehabilitated to some extent, but now I don't think there's any help available. What purpose would it serve to society OR the criminals themselves, to house these people until they die?
