posted on October 10, 2003 01:00:23 PM new
I have a hard time with the death penalty because taking a life, in exchange for one taken, doesn't seem healthy. On the other hand, I think people like Wayne Gacy (sp?) and those types, should be put out of their misery.
If you think the death penalty is wrong also, would you reconsider with serial killers and child murderers?
posted on October 10, 2003 02:21:00 PM new
I'd have no problem paying to keep people for life because mistakes are made and there is dishonsty among prosecutors too often. Once you kill them it's too late to say ops...
Trouble is they DON"T keep them locked up. They let them loose to kill again and there is no personal responsibility for doing so.
posted on October 10, 2003 02:59:57 PM new
I would have the predicate felons executed too.
As a matter of fact, I would take out all the child molesters, anyone that killed innocent people while committing a crime, bad cops, bad teachers, bad CEO's, and all mimes or clowns.
Just the way I'm felling today. Not a bad day but not a good day either.
posted on October 10, 2003 05:25:46 PM new
Ahhhh selective execution....
Well you know what group I would also add to that list...
I am not naive enough to think that the death penalty is only for deterrent for crime... it is also an effective "justice" for the family of who the criminal changed forever...
I have always supported the death penalty and applaud Texas, Florida and Virginia for doing it right....
posted on October 10, 2003 07:19:06 PM new
I said this before, I will continue to support the death penalty UNTIL the time comes when someone is given a 'life' sentence, and that means they stay locked up until they die. Not in a Hilton like setting either.
posted on October 11, 2003 02:40:48 AM new
Linda - there are some life sentences that really are life. They are generally when murder is committed in the process of committing a seperate crime, the murder of a police officer or a multiple murder. The sentences are generally Life + XX years, those sentences ensure that someone will never get out. Some states have Life without possibility of parol sentences but I don't know that all do.
BTW - Useless trivia for Twelve. I don't know if it is still practiced this way but in Saudi Arabia, if you killed a man, that mans family choses the method of your execution.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 11, 2003 05:42:53 AM new
Morning fenix - life, without the possibility of parole. Most people seem to believe that means what it says, but it doesn't. It never has. It really means until the guilty can in someway prove to/convince a parole board they have changed and deserve to be set free.
Take the famous case of the Tate/LaBianca murders. They were given death sentences, then CA's death penalty law was reversed....even though the voters of CA had passed it and they were given "life sentences, without the possibility of parole".
Well....guess what.
They've been up before the parole board so many times it makes one's head spin. One or two of them have gone before the parole board up to 20 times.
Leslie Van Houten is the one most likely to soon be freed, if any of them are.
Taken from the Court TV website.....interesting site to check what's happening on a LOT of serial murderers.
There you'll read....they have been allowed to marry, have families, get college degrees, have video and audio recording studios in prison, a couple who have been released have committed other crimes and gone back to prison, and one Manson follower has even moved close to the prison when Manson is housed and she does his website.
Being given a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" means they have the right to go before a paraole board every couple of years or so and plead their case, and ask to be released.
Fenix, in all my years I can't begin to tell you how many times I've read where they do convince the board and are set free. That's why I would not change my mind on supporting the death penalty.....until....these sentences actually MEAN what they say.
The Tate/LaBianca families have had to appear at all the parole board hearings in order to BEG that these prisoners NOT be released into society. They have relived this horror for close to 35 years now. And at some point the families of these victims don't show up to plead their side, and the parole board does grant parole to these killers. It's just not right.
---------------
Copying and pasting just one of the Mansion girls stories. See???? She's done so well their DEMANDING the parole board explain why she doesn't DESERVE to be set free. Now they're on the defensive.
Leslie Van Houten is currently a prisoner at the California Institution for Women, Frontera.
According to CNN, on June 28, 2002, Van Houten, 52, was denied parole. It was her fourteenth application.
One central issue is that prosecutors claimed that she stabbed Rosemary LaBianca 14-16 times, whereas Van Houten maintains that Rosemary was already dead when the stabbing occurred. Rosemary LaBianca was stabbed 42 times. According to Court TV's John Springer, "after the murders, Van Houten wiped the house clean of fingerprints and changed into a pair of Rosemary LaBianca's shorts. She grabbed cheese and chocolate milk from the couple's refrigerator before the trio hitchhiked back to the ranch where the Manson family lived."
Van Houten told the board, "My heart aches and there seems to be no way to convey the amount of pain I caused. I don't know what else to say."
The parole board suggested that Van Houten needed more therapy "to further understand the enormity of her crime." However, Van Houten's psychiatric evaluations "clearly indicate that she is not a present danger to society and should be found suitable for parole."
Linda Deutsch of Associated Press writes, "Of all the members of Charles Manson's murderous "family," Leslie Van Houten was always seen as the different one -- the youngest, the one most vulnerable to Manson's diabolical control."
According to CNN, this latest hearing was supposed to be Van Houten's best chance for winning release because Superior Court Judge Bob Krug said that Van Houten, "has proven to be a model prisoner in the 30 years since her incarceration, completing all available prison programs and assisting other inmates with these programs[b]...She has earned two college degrees and has maintained a clean disciplinary record in prison...[b]she is serving a life sentence without parole, a sentence unauthorized by law."
Deputy District Attorney Stephen Kay was present at the hearing to argue against parole for Van Houten: "This is not a garden-variety murder case and it should not be treated as such. I commend her for her good acts in prison and she appears to be a model prisoner. I think she should spend the rest of her life being a model prisoner. I feel because of what she did, she is not entitled to parole."
Judge Krug stated that it was the despicable nature of the crime that is preventing Van Houten from winning parole and gave the board two months to show evidence of why she should not be paroled and what exactly she must do to win parole.
Angela Smaldino and Louis Smaldino, relatives of the LaBiancas, were present at the hearing to voice their opposition to granting Van Houten parole. Also, some 30 letters were received by the parole board urging that parole be denied.
Christie Webb, Van Houten's lawyer, highlighted the fact that Van Houten was under heavy influence of drugs when the LaBianca murders occurred. "All that LSD changed the chemistry of her brain....I certainly have sympathies for the victims' families. But Leslie and her family are also among Charles Manson's victims. We are talking about one horrible night of violence in her life when she was clearly not in her right mind."
end/
None of the murderers are 'in their right mind'. And the cases that ARE the 'garden variety type' do get released much more often than do those involved in the nortorious cases. Excuses are continually made for these 'poor reformed killers'.....and their victims are forgotten.
posted on October 11, 2003 12:47:43 PM new
You bring up a good point about killing while under the influence (of whatever), Linda. With continued use, if a drug is powerful enough to turn a "normal" person into a killer (as with some of the Manson group), would they still be AS responsible as a killer that wasn't under the influence of anything?
Manson himself, didn't commit any murders, but was the supposed leader, like Jim Jones - both of which were heavily drugged. Did they really know what they were doing or was it the drugs making them act this way? Same goes for the followers?
posted on October 11, 2003 12:58:57 PM new
KD - Did you look up and read about your Wayne Gacy fellow?
I didn't bring up that point....her lawyer did.
And I don't accept that as a defense.
To me, if they are found guilty, have had ALL their appeals and still not released....then they should either be put to death, if the law allows it, OR as you suggest IF we eliminate the death penalty should spend the rest of her life in jail. Her punishment was determined [originally] to be put to death. Her life was spared because the voters decision was overturned. Then she was given "life without the possibility of parole". Now they want her released. That's my position on why I'd never support not having a death penalty....unless.
Is your position now that because she/they were on drugs [all heavy users] that in some way excuses their actions?
I'm especially surprised since you are one who has expressed you believe all drugs should be legalized.
If I'm taking you correctly....then all can use drugs and there should be no consequences to or special consideration given to them and their behavior???? Or am I misunderstanding your position here????
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 11, 2003 01:25 PM ]
posted on October 11, 2003 01:29:29 PM new
Linda -
I didn't read the Wayne Gacy site, but I'm aware of what he did. That's what I mean - I don't believe in the death penalty, BUT, for people like him, I'm not too sure what I believe.
Linda, this is a point that can be argued in court - whether a person is under any type of influence when a crime is committed. Personally, I feel that if a person decides to take drugs, they should be responsible for any actions that occur while they're on the drug. But, I also feel that if a person committed a crime solely because they were under the influence of a drug, they should be given a chance at rehabilitation and the possibility of parole.
If Jim Jones told his followers to go out and kill a bunch of people, and they were all drugged up and under his influence, would they still be as responsible as a person that killed and wasn't under his influence or drugged up? To me, there can be some grey areas.
As far as legalizing drugs, it's all the stuff that's involved in getting the drug to the end user, that's corrupt, but that's another story.
posted on October 11, 2003 01:49:28 PM new
Well KD then it sounds to me like you are supporting the death penalty but only in cases that you personally find disturbing.
My position is if anyone is found guilty of murdering someone else....they should face the same consequences as they gave. And all my above statements were to give the reasons I won't be changing my mind on the death penalty anytime soon.
Also to point out that being put in prison 'for life, without the possibility of parole' does NOT mean what it implies.
While under the influence of drugs she was able to 'think' about cleaning off their fingerprints, changing into the woman's clothes and getting something to eat, etc. She knew full well what she was doing when she stabbed that woman....on drugs or not. And I agree with the statement that she should be held in prison, like the attorney said..contining to show, in prison, what a model prisoner she is....rather than putting her back out on the streets and taking a chance they were wrong.
Do you think it's fair for the families of victims like these to have to go through being at all their parole hearings when they supposedly were put there for life without....? I don't. That's the most unfair part of what the system requires to me. Once given a 'for life' sentence they should be able to put this terrible incident behind them and go on with their lives.
posted on October 11, 2003 03:15:30 PM new"Well KD then it sounds to me like you are supporting the death penalty but only in cases that you personally find disturbing."
I don't support it, Linda, but I do admit to having a hard time with serial killers, especially ones that prey on children. They aren't helped, they're just housed. Who benefits by that besides the killer? Yes, I'm on the fence about serial killers.
As far as Leslie Van Houten, I understand what you're saying, but even truly insane people that murder, know what they're doing. Do you think there is such a thing as rehabilitation for murderers?
posted on October 11, 2003 03:35:07 PM new
KD - Do you think there is such a thing as rehabilitation for murderers?
Yes, I believe there are some where that may be possible. BUT not for killers who where given the death penalty or 'life in prison - without....'. Those are the worst of our society and when given a sentence, it should be that. If their crimes were of a lesser degree, they would have received XX years and would be eligible for parole in XX years.
If you anti-death penalty people ever want to pull some of us who support the death penalty over to your side....you're going to have to learn to give a little [bend a little] yourselves.
And you didn't answer my question about the families being forced to go through that process for years, in order that the parole boards hold to the sentence given to those who do such heinous crimes. Do your thoughts ever go to them....or only how unfair laws are to those found guilty?
Seems to me, too many are so quick to jump in to protect the criminals feelings, rights, speak to how they've changed, etc., but neglect to consider the victims and their families. Can the victims be rehabilated? Can their families have them back in their loving fold? no ;-( Their fate has been decided by the killer.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 11, 2003 03:42 PM ]
posted on October 11, 2003 04:59:23 PM new
I currently live about a block or two away from Gacy's old house. The house was knocked down, rebuilt and given a different address. It's vacant again. No one wants to live there and the houses on the rest of the block suffer too. Gacy did what he did, just as Dahmer did. They both received their just desserts.
While our wonderful ex-gov was still in office, he decided to review the death penalties for all convicted. He put every victim's family through the nightmare of reliving the death of their loved ones only to remove everyone off death row. Including the killers of a woman (pregnant)and her (I believe) 2 children. They cut, with scissors, that woman's baby from her belly and took the child. Did these two people deserve to live and have the opportunity to be "rehabilitated"? Can you rehabilitate that dead woman and her two kids?
But, I guess by stopping the death sentence in Illinois, it cleared our dear gov's conscience of the murders he helped cause by allowing illegal CDL licenses to be given out to truckers that could barely drive a car.
As for people that commit acts while under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs...all I can say is that stuff didn't crawl into their bodies on its own. You wanna play, you better be ready to pay.
