Today, in New Haven, CT, a man who committed horrible crimes was found guilty

[Stinky The Clown]

His sentencing will take place in the near future. He asked for a plea bargain - life in exchange for a guilty plea - that was rejected by the prosecution in deference to the wishes of the sole survivor and victim. At the sentencing hearing, the death penalty will be an option.

The crime was horrendous. An entire family butchered and set afire. A mother and her daughter were sexually violated. There was nothing to mitigate the pure, brutal, unimaginable evil of the crime or the two men who committed it.

http://www.newhavenregister.com/articles/2010/10/05/news/doc4cab572d3c803164349004.txt

And yet, I cannot bring myself to wish for the death penalty, although I suspect it is all but certain. If there are crimes that call for the death penalty, this is one of them.

How do you feel about this?

The perp




The victim and survivor, Dr. William Petit, Jr., shown here after the trial, with his sister.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. He deserves something much worse than death.

After following this story from day one until today, I have no sympathy for this animal whatsoever. (With my apologies to animals)

edit: sp

[mcollins]

192. Depending on what you believe

he will get that.

[Lil Missy]

2. Deathy penalty for him. n/t

[Dappleganger]

3. Death is too easy.

[Hepburn]

45. Agree...

...rot in hell in a tiny cell for the rest of his life.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. No amount of wishing for vengeance will make the DP right

And Dr. Petit could easily have avoided the pain of this trial, but he's so set on vengeance... To be brutally honest, as much as I feel for his awful experience, I don't have a lot of respect for him. He's often lauded as a hero around here. I have no idea why being the victim of a terrible crime makes him heroic.

There, I said it.

[mitchum]

9. You should submit that as a signed LTTE

take a truly heroic stand
courage of convictions and all that...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

22. I'm not sure I'd characterize it as vengeance.

I can't imagine what it's like to lose your wife and daughters under such horrific circumstances. I don't think the death penalty in a case like this is necessarily vengeance.

I am not generally in favor of the DP, because it is not applied fairly, more black and brown people are railroaded, and many people are wrongly convicted, and the system is broken. The cost to the system of a capital murder trial is a lot of money, and the mandatory appeals cost a lot of money as well. I used to work in the court system as a court reporter.

However, I would consider it in a horrific case like the New Haven case, serial murderers like Ted Bundy, and I did not have a problem with Texas executing Karla Faye Tucker after her brutal pickax murder of two people. In those cases there was no question of the defendant's guilt.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. Well, for me that's only one side of it

And all good reasons to eliminate it.

But there's more - there's the simple fact that it is state-sanctioned murder. How do you morally punish a murder with more murder? I do not want to be complicit in that.

Petit has been very, very outspoken about the death penalty - campaigning for it, and using his awful situation to gain ears.

It's terrible and terribly sad. But no amount of further murder will bring back his wife and children.

[mitchum]

26. Do you think a prison sentence is a state-sanctioned kidnapping?

Ot do you only play fast and loose with the precisely defined legal term "murder"?
That's the same thing that the anti-choicers do...

[northernlights]

41. +1000.........nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

74. Raise you another 1,000.......

[JerseygirlCT]

86. No, I don't. I think it's what's necessary to protect society

A state-sanctioned murder is NOT necessary. Life in prison serves the same societal need.

[mitchum]

126. Fast and loose once again with "murder"; so, I can assume that you DO agree with the anti-choicers?

[PavePusher]

176. At far greater expense...

and the ever-present possibility of parole, escape and furthar crimes in or out of jail.

You do know that being a prison guard is a dangerous job, right? Why should we risk additional harm to many others to preserve the life of someone who has self-proven to have no value?

[mitchum]

187. The dirty little secret is that so many of the hand wringers would prefer that the underclass...

(corrections officers and such) deal with the problem. They are actually quite classist in their desire to maintain their lily white self image.

[krispos42]

54. Death penalty or life in prison

Either way, the State holds him in a tiny cell until he's dead. If there is a miscarriage of justice in his trial and conviction, then letting it go on 40 or 50 years until he dies of old age isn't any different than the needle, either.

There is simply no good reason not to kill somebody at that point. During his half-century or so in prison he will be in the position to negatively influence hundreds or thousands of other inmates, to torment the survivors of his crime, to serve as a sick inspiration to a certain kind of people, and to injure or kill guards or other inmates. He's a man with nothing to lose, and therefore the most dangerous man of all.


Putting him on trial won't bring back the victim's wife and children, either, so I think that's a weak argument to make. We put him in jail to protect society from him, not to bring the dead back to life.

[JerseygirlCT]

That's a lot of nonsense

I'm sure the families of those executed wrongly agree with you that there's no difference between a life sentence and death.

[sabrina 1]

91. George Bush explained that Jerseygirl

How do you morally punish a murder with more murder

In an interview with Bill O'Reilly, who opposes the DP, before the 2000 election he was asked by Bill:

BOR: Who is your personal hero?

Bush: Jesus, Jesus is my personal hero

BOR: You are for the Death Penalty. How do you reconcile that position with saying that Jesus is your hero? Do you think he would approve of the DP?

Bush: Well, Bill, the way I see it, you have to kill them to stop the killing

It gave me chills at the time and was a preview of things to come, looking back. That mentality got us into two wars and got over one million people killed.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. It takes great strength of character to forgive, especially in a horrific case like this. But having the courage to do so would make him a hero. Revenge is what this country engaged in after 9/11. It was weak and foolish and has cost so many innocent lives and helped bankrupt this country in more ways than one.

Someone I never cared for, Ted Olson, recently gained a lot of respect from me when he said about 9/11 and the Muslim Mosque that we 'should not allow one horrible incident to make us lose our integrity' or words to that effect. Sometimes clarity comes from places you least expect it. Bill O'Reilly? And Ted Olson?

[JerseygirlCT]

96. That is chilling. And scary, because far too many people

accept that twisted "logic".

Forgiveness in this situation would certainly make someone heroic. It's probably not possible for most of us to imagine. I cannot say I'd have that strength.

But a victim is a different thing from a hero. While I find his behavior understandable, I do not find it heroic at all.

[sabrina 1]

110. And I agree.

I have read about the case and there are no words to describe the horror. He WAS heroic in his efforts to escape even after being badly wounded himself, and in succeeding, too late, to get to his neighbor's house, with his feet still bound. For that he was a hero.

I understand his anger and even the very human need for revenge. But that is why we do not put victims on juries.

I am not really being critical of him. If there was no death penalty here, as is the case Europe, he would not be handed the weapon, which is hard to resist, or put in the position he is in. He would accept the fact that these monsters would never see the light of day again which is probably a worse fate anyhow.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

65. Did executiong Bundy or Tucker bring their victims back to life?

Well, did it?

Did executing those people ensure that no other person would ever commit murder ever again?

Well, did it?

[minavasht]

83. Well, it made damned sure

they were not able to ever commit murder again.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

97. Which of course would have almost certainly happened as well had....

....they been locked in a cell for the rest of their natural lives.

So your point is....what?

[minavasht]

117. Exactly!

Almost is the very key word. "Lifers" can and have killed in prison.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

163. It's extremely uncommon.

And when it does happen, it typically is another inmate, and not prison personnel.

I believe last year there were seven total correctional officer fatalaties, and it is unclear how many of those occurred at the hands of "lifers":

http://www.apbweb.com/officer-down-news-menu-26/63-corrections-casualties.html

Certainly not enough to justify the death penalty.

[PavePusher]

177. How many were injured?

How many permenently disabled?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

180. Frankly, I have no idea.

My best guess is that it's still extremely, extremely rare given the security precautions in prisons these days. But as the death penalty isn't applied to cases where no death has occurred, I would think such issues would be irrelevant to the discussion.

[minavasht]

184. Hm

care to tell the families of the 7 guard that it was OK that their loved ones died, as long as it saved the lives of murderers?

BTW, I guess those other inmates that are mostly killed are the same people you want to keep alive - can you stick to one side please and decide if you want to keep them alive or dead?
I guess prisoners don't count as full human beings? What are they - 1/3 humans? Kill one, bag one free?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

185. You are really the worst at changing the questions, aren't you?

Unless it is a situation dealing with an imminent threat to another human being (ex: gun to the head, knife to the throat, etc.), there is no reason to prematurely end the life of a human being.

So to answer your ridiculously phrased question, it is not okay that the guards died. Or fellow prisoners died. Or anyone died. I think that's pretty much common sense.

:eyes:

Nothing about those facts make the death penalty any more justified, though.

[PavePusher]

199. Wrong.

Google "tueller drill".

[minavasht]

207. Yet you insist of putting innocent people at risk

of being hurt by criminals who had proven that they don't value the live of others, have nothing to lose (what, you are going to sentence them to another "life"?) and have only to gain by trying to escape.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

208. Well, at that point, why bother incarcerating any violent felons, whether its murder or not?

Under your thinking, why not just execute anyone who's convicted of any type of violent felony--murder, assault, armed robbery, etc.--because they could potentially be a risk to people inside the prison, whether it be guards or fellow inmates?

The fact of the matter is, security measures inside prisons these days have made any risk to the individuals inside prison walls very low. Is it a perfect guarantee against incidents? No. But it is good enough that the argument that the eithical issues that come with the death penalty significantly outweigh these risks.

[minavasht]

215. We were

talking about a murderer, not a robber.

You agree that if incarcerated, the murderer can cause more harm. But as long as it is some lowlife criminal or a faceless prison guard that's getting hurt, you are perfectly Ok with it. As long as the murderer's precious life is preserved, so he can ... do what?

Talking about ethical issues....

[proteus_lives]

32. Yeah, his entire family is butchered and he's not over it. What a prick.

Too bad he's not a perfect being like you.

[northernlights]

43. +10000................nt

besides, no criminals should be deprived of their freedom or their lives. Maybe we should trying paying them to not go around robbing, raping and butchering their whiny, vengeful victims.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

67. I think you miss the irony in your own statement. No human being is perfect.

On the other hand, no human being is evil incarnate. Killing a person, no matter how horrific the act he committed may be, will not defeat evil. People will continue to murder. Evil will continue to exist.

It is proponents of the Death Penalty who are delusional in thinking that killing another person for killing a person will somehow constitute "justice" and a triumph over evil. They are wrong. All you have is one more dead person.

[JerseygirlCT]

90. Exactly. nt

[closeupready]

102. That is about the most excellent point I have yet read about the stupidity of the DP.

n/t

[proteus_lives]

105. A dead person who deserved be killed.

He won't kill anyone else.

Good and evil are just words.

What he did is fact. He deserves to die for it, another fact.

There's no reason to keep him on this world, another fact.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

161. He will die. Everyone dies.

And the state can and should ensure that he never lives another day in freedom. That he dies a prisoner without liberty or freedom.

But that is the very most the state should do.

[uncommon]

151. Yes, but the new dead person deserves death and his victims did not.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

159. Every person dies.

And the state keeping the person locked up for the rest of his natural life, kept away from liberty and society, is punishment enough.

The state accelerating the natural death of a person, no matter the henious act committed, is something beyond the state's duties.

[PavePusher]

178. This...

"Killing a person, no matter how horrific the act he committed may be, will not defeat evil."

You are most likely correct. But I'll happily settle for a reduction in evil.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

190. I hate to break it to you, but evil won't be reduced either.

Evil just is. It's not a person; it's not born, nor does it die. Rather, evil is what a person does--whether you believe it to be motivated by a malevolant supernatural being, primal instincts or simple defects in one's synapses. One murderer dies, another murder is born. The attrocities of a Columbine are outdone by the attrocities of a Virginia Tech. There is no reduction in anything; the cycle will continue to repeat itself as long as humankind exists.

Those realizations are depressing as all hell. That's why I think people are inclined to think there's an easier way out, that if you execute a person, you've had a victory over evil.

But the only thing to keep us going is to believe in the fact that more people are inclined to do good things than evil things, and hope that the good things dominate society and reflect on us humans as a whole.

[Egnever]

181. Demonstrably false

there are plenty of cases of murderers being released only to murder again. Killing them after the first offense would undeniably have saved the second victims.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

189. Hence why life without parole has been started.

Of which I have no problem.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

64. Yeah I agree 100%.

I lose a certain degree of sympathy for a victim of a crime if they insist on the Death Penalty and nothing less. Once the perpetrator stops breathing and they go back to a still empty home, they'll realize what an empty notion of so-called "justice" has been achieved.

[minavasht]

81. Do you care to share with us

your experience in losing loved ones? How many kids, wives or parents have you lost to murders to be able to tell what others should require as a penalty?

BTW, is there a survey showing now many of the survivors felt sorry for the criminals after their execution? I'd like to see some proof to that "empty notion of so-called "justice" has been achieved" .
Thank you in advance!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

167. Fallacy alert. You've reframed the question.

My guess is that not many survivors felt sorry for the criminals after their execution. But lack of sadness over the perpetrator's death is not the same thing as justice. Justice would be the bringing back to life of the persons killed. That's physically impossible. The death penalty fails to achieve this goal. Ergo, the death penalty fails in achieving justice.

As I've said in this thread, after the execution is over, the survivor still goes back to an empty house. Nothing was achieved by the execution.

[minavasht]

186. By your definition

of justice - "Justice would be the bringing back to life of the persons killed" why even bother arresting murderers?
By your definition of justice, execution does not bring the dead back. Sending the murderer to jail will not bring the dead back either.
So just let him go?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

188. Ummm.....no.

Sending the murderer to jail would a) protect society by incarcerating the individual from the public, and b) exists as a proper means of consequence for the individual's actions.

I just do not believe it to be proper for the State to go anywhere beyond lifetime incarceration. The State, as I see it, cannot play God. It can revoke the regular rights associated with good citizenship, but it cannot revoke one's life. That crosses a boundary that ought not to be crossed.

[minavasht]

216. As stated before

this is your opinion and you are entitled to have it.

Doesn't make it right thou.

[JerseygirlCT]

93. Lots of sympathy

but not lots of respect.

He's a man set on vengeance. Which I totally understand. However, as you say, that vengeance will likely seem pretty small comfort once all the hoopla is past. And I do not think a victim's sense of vengeance should drive our legal system.

[LisaL]

146. Everybody deals with grief in their own way.

If that's how this man deals with his grief who are you to judge him?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

168. Some of the 9-11 victims families have dealt with their grief by opposing the Islamic Center....

....near Ground Zero on the mistaken belief that all Muslims are terrorists. I think they are wrong. The fact that I also feel for them for having lost a loved one does not change the fact that I think they are wrong.

And just because someone has lost a loved one or ones due to a murder and wants the death penalty does not change the fact that I believe the death penalty is wrong and that they are wrong for demanding it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

143. I really don't think you've earned the right to judge that man

Not unless you've been through what he has. Your feelings about the death penalty are irrelevant - I don't care whether you oppose it or not. That is your prerogative. But I do find your casual judgment of a man who's suffered a more atrocious tragedy than 99.9% of us ever will to be extraordinarily distasteful.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

169. Even a wronged person can still be wrong. nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

179. Saying that you think someone is wrong and saying that you don't respect them are very different

We as a society have completely lost the ability to draw that distinction, which is why we our discourse (both here on DU and in America writ large) is in the toilet. It's not enough to disagree with someone, or believe them incorrect, or oppose their beliefs. Whether or not you agree with Dr. Petit or think that he's behaving rationally, I think it's crass and appalling to *sit in judgment* of him. I can guarantee that no one on this thread sitting here in our comfy offices or homes has any idea what he's gone through. Whether you agree with him or not, I'd think anyone claiming the kind of empathy that death penalty opponents frequently do would be able to understand that he's a human being in great pain who has suffered an unimaginable loss. But apparently principled disagreement is no longer in vogue - we must sit in sneering judgment of everyone who dares to stray from the enlightened path. And then the left wonders why a broad swath of Americans find their message distasteful. There are ways to oppose the death penalty effectively, and with principle. Dragging a grieving husband and father through the mud is not one of those ways.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

183. How is opposing the death penalty in this (and all other) cases "dragging him through the mud"?

I'm not going to say he's a horrible, awful person. All I'm saying is that the fact he wants the death penalty out of a perfectly human--albiet flawed--emotional response shouldn't sway the fact that the death penalty is empty justice.

[WildEyedLiberal]

196. Did you not even read what I wrote? My original comment wasn't even addressed to you anyway

Another poster in this thread made it clear that she does not respect Dr. Petit because he favors the death penalty for his wife and daughters' butchers. I find it tasteless to sit in judgment of a man who's lost so much, regardless of how one feels about the death penalty. You seem to be able to make the distinction - the poster I originally responded to did not.

[mitchum]

5. In many places, the DP is an occupational hazard for rapist/murderers...

the lesson is
choose your vocation carefully
and
remember...
location, location, location!

[blondeatlast]

6. There simply is no fittting penalty for this horrendous crime.

Death is too easy for him and I remain steadfastly opposed to the death penalty.

[uncommon]

152. Well he could be sentenced to be raped, murdered, and set afire, but that would

have the unfortunate side effect of demoralizing the executioner, so it's a no go.

[hedgehog]

7. Not in any way to excuse the criminals, but what are the details about the woman going to the bank?

Did she drive herself to the bank? How long did it take the bank to place the 911 call, and how long for the police to respond after that?

[JerseygirlCT]

13. She did drive herself, I believe

b/c her kids and husband were being held captive, and she was told they'd be freed when she brought the money. I think someone from the bank called 911 right away. This is a really small town - in more than size. I wouldn't be surprised if the teller knew Mrs. Petit and could tell something was wrong even before she told them.

But from what I've read, the cops dropped the ball - they stayed at a distance and didn't attempt to interfere - I guess believing it was only a hostage situation. Perhaps they were doing it by the numbers - in retrospect it looks like a big fail. I don't know enough to really judge, though. You'd think that at least emergency vehicles and people would have been right there from the get-go, you know?

[LisaL]

17. She didn't go to the bank by herself.

One of the men stayed in the home with her children and husband held hostage, the other took her to the bank. He stayed in the car outside the bank while she went inside to get the money.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Ah... thanks. Couldn't remember right. nt

[hedgehog]

50. Sort of a re-play of 9/11 - people followed their training for

a hostage situation.

[CTyankee]

154. The Cheshire police knew it was a hostage situation and their policy was not to rush

the house because they had been trained that it might cause harm to the hostages. What they didn't know was that the perps were preparing to murder the mom and girls and set fire to the house. I guess they figured Dr. Petit would also die because he couldn't get out.

What I wish is that the police would have had an alternate strategy...I don't know what they could have done but trying to communicate with the perps might have helped...

[Va Lefty]

8. Not a big fan of death penalty

but this MF deserves to fry

[Nye Bevan]

10. Life without the possibility of parole is fine with me.

No drama. No last-minute appeals. No Hollywood stars befriending the condemned man. No 2 AM Supreme Court hearings. Just rotting slowly in a small cell for the next 60 years or so.

[minavasht]

34. OK

But somebody has to work in the prison, feed him, clean his cell, take him out for his daily walk, etc.
And all the time he can hurt them in one way or another - he has nothing to lose.

[virgogal]

11. I'm anti death penalty.Lock him up and throw away the key.

[Lucy Goosey]

12. I'm still opposed to the death penalty...

But I grew up in a country that hasn't executed anyone in my lifetime, so I guess I'm some sort of brainwashed socialist.

[Art_from_Ark]

144. In your country, a man can decapitate and cannibilize

another man in a bus in front of a dozen witnesses, cop a "temporary insanity" plea in front of a sympathetic judge, and qualify for re-release into society after a few years of "treatment"

[Tommy_Carcetti]

194. Yes, the horrible dystopia that is Canada....

...where people can get, you know....universal health care and such. How can anyone stand to live in such a dysfunctional place?

[Art_from_Ark]

203. I'm not talking about Canadian health care

Nice straw man there. I'm talking about the brutal murder of a man (kid, actually) whose only crime seems to have been riding the wrong bus, and the travesty of justice that followed.

As for the Canadian health care system, I have experienced it myself, and was impressed with it. It certainly beat the US system.

[minavasht]

14. Is there any doubt

that he is the right guy?

If he really did what they say he did, why do you want to keep him alive? Do you believe that he will see the light and become a nice, loving human being? Would you like to see him released later? Would you like to have him as a neighbor if he was released? Would you hire him?

Somebody posted a while back links to stories about criminals sentenced to "live" who were able to kill in jail or escape and kill again. Do you think it is an acceptable risk?

[JerseygirlCT]

19. It's quite simple

Because the death penalty is not only wrong because of potential mistakes (innocents being sentenced to death), but because it is intrinsically, morally, wrong.

I do not wish to participate in state-sanctioned murder by virtue of my citizenship.

[minavasht]

30. You have an opinion

and most definitely you are entitled to it.
This does not mean in any way that your opinion is the right or the wrong one.

And again, if he lives - do you want him living next door?

[blondeatlast]

48. DP opponents, such as myself, want him locked up for good. No parole.

That seems to be a difficult concept for many who favor the DP; I have no idea why that is.

[JerseygirlCT]

100. I don't understand

why that's so hard to grasp, but as you say, it seems to be.

This isn't and hasn't ever been a choice between being set free and the DP. He had already admitted to the crime. It will be either life in prison or execution.

[Caliman73]

114. It is hard to grasp because of people's desire for vengeance.

It is an awful thing to have to go through and extremely emotional. People get justice and vengeance mixed up. I oppose the death penalty because of the mistakes and because I feel it is no more than state sanctioned murder/vengeance. I can understand vengeance. If someone murdered my family I would want to get revenge, the difference is that I don't want the state doing my dirty work for me so that I can sit back and claim it was "justice".

[CTyankee]

141. Wait a minute! What is the point of having a criminal justice system in the first place?

Is the state doing "your dirty work" by prosecuting these people in the first place? I mean, really, what do you expect?

We have a system here. I am not arguing one way or the other on capital punishment, but let's not characterize the state's work as "dirty work." OK?

[Caliman73]

142. HOLD ON A SECOND!!

:rofl:

No need to go all agro dude. I stated an opinion, a strong one, but your response is not addressing what I said. You aren't arguing capital punishment one way or the other? That is exactly what I am arguing. That is the only thing I am arguing. You aren't responding to my post, you are responding to some kind of nerve I hit or something.

The point of the justice system is to protect the interests of society. For defendants the point is to have a fair and impartial trial where innocence is assumed until proven otherwise. For victims of crime it is to perchance receive compensation, to be made whole, to receive some measure of assurance that perpetrators of crime are incarcerated or given some other consequence. Is the interest of society to systematically and coldly kill people? If the state involves itself in killing people in a cold and systematic way, then the state is engaging in the dirty work of people who want an eye for an eye. No matter how you dress it up in procedure, the end result of a capital case is the state killing someone else.

Nowhere in the post did I characterize the entire justice system as the state's dirty work, the death penalty is the state killing people and in my opinion, killing people who are not an imminent threat to your life or the lives of others is just a state sanctioned hit job. That is what I characterized as "dirty work".

I expect society to have more restraint as a whole than an individual might have when in an emotional rage. We can try people, allow them to defend themselves, and have a jury reach a verdict. That is justice. Killing is not justice, it is revenge.

[CTyankee]

155. Thank you for clarifying. I misread your post. The nerve you hit was

that my son is a senior prosecutor in the Brooklyn D.A.'s office and he sees some tough customers...

[Caliman73]

171. No problem.

:toast:


Like I said, I am human. I feel the despair and the anger and I imagine that I would want to get revenge on people who harmed people that I care about, even people that I do not care about as in this case, I feel like, "yes, those guys deserve to die a horribly painful and humiliating death", but when you step back and look at the situation from a stand point of society in general, that is when I pause and ask what the purpose, utility, and impact of the system killing the murderers?

I have no doubt that your son has seen some of the worst people our society has to offer. I don't doubt that your son goes into work with the intention of making sure justice is done and the guilty are removed from a place where they can harm others and society in general. My only objection is to the use of killing to met out justice on behalf of victims and the state in general.

[CTyankee]

175. And I understand that. I also think that the DP is meted out very inequitably.

I'm not arguing for the DP here, actually. In fact, Stephen Hayes tried to kill himself, so our killing him will only get him what he wants. But I do think he should be subjected to the most isolating existence humanly possible, with no TV, radio or reading material and extremely limited human interaction. It would be a dreadful sentence, but not death. He would probably go insane...

[JerseygirlCT]

98. That's not even an option

He won't be living in society again. That's a foregone conclusion. The only issue will be death or life in prison.

[closeupready]

108. That question is so dishonest. Shame on you.

She has a philosophical opposition to the DP, and favors incarceration instead. And you ask, if he doesn't get the death penalty, do you want him living next door - that is a disgustingly dishonest question, since it is not what she stated, and not even within the realm of hypothetically possible.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

111. Really? I have two convicted serial killers living next door to me, and one living across the street

Don't you? Doesn't everyone?


:sarcasm:

[minavasht]

118. This is a story about a "Life Sentence" that was commuted

Apparently "life" does not always mean for life.

http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/article_99881200-af95-11df-9dea-001cc4c002e0.html

So again, would you like this murderer as a next-door neighbor if he ever gets commuted?

[closeupready]

121. Was that a first degree murder?

What was the nature of his crime?

[minavasht]

147. Uh.... he killed somebody??

What do you mean by nature of the crime - murder is murder. Do you mean that if he first gave chocolate to his victims he should get a shorter sentence than somebody who just killed his?

[closeupready]

158. You've just exposed your ignorant views for what they are.

Dismissed.

[minavasht]

182. OK, I'll keep your dismissal

under advisement.:evilgrin:

It is really nice when enlightened people like are up there, shining the light for the unwashed us. Thanks for showing me the wrongs of my ways, you do have strong arguments!

[msanthrope]

211. Uh...this is why we have degrees of murder and manslaughter...

The nature of the killing you linked to, and the behavior of the perpetrator, argues for commutation.

In fact, it should have been a manslaughter charge in the first place.

[malaise]

15. I remember when those despicable humans committed

those horrific crimes. Throw away the keys.

[TheDebbieDee]

16. I say, "Fry him!"

My brother says that people who get the death penalty should not be told the date of their execution. It makes sense...........their victims didn't wake up knowing they were going to die that day.

ETA: Ordinarily, I would make my usual complaint that the death penalty is not administered proportionately in this country, but in this creep's case I could flip the switch on him myself and sleep well that night.

[proteus_lives]

107. That's how they do it in Japan.

The condemned isn't told when he will be executed. And they're rarely kept on death for more then a few years.

[TonyMontana]

20. The death penalty is outdated and barbaric and uncivilized

Killing him won't bring the dead back, and it won't prevent this kind of thing from happening again, either.

Not to mention that it's wrong.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. Amen. nt

[minavasht]

33. True

But nobody is talking about bringing back anything. I guess it is more to the effect of denying him the chance to do it again.
In jail he can kill or hurt other inmates or prison guards. He can escape. He can be released later for one reason or another.

If he gets released, would you like him as a next-door neighbor?

Wrong, right - who defines what they mean? A bunch of people think it is wrong to be gay. Even more think it is wrong to kill a perfectly healthy fetus.
Again, who decides which "wrong" is the right one?

[blondeatlast]

49. Nobody wants him released. Nobody. No parole, life in prison.

It really isn't a difficult concept.

[TonyMontana]

55. Are you really asking who decides whether or not it's wrong to murder someone?

Because that's what capital punishment is. It is state sanctioned murder.

[minavasht]

84. Uh, last time I checked it was a punishment

It says so right in the title. Most of the time it is a punishment for murder.

You seem to be mistaken.

[TonyMontana]

87. It doesn't matter WHY it's being done

We're not talking about the reason for the murder, we're talking about the act itself.

[mitchum]

129. Fast and loose with the term "murder"; so, I can safely assume that you agree with anti-choicers...

when they use the exact same tactic?
That's a recurring bit of pillowtalk among you seemingly strange bedfellows.

[CTLawGuy]

148. well you agree with George W Bush

that the death penalty is good. so knock it off with the "anti-choice" crap!

[mitchum]

156. For the sake of your clients, I certainly hope that your rhetorical and rebuttal skills...

are better than that, "Law"Guy.

[CTLawGuy]

195. oh personal attack

cute.


and, considering I'm merely using the same logic as you are, your attack on my rhetorical skills is pretty amusing.

[mitchum]

197. No, I'm merely equating your torturous twisting of language with that of the anti--choicers...

because you use the exact same "logic"
And it really touches a nerve, doesn't it?

[CTLawGuy]

204. murder is, at its core,

the intentional taking of another's life.

That it might differ in that it is legally justified because the state is doing it as punishment for a crime is a moral technicality. So it is less a "twist" and more of the ignoring of a distinction that is pretty much meaningless.

It's like waterboarding; the Bush administration said it was legal, but did that make it anything more than the pouring of water onto a restrained person's face to simulate drowning? Did that pronouncement make it less wrong to do? You do believe torture is wrong right?


if anything bothers me, it's your rude attitude and the fact that you are vociferously defending the right wing position of supporting the death penalty on a left wing board, and doing so by insinuating that people taking the left wing position are the right wingers.

[mitchum]

205. No, I am saying that you and "they" are using the same intellectually dishonest method...

of attempting to redefine the precisely defined term "murder"
And your absolutist declaration of the proper right wing and left wing positions on the DP is another bit of intellectual dishonesty on your part. But you already know that...

[CTLawGuy]

214. please explain how the DP is in any way consistent with

liberal values.

[Brickbat]

21. I'm always against the death penalty. Always. The state does a lot in my name that I reject.

Killing is one of them.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

25. Maybe someone will off him in jail

Hopefully he doesn't escape. He'd be a real bastard then.

[mitchum]

27. Likely, since he really was not a good advertisement for parole...

there might be some...peer resentment.

[scarletwoman]

28. As long as the perpetrator is prevented from ever reproducing or passing on his pathological

worldview, that's good enough for me.

I would prefer that he be kept in complete isolation for the rest of his life. And if the isolation drove him to suicide - oh well.

I will never approve of state-sanctioned murder, period.

sw

[bighart]

51. But you are obviously ok with cruel and unusual punishment

Life in isolation is the very definition of it.

[scarletwoman]

133. He gets to live, he'll have his own thoughts for company.

No torture, protection from the violence of other prisoners, no daily struggle to survive; food, shelter, and medical care provided for by the state.

By his actions, he has demonstrated his unfitness for human society. It is only just that he be deprived of that which he obviously did not value.

sw

[JI7]

29. I oppose the Death Penalty but i wont feel bad if he gets it

[proteus_lives]

31. I think people like this deserve to die for their crimes.

There is no rehabilitation, no way he'll do anything good.

And putting him in for life just gives him the chance to harm other prisoners and guards and medical staff, etc.

[Odin2005]

35. Death is too good for him. I want this fucker to SUFFER as long as possible!

[Forrest Greene]

36. It's Not Necessarily Vengeance

I think it may not have been mentioned that this perpetrator & his accomplice were apprehended while leaving the scene, & both have freely admitted their guilt. It started when, allegedly, the other perpetrator scouted his victims at a local grocery store. He liked their car & followed them home to learn their address. He & his accomplice returned that night.

They clubbed & bound the husband, tied the two daughters, aged 11 & 17, to their beds, & I believe also bound the wife. They ransacked the house for valuables. The wife was later released for the trip to the bank, described above. She told the teller, who later made the 911 call, what was happening. She was returned to her home, & within forty-five minutes, was bound, raped, & strangled to death by the perpetrator who is in the news today.

Meanwhile, his accomplice had raped the 11-year old girl as she lay bound to her own bed. The two perpetrators poured gasoline over the two daughters, who were still alive, & over the rest of the house, lit it, & attempted to escape. The 17-year old girl somehow freed herself & died of smoke inhalation attempting to help her sister, who also died of smoke inhalation. They also presumably suffered burns.

At some point, the husband, tied in the cellar, freed himself &, dazed from his beating & from loss of blood, rolled --- he was unable to free his feet --- to a neighbor's, who I believe made a second 911 call. The police do seem to have seriously dropped the ball at several points during the incident.

I feel the death penalty is largely useless. It is obviously applied, in most cases, according to ethnicity & economic class. One innocent person executed is too many. I hope those who disapprove of state-sanctioned murder also disapprove of military adventures overseas. I do not think the death penalty acts as any kind of deterrent to crime. I find credible those figures indicating the cost of maintaining a sentence of life without parole is in fact less expensive to the state than the cost of a trial, appeals, & execution.

However, I do feel these two criminals should be put to death. It's not necessarily vengeance. If I wanted them to suffer vengeance, I'd have them rot in jail until they died. The moral principle I want to see fulfilled is balance. It could be called justice, for the dead.

I live in Connecticut.


(Edited to delete a doubled word.)

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. FRY that piece of shit!

You can argue the morality issue all you want. You call decry "state sanctioned murder" all you want. You are entitled to your opinions. This piece of shit, and his accomplice, don't deserve to draw another breath of air. Period. That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, too.

Fry both their asses

[Upton]

44. +1

[Mad_Dem_X]

56. Agreed - altho' he would probably get the needle

and die in a much more humane way than his victims did. Fuck him.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

193. I'm always amazed by people who justify doing something simply because others have done it to.

So you are okay with killing someone because he himself has killed. To prove to the world that killing is wrong.

Reminds me of the old canard in favor of the US torturing people at Guantanamo and other places simply because terrorists have tortured and killed hostages.

It just doesn't make any sense to me. It boggles the mind. The concept of wanting to be the better person, or the better group of persons, is totally lost on some.

[Ghost in the Machine]

202. "The concept of wanting to be the better person, or the better group of persons, is totally lost .."

"The concept of wanting to be the better person, or the better group of persons, is totally lost on some."

I'm already the better person, I didn't tie up and rape an 11 year old, a 17 year old, then set them on fire while they were still alive. I didn't rape and kill their mother either...

Like I said in my post, you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. We won't change each others' minds so we just have to agree to disagree on that.

If you can point out where I have been "in favor of the US torturing people at Guantanamo and other places simply because terrorists have tortured and killed hostages", I would be more than happy to address that too....

[Tommy_Carcetti]

210. I'll give you that you are the *better* person than the individual in question.

Most anyone, spare genocidal dictators, can argue that they are the better person.

Hell, the gang member who does a drive by shooting of a rival gang member is probably a better person than this guy, but you know what? They are both murderers. One's crime may be more specatcular and shocking than the other's, but neither has demonstrated through their actions a respect for another human's life. So while one may be the better person, both have done--in my opinion--equally bad things.

And perhaps in my statement that you quoted to, I should have phrased it better. It's not just about being a better person than a "bad" person. It's about being a good person yourself.

So going back to the torture argument (and I wasn't referring to anything you had said in the past; rather I was drawing an analogy), proponents of the Bush adminstration's interrogation techinques (I'm not saying you) often argued that waterboarding was not nearly egregious as decapitation, which terrorists had engaged in. While arguably true, just because decapitation is terrible doesn't make waterboarding any less wrong. Similarly, just because tying up and raping two people and then setting them on fire is terrible doesn't make straping someone to a gurney and injecting them with poison any less wrong. If something is wrong, it is always wrong, even when compared to something else that is arguably worse.

Or, as your mother may have told you, two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm going to go out on a line and say this, but for those who are vocal proponents death penalty and argue that it should be used because these perpetrators had no respect for human life, it's just plain hypocricy. You can claim you are the better person because all you are doing is injecting a needle (whereas the perp brutally murdered people in a painful manner), but you still don't have a respect for human life if that's what you are arguing. You may be a better person than the murderer, but being a better person doesn't in and of itself make you a good person.

As the saying goes, "Killing people who kill people to show people that killing is wrong, is wrong."

[Ghost in the Machine]

213. There is one thing I think you, and a lot of others, are missing about the whole subject though..

.. and that is the point of the criminal mindset. I don't know how familiar you are with it.

I see a lot of people looking at the death penalty as "revenge", but as for myself, and I speak only for myself, I just see it as a consequence. It's really no different than a robber getting shot and killed by his intended victim. It's just an occupational hazard.

The death penalty is a consequence of certain crimes. Criminals *know* this when they engage in their criminal activities. It's a fate they accept, by virtue of their actions.

I also know that the death penalty has taken the lives of some innocent people. There is no way to justify that, and I won't pretend to try to justify it. Honestly? I think there should be a moritorium on all sentences where there has not been a confession, DNA evidence, video evidence or eyewitness testimony establishing guilt 100% without a doubt.

However, in a case like this one, where it is very clear cut that they are guilty and there was a confession, there shouldn't even be a need to waste taxpayer money on appeals, nor should taxpayer money be spent on keeping them in prison for years awaiting execution. Take them back to a cell and plan their execution within a week... or in the case of these two, walk them out on the courthouse steps and irrigate their skulls...

I respect human life.. the lives of the innocent victims, not sub-human cretins like these two.

Your mileage may vary....

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. Put him in a sealed cell with a toilet, a shower, and a dumb-waiter.

Never turn the light in his cell off. Feed him and give him clean bedding and clothes through the dumb-waiter. No books, no TV, no newspaper, no contact with the outside world or any human being whatsoever. No sunlight, no darkness.

Give him a cabinet that has a gun with one bullet in it, one cyanide pill, and a noose and stool. Place two foot-shaped metal pads next to the wall with a red button that he could use to electrocute himself if he were standing on the metal pads in his bare feet. Hell, put a locked and loaded guillotine in with him too.

Put in his cell a large digital clock that shows the current time and date TO THE SECOND above a large digital clock that shows he amount of time he's been in the cell, TO THE SECOND, above a large digitical clock that shows the amount of time TO THE SECOND he has in his "life expectency".

Lastly, play recordings of classic literary works in languages he doesn't understand, one after the other, each in a different language, non-stop.

Call THAT the Death Penalty.

[Bunny]

46. Wow. You've put a lot of thought into this.

[Lucky Luciano]

123. Ok you convinced me. Your idea is best. nt

[uncommon]

153. Damn. Sounds like Sartre. +1

[LWolf]

39. No death penalty.

The death penalty issue, for me, is not about what the perp did. It's about whether or not we, as humans, evolve into more enlightened creatures that recognize the hypocrisy in allowing ourselves to kill in order to punish someone for killing. Becoming the perp is not the way we should be dealing with the worst of our society.

The point in finding someone guilty of a crime is not, from my pov, to seek revenge, or to punish. It's to take them off the street, making our world a little safer. And yes, I'm aware that much of the nation does not share my pov.

Frankly, if punishment WERE the objective, being locked up for life is worse than dying for those who value freedom.

[northernlights]

40. death is too easy, and I would in some ways prefer

a long, miserable life alone in a cage.

but I willingly defer to the wishes of the father and husband who's life will be haunted by the losses and memories of how his loved ones spent their last moments.

Besides, the way our "justice" system works, the murderers will still have many miserable years of appeals ahead of them before they're put down.

[renate]

89. that's exactly how I feel

In cases like this, I think the victims' families should get to decide which penalty could ease their pain, even if it helps only a little bit. If it makes them feel better to think of the murderers spending the rest of their lives in solitary confinement--fine. If it makes them feel better to have evil like that removed from the world--fine.

The moment those murderers committed those crimes, their futures should have become forfeit to whichever penalty the victims' survivor wants. They had a fair trial and he should get to decide which penalty would bring him a modicum of peace.

[Upton]

42. Time to put this guy down..

same thing with his partner when he's convicted. Too bad they can't be raped, tortured and burned alive like their victims..

[ellie]

47. My cousin was murdered

After they caught the piece of shit, my cousin's daughter told the court that she didn't want him to receive the death penalty. She wanted him to think about what he did for the rest of his life. I am not for the death penalty in all cases, but this one, yes. This piece of shit was a sociopath with no feelings. What good is sitting in a jail cell not being remorseful going to do?

[Iggo]

52. No death penalty.

Not ever.

[bdamomma]

53. death too easy

they should waterboard the bastard.

[femmedem]

57. I oppose the death penalty in all instances, including this one.

It appeals to our worst instincts, and feeds a hunger for vengeance. (But the hunger is never satisfied.)

When people clamor for it almost joyfully, I am horrified and saddened. If other nations had not moved beyond the death penalty, I would think our species was not capable of evolving beyond lynch mobs and public beheadings.

[Greyhound]

58. State execution is wrong, period. n/t

[Bragi]

59. His sentencing is about "us", not about "him"

I oppose the death penalty because it demeans any society that engages in it. If I dehumanize the perpetrator, I dehumanize myself.

What matters to me is that criminals of this sort be put away so they cannot do any more harm to anyone.

I want and expect protection from him, but I neither seek nor need retribution or revenge against him.

If I felt the need for revenge or retribution, then I would feel weaker, not stronger.

I think my attitude on this empowers me. Advocating death or misery to another human diminishes me, and leads to loss of control over my own emotions.

[bighart]

69. How do you acheive this?

"What matters to me is that criminals of this sort be put away so they cannot do any more harm to anyone." In prison they can do harm to other inmates as well as staff.

[Bragi]

70. Good heavens

If Americans wanted their prisons to be safe, they would be safe. There is no mystery how to do this, just look at the prison systems in other countries.

In truth, I think most Americans prefer that their prisons be ugly and violent, and so they design and run them to allow that to occur.

[bighart]

75. My personal feeling, and I have family and friends that have done

fairly lengthy stretches in some of the worst prisons in this state as well as a family member that is a correctional officer at one of these facilities, is that prisons breed misery. That is kind of the point isn't, to make the inmates miserable.

[Bragi]

78. Inmate misery is counter-productive, horribly expensive

You have a lot more direct experience than me with the U.S prison system. I'm a Canadian, and our system is different anyway. But I firmly believe that the gratuitous inflicting of harm and suffering on offenders, and on their families, creates more crime, and is idiotically costly. And harmful.

I have to say as a very good friend of the U.S that when you have 1 in 100 people incarcerated in the prison system, you have to stop and think about what's going wrong.

As a Canadian with an idiot Conservative government poised to make our prison system more stupid, I want to quickly add that I'm not shouting too loud at anyone about what's happening in the U.S when I've such a mess at home. I'm just noting my thoughts in the context of this thread.

[GoCubsGo]

77. There are "safe" prisions in this country already

They're called "SuperMax"prisons. Here's one of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence

[lapislzi]

157. Prison for profit is a horrible societal model

Your posts are very thoughtful.

There are ways, if we were committed to the process, to incarcerate the murderer without possibility of parole or appeal, and ensure that he is not a danger to other inmates or prison staff. This can be done humanely (which he probably doesn't deserve by virtue of the crimes he committed, but maybe does deserve simply because he is a human being) and at a reasonable cost to the public.

That being said, if he hanged himself in his cell, not only would I not be sorry, but I would consider justice served.

[Fire1]

60. I say, life without parole. n/t

[SOS]

61. The missing factor

When will the role of alcohol in violent crime be addressed?
Both of these dirtbags were blind drunk at the time of this crime.
They had been drinking hard liquor for many hours.

According to Dr. Nancy Snyderman of ABC News, 87% of murders are committed by people who are drunk.

Whether the DP or life in prison, these guys are finished.
Their days of crime are over.

But if we are serious about preventing this type of nightmare, the role of alcohol
abuse among repeat offenders must be dealt with in a serious way.

[bighart]

76. Beg to differ. If they get life the only end to their criminal behavior

will be outside the prison walls. It is almost a certainty that they will commit criminal acts in prison.

[Contrary1]

62. I've often thought that a better option would be to take these animals, and others like them

and drop them off on an island in the middle of the ocean. Give them garden tools, seeds, fishing gear, canvas for a shelter etc., and let them fend for themselves. A helicopter could drop off supplies once a month.

If they want to fight and kill each other, so be it. If one would attempt escape, they wouldn't get very far. No guards necessary, and the cost to keep a prisoner would be kept at a minimum.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

66. Wasn't that the basis for the founding of Australia? nt

[Contrary1]

68. Hadn't heard that about Australia...

There was "Devil's Island", off the coast of French Guiana that was used as a penal colony. I believe the movie Papillon was based on it. Great story starring Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Island

[deaniac21]

101. A helicopter could take them up a few hundred feet and toss them

out.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

63. The state should not have the ability to kill a person who is not an imminent danger to others.

Period.

No matter how horrific the crime.

Lock him up. Throw away the key. And good riddance. But that's it.

[geek tragedy]

71. The state shouldn't have the right to kill its citizens where there

is a non-violent alternative.

But, I cannot say that the DP would not be justice.

[JonLP24]

72. Are people OK

with trusting people like Andrew Thomas (who is an Arpaio lap dog under ethics investigations) asking for a DP in cases which he has done? Me? I don't trust him and it scares me that there are people like him asking for DP in cases. Scares me. Makes me want to move to New Mexico where there is no DP because you never know. I'd rather lock up thousands truly guilty people for life rather than execute 1 innocent. (I know that is a spin-off of a famous quote relating to DP.

[ismnotwasm]

73. Prison without parole

Limited access to the outside world; Certain limited correspondence, books, no Internet, no television. Limited number of appeals with strict legal criteria, one would have to actually have a case to fuck with the system.

I always think that I personally could kill someone who harmed my family. I'm not sure that's true, but pretty sure. I'd kill them out of pain, out of rage, I'd want them to suffer, I'd want vengeance tenfold.

The state doesn't kill for any of those reasons, it kills to get rid of someone really and it's a punishment of course, like someone cares once they are dead. I think the government kills for the ones who have that rage, that pain, the need for vengeance. Like a hit man.

If we have to have a death penalty, Maybe the ones left alive, the ones most harmed, the closest relatives, should be allowed to turn on the drip, pull the switch, release the hanging mechanism. It would be more real then.

I've never liked the thought of the government punishing by killing. In any sense.

[treestar]

79. I'm still against the death penalty

The point isn't how horrendous crimes are. The point is that the justice system is made up of humans, and has made mistakes in the past. Death is unalterable. If we find a mistake, we can't resurrect the person. But can let him out of jail.

All we have to do is lock them up. We have the ability to do that effectively now.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. The death penalty is a waste of the state's resources

I'm not saying the guy doesn't deserve the worst fate imaginable but nobody is made better off by killing him.

[Dreamer Tatum]

85. It's cheaper than feeding and housing him.

Kill the bastard.

[Contrary1]

92. Actually, it's not...

By the time all appeals are exhausted, more money is spent.

[Dreamer Tatum]

94. Who said anything about appeals? Again, kill the bastard. nt

[Contrary1]

99. Yeah, right. n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

103. You are paragon of intellectual thought and reasoning.....nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

106. Dude's a murderer. It's pretty straightforward. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

112. And do we execute all murderers?

So no, it's not straightforward at all.

[Dreamer Tatum]

116. I wish we did. nt.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

160. Well, that's a very enlightened and progressive view of things.

I guess that includes children who kill? DWI drivers in fatal accidents? Wives who have reached an emotional breaking point with their abusive husbands?

The death penalty is simply irrational and fatally flawed (pardon the pun). Either you have to insist that it be applied to anyone who is responsible for the wrongful death of another person, or you are forced to justify it being applied in some circumstances but not in others, which essentially says that some murder victims lives are more valuable than others. It's a no win solution.

It also provides very little long-term closure and no real justice. It doesn't act as deterrent. It will not stop murder from occurring. Rather, it is simply an exercise in blood lust.

Very few issues out there I see are black and white. The utter absurdity of the death penalty, however, is one of those that I do find to be clear cut.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Slowly now

if he is given the DP, there will be appeals. It's part of the process. Even the state doesn't get to murder him without due process.

[KamaAina]

82. CT recently conducted the first execution in New England since the 1940s

disturbing, to say the least. :scared:

[marmar]

88. Yep. What kind of society does the very thing it supposedly holds in contempt, and calls it justice?

It's nothing but a means for satisfying bloodlust.

[calico1]

115. Michael Ross was executed because he sued to

have his appeals stopped. He wanted to be put to death and the State really didn't have much choice.

In CT the death penalty is basically a life without parole sentence.

I do not support the DP but I honestly can't blame Dr. Petit for how he feels.

[closeupready]

95. I oppose the death penalty in principle.

The two perps in this case are scumbags who DESERVE something that I can't bring myself to post here, but more importantly, the United States should not have the power to murder people as punishment for murdering people. It makes no sense on many different levels.

[Lucky Luciano]

109. I would live to have the privelege of executing him.

Yes, it is all about revenge and not about deterrents.

[Mojo_electro]

113. Whatever you think of the DP....

...sometimes the reality of a situation gets lost in discussions of ideological principals.... of course the death penalty won't bring the victims back, nor will it stop a crime like this from happening again..... in this case I see it more like putting down a rabid dog... anyone who would tie two up two young women and set the place on fire to burn them alive has no place in any society... its not about vengeance, it's about cleaning up trash.

[ProudDad]

128. Wait, I've heard this argument before...

Oh, yeah... I remember now...

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

Better hope that YOU don't become the "trash" in the eyes of some "authority"...

[Starbucks Anarchist]

119. I think they should be set on fire.

I realize that's ugly and emotion-based, but I really see no point in having to pay for these human scum to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Lethal injection would be too kind.

[truebrit71]

120. I am not a fan of the death penalty 99.9% of the time. But in this instance...

...I can see where it would be appropriate...

Ordinarily locking the animals up and letting them spend the rest of their days in a cell would be far worse than a quick and easy death...but that only applies if you are dealing with a human..that doesn't apply here..

I think the husband should decide..

[Mimosa]

122. Some crimes deserve the death penalty

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe that and they are not immoral people.

[txaslftist]

124. Death Penalty for him, sure...

but understand when you say that, you are also okaying the death penalty for the dozens of men who have been found innocent in the course of their appeals, and more particularly for the ones who were actually innocent and could never prove it.

But the legal system is far from perfect. Certain people find themselves in positions where they are disposable.

So let's kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.

[NutmegYankee]

125. The DP is a punishment, not vengence.

While alive you have to chance to make friends, experience the world through books and TV, enjoy the food served and the all other little things in life that come with being alive.

Death denies him all of it. As a taxpayer of Connecticut, I do not want to have to pay taxes to feed this man. The man needs to die and suffer the blackness or hell fire, depending on your views.

[Hippo_Tron]

138. It's more expensive to put him to death

By the time the penalty phase and appeals process of the trial is over and the cost of keeping them in prison in the process, it's more expensive than housing and feeding him.

[NutmegYankee]

139. It doesn't have to be that way.

And a few tweaks in the law could fix that problem.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

164. As a taxpayer in Florida (another DP state) I don't want my taxes going to killing a human being.

I believe all unjustified killing (killing a person who is not an imminent threat to yourself or another person) is morally wrong. Why should I have my tax money go to that?

I'd rather see a person in favor of the death penatly have to pay taxes to keep someone confined to a 7x9 cell for the rest of his life and recieveing the bare minimum of necessary food and medical attention, than I would see a person who thinks the death penalty is morally wrong have to pay taxes towards the death of another human being.

[minavasht]

206. So it is OK some people to be

discriminated, as long as it is not you? Why can't it be the other way - you pay taxes toward their execution and the people who support the DP don't pay taxes to keep them alive?

On the other hand, you may be onto something - why the people who want to keep the murderers alive can't organize and fund and staff prisons for "lifers"? I would say this is a great idea and I'm sure all opponents to the DP will jump in.
What do you say?

You want them alive, you pay for the bare minimum of food and medical treatment? You volunteer to be a guard there, let's say ones a month?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

209. Lovely. The old "If you support/oppose something, then you must do X to avoid being a hypocrite"

It's so tiresome and so flawed. Sadly, both the left and the right have been guilty of using it.

Taxes are paid to support prisons to incarcerate individuals for a wide variety of crimes--white collar crimes, drug offenses, non-violent felonies, violent felonies, and yes, murderers. Now I can say I've never been to prison and don't plan on ever going, but everything I've heard about it is that nothing in prison is in the least bit pleasurable or preferrential to life on the outside. Even moreso for those convicted of violent felonies and seperated from the general population. Having my money going to feed those individuals the bare minimum of nutrients or giving those individuals the bare minimum of medical attention necessary--I'm okay with that. You do the crime, you do the time. No one's arguing that prisoners should have CEO style health plans or dine on filet mignon daily. The State should spend as little money as it needs to spend on those prisoners to provide them with the very bare minimum of human dignity (food, shelter, imminent medical attention), and nothing more. And that's typically what it does.

So if you are uncomfortable with your tax money going to to provide prisoners the bare minimum of human dignity, that's it. You are uncomfortable. I'll see your slight discomfort and/or disgust and raise you serious ethical concerns as to the State wishing to play God by using the death penaltly. And I'll guaran-damn-tee you that genuine ethical concerns trumps discomfort or mere disgust any day.

And no, I don't need to volunteer my time as a prison time to justify my ethical concerns against the death penalty. Was everyone who opposed the Iraq War required to go to Iraq to provide medical assistance to injured Iraqis or rebuild their houses? No, of course not. It's a dumb, dumb, dumb, proposition and I think you know it.

[ProudDad]

127. 10 Reasons to Abolish the Death Penalty

By 2004, 118 countries had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice. An average of three countries abolish the death penalty every year. The worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty is reflected in the Africa region, where 24 members of the African Union had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice, by 1 October 2004.(1) Here are ten reasons for the total abolition of this degrading and inhuman punishment:

1 - the death penalty violates the right to life.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognises each person’s right to life. Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples´ Rights (ACHPR) states that "human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the physical and moral integrity of his person." This view is reinforced by the existence of international and regional treaties providing for the abolition of the death penalty, notably the second optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1989.

2 - the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman death.

The UDHR categorically states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."All forms of execution are inhuman. No government can guarantee a dignified and painless death to condemned prisoners, who also suffer psychological pain in the period between their sentence and execution.

3 - the death penalty has no dissuasive effect.

No scientific study has proved that the death penalty has a more dissuasive effect on crime than other punishments. The most recent investigation into the links of cause and effect between capital punishment and the murder rate, was conducted by the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002. It came to the following conclusion: "...it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

4 - the death penalty is premeditated murder, demeans the state and makes society more violent.

By executing a person, the state commits a murder and shows the same readiness to use physical violence against its victim as the criminal. Moreover, studies have shown that the murder rate increases immediately after executions. Researchers have suggested that this increase is similar to that caused by other violent public events, such as massacres and assassinations.

5 - the death penalty is discriminatory in its application.

Throughout the world, the death penalty is disproportionately used against disadvantaged people. Some condemned prisoners from the most impoverished social classes would not have been sentenced to death if they were from wealthier sectors of society. In these cases, either the accused are less able to find their way through the maze of the judicial system (because of a lack of knowledge, confidence or financial means), or the system reflects the generally negative attitude of society and the powerful towards them. It has also been proved that certain criminals run a greater risk of being condemned to death if their victims come from higher social classes.

6 - the death penalty denies the capacity of people to mend their ways and become a better person.

Defenders of the death penalty consider that anyone sentenced to death is unable to mend their ways and could re-offend at any time if they are released. However, there are many examples of offenders who have been reintegrated and who have not re-offended. Amnesty International believes that the way to prevent re-offending is to review procedures for conditional release and the psychological monitoring of prisoners during detention, and under no circumstances to increase the number of executions. In addition, the death penalty removes any possibility for the condemned person to repent.

7 - the death penalty cannot provide social stability nor bring peace to the victims.

An execution cannot give the victim his or her life back nor ease the suffering felt by their family. Far from reducing the pain, the length of the trial and the appeal procedure often prolong the family’s suffering.

8 - the death penalty denies the fallibility of human institutions.

The risk of executing innocent people remains indissolubly linked to the use of the death penalty. Since 1973, 116 people condemned to death in the United States have been released after proof of their innocence has been established. Some of them have only just escaped execution, after having passed years on death row. These repeated judicial errors have been especially due to irregularities committed by prosecution or police officers, recourse to doubtful evidence, material information or confessions, or the incompetence of defence lawyers. Other prisoners have been sent to their deaths when serious doubts existed about their guilt.

9 - the death penalty is a collective punishment.

This punishment affects all the family, friends and those sympathising with the condemned person. The close relatives of an executed prisoner, who generally do not have anything to do with the crime, could feel, as a result of the death penalty, the same dreadful sense of loss as the victim’s parents felt at the death of their loved one.

10 - the death penalty goes against the religious and humanist values that are common to all humanity.

Human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent. They are based on many traditions that can be found in all civilisations. All religions advocate clemency, compassion and forgiveness and it is on these values that Amnesty International bases its opposition to the death penalty.

[DiverDave]

130. I'm having a hard time with this one

I am struggling mightily with my anti death penalty stance right now.

I know, intellectually that we shouldn't kill people, but there HAS to be exceptions, there just HAS TO BE.

The torture of an 11 year old child is so horrific that I cannot, in my heart, protest if they get the death penalty.

People like this should not be allowed to live, and I'm just sorry that we cannot torture them the way they tortured those poor girls.
You have to know that they were pleading and begging for their lives.

I had to stop there I cant see the screen through my tears.

Fry them, And I would pull the switch myself.

Torture and rape... of an 11... year... old...

Eleven. Years.OLD!

God damned animals.
Varelse

But I know we mustn't kill them, but there HAS to be a way to punish the same way they did, somehow.

I think they should be beaten on evey birthday of those that they killed. slowly.

I am so torn, I really am struggling with this.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

212. Exceptions to killing people are simple:

1. Self defense against an imminent threat
2. Defense against the imminent threat to another person


Other than that, I really don't see any other justification for killing another human being.

[Catherina]

131. The victims

Hanging is too good for the creeps who did this. 11 and 17 years old? Tied to the bedposts and raped... raped for HOURS. Strangled in sheer terror? The mother raped and murdered after withdrawing $15,000 for these sick men?

Photos taken on Komisrajevsky' cellphone at approximately 7:am show that he was taking pictures of her nude as well as in various different outfits, tied to her bed in sexual positions.
He even dressed Michaela (11) in a schoolgirl outfit-a plaid short skirt a sleeveless top and white underwear- classic pedophile behavior.

All of this flies in the face of Komisarjevskys previous claims of accidentally discovering Michaela at only 11 was as developed as his girlfriend-a claim he's tried to sell to various people as an excuse for raping an 11 year old girl,. The facts are that He went to that home intent on raping this girl for hours enlisting the help of Hayes who he needed in order to insure he was able to keep the house under control.

I am certain that he proposed the plot to Hayes in a way that revolved around the sexual assaults of the women in the house and clearly Hayes in his text messages to Komisrajesvky on the eve of the crimes, proved that he was anxious to get the crimes in action.

Komsarjevsky wrote to Hayes in response to Hayes repeated texts asking if he was ready to go:
"Hold your horses I'm putting the kid to bed"

"Dude"the horses are dying to get out - lol."

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/news.do?feed=yellowbrix&storyid=150704456

I believe there are some people who are beyond earthly redemption. The surviving father believes in the death penalty. In this horrendous case, I support him.


The victims, may they rest in peace.

[JuniperLea]

135. There is no comfort in vengence...

There is no honor in killing. It's barbaric, and subhuman, and I'm disgusted that we are one of the few remaining countries that allow the death penalty.

I hate like hell that as an American, people are put to death in my name. :puke:

[LisaL]

145. Maybe there is no comfort for you. But you are not the victim

of this man. The surviving victim wants the death penalty, and it might be of some comfort to him.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

165. After the needle is injected, and he goes home....

....he'll still have an empty house. He won't have comfort. He might say he does, but he won't.

The death penalty won't change a thing for this father and husband.

Better he find positive ways to carry on the the legacy of his wife and children than even bother with empty vengenence.

[LisaL]

172. You are not in his shoes so I fail to see why you presume

to know how he is going to feel.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

173. I don't need to be in his shoes to know that nothing will erase the pain of losing his loved ones.

And that includes the execution of the perpetrator.

Unless you seriously believe that the day after the execution, he'll be all smiles and will be able to forget what happened in the past. That's just not anywhere close to realistic thinking. It will almost certainly haunt him for the rest of his life, and for that he is deserving of sympathy and emotional support. But an execution in the victim's names will do nothing towards sympathy and emotional support.

[yawnmaster]

132. Lock him up and throw away the key...

And I mean throw it away.
Don't just lock him in a cage, lock him in a box.
Weld the box closed.
Then put the box into another box.
Weld that box closed.
Then dig a hole.
Drop the box in it.
Fill the hole with concrete.

[JuniperLea]

134. "Thou shalt not kill" (note the lack of asterisk)

Human beings should not kill other human beings. This freak of nature would better serve humanity as a permanent resident of a psychiatric research hospital where his brain could be picked for information in the hope it would lead to understanding (and preventing) this kind of heinous behavior.

I don't like war. I don't like killing of any kind. It's subhuman... it's brutal and barbaric. We are one of the few countries left on Earth that has death penalties... and it's disgusting.

[mitchum]

140. Actually, that ancient Hebraic admonishment was "Thou shalt not murder"...

as if I really care...considering I'm not an ancient Hebrew. Are you?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

166. Neither are you an ancient Mesopotamian subject to Hammurabi's Code....

...yet that doesn't keep you from extolling its virtues.

[mitchum]

170. Sorry, Tommy, but Draco is my man

the west is the best...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

174. Really? I'm more of a Chuggo man myself.

He'll put a sign on your back that says, "I can't rap" and a scar on your face that says, "I can't scrap."

[lightningandsnow]

136. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Ghandi

This was an absolutely horrific crime, but I still oppose the death penalty.

[depakid]

137. He deserves.... torture!

Stoning!

Burn his house down!

[MoonRiver]

149. He deserves the death penality, but

my problem with the d.p. has to do with innocent people who are put to death. And I believe there are many more than we are aware of.

[uncommon]

150. I hope he gets the death penalty.

I believe in the death penalty for some crimes.

[lunatica]

162. I'm against the death penalty but not out of sympathy

The criminal should have everything taken from him for the rest of his life. A life sentence means he'll have to do what he's told without the option of disputing his case without further punishment. He'll have to watch his back at all times lest someone chooses to kill him. Death just lets him off easy. I've seen and heard stories of people living to regret their crimes after years of prison.

The death penalty only serves to make the state commit the same crime legally. As civilized people we shouldn't sanction putting people to death. It serves no purpose except vengeance which is better served by forcing the criminals to serve a lifetime of punishment if vengeance is desired.

[fishbulb703]

191. rotting in prison is worse than death

[mitchum]

198. But in death there is not the comfort and solace of memories and daydreams

[fishbulb703]

200. true, my atheist heart has a hard time comparing the two

[lonestarnot]

201. Supermax life until he becomes the shivering shitpile he truly is.