I can't get this off my mind. For sure, he was not innocent of a bad lifestyle but he was raised in one. It also seems he could have helped set himself free.
He, and the crime, are San Antonio based and it is getting a lot of coverage here. Troubling to me is the fact that twice he was not picked out from a line up as a perpretrator by the only wittness. The case was stalled untill he had a confrontation with an off duty cop at a bar and shot him. This is breaking news and details of that shooting I am not sure of. The off duty cop was not working security.
After the shooting, local news suggests pressure was put back on the case to get even with him for shooting a cop. Keep in mind, this happened around the time when "the thin blue line" , a movie exposing police corruption involving evidence tampering that led to an innocent death, was based.
The Houston link states that the surviving victim refused to identify the executed man twice, local reports say he could not identify him. Also suggesting he was convinced that it was him. The other suspect states he was threatened with prosecution unless he implicated the one who shot a cop.
I have no issues against the death penalty or criminal punishment. However, when a life is taken unjustly or maybe even criminally by vendetta of the police......hmmmm. Disturbing.

The question should be, did Texas execute ANOTHER innocent man?
"It's better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to execute ONE innocent man."
-Hamilton Burger (the District Attorney in the Perry Mason series)
"Justice is MINE", sayeth the Lord: - GOD.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/texas.execution.ap/index.html

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 11-21-2005).]

"I'd rather let 1000 guilty men go free, than chase after them..." - Chief Wiggum

Oh sure let a hundred or a thousand quilty convicts go free. You don't have to live the the all the rapes, murders, etc that they will commit. GREAT idea!

quote Originally posted by Fiero1Fan: Oh sure let a hundred or a thousand quilty convicts go free. You don't have to live the the all the rapes, murders, etc that they will commit. GREAT idea!

Well said. Capital punishment for all humanity. Then we will have no rapes and murders.

------------------
"Those two. Theyre ruining this war - for all of us!" - Major Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan, RN

No sympathy. You're gonna execute me and all I have to do is tell the truth? F that. Garza didn't do anything to help his friend before the execution? Some friend he is. They're trying to martyrize Cantu, and not put any blame on Garza, lets just blame the state.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: The question should be, did Texas execute ANOTHER innocent man? "It's better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to execute ONE innocent man." -Hamilton Burger (the District Attorney in the Perry Mason series) "Justice is MINE", sayeth the Lord: - GOD. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/texas.execution.ap/index.html

Another innocent man? Let's see; name me one executed person that was later proven to be innocent? There probably is but for all the screeching about innocent people on death row there is not one documented, proven case of an innocent being executed in modern times. There is a handful of people who have been proven to be innocent that were on death row. There are known cases of appearently innocent Blacks being executed during Jim Crow but not recently. Even if there were, perfection is not the standard in any human endeaver. If it were, we would never attempt nor accomplish anything. Here's a few statistics that aren't well known. Do we really have the death penalty in this country? In a practical sense-NO! There are about 15,000 murders in the US every year. There are about 350 executions. Do we really have a death penalty? If, AFTER YOU ARE CAUGHT you only have a 1 in 43 chance of execution-pretty good odds ain't it?

quote Originally posted by larryemory: Another innocent man? Let's see; name me one executed person that was later proven to be innocent? There probably is but for all the screeching about innocent people on death row there is not one documented, proven case of an innocent being executed in modern times.

I USED to be in favor of the death penalty. After all, there are a LOT of human piles of shite running around that we all would be better off without. Saddam Hussen, for example. Ted Bundy.
But I'm not GOD. Are YOU God? Are you infallible in your judgement? I'm not.
Heres some reasons why we don't need to legalize murder:

"The most conclusive evidence that innocent persons have been condemned to death comes from examining the large number of people who were sentenced to death and later were able to prove their innocence and gain release from death row.

Walter McMillian was released from Alabama's death row after having spent six years there because of perjured testimony and withheld evidence that indicated his innocence. He was convicted of the shooting death of a storekeeper. On the day of the murder he was at a fish fry with his friends and relatives, many of whom testified to this at his trial. No physical evidence linked him to the crime, but three people who testified at his trial connected him to the murder.
Only sheer luck saved Walter McMillian. After listening to a tape recording of a key witness s testimony against McMillian, a volunteer lawyer flipped the tape to see if there was anything on the other side. Only then did he hear the same witness complaining that he was being pressured to frame McMillian. With that fortuitous break, the whole case against McMillian began to fall apart.

All three prosecution witnesses recanted their testimony. On March 3, 1993, the County District Attorney joined the defense in a motion to dismiss the charges. Walter McMillian was finally freed.

Federico Marcias was sentenced to death in the state of Texas for a murder that he did not commit. Marcias's court- appointed attorney did virtually nothing to prepare the case for trial. A few years later, a new lawyer from a large law firm volunteered his time to the case. Marcias's conviction was overturned when a federal court found not only that Marcias's original attorney was grossly ineffective, but that he had also missed considerable evidence pointing to Marcias's innocence.
Marcias was released in 1993 after a grand jury, which now had access to the new evidence uncovered by his new lawyer, refused to reindict him.

Kirk Bloodsworth was sentenced to death for the 1984 rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl in Maryland. Two young boys and one adult said they saw the victim with a man who looked like Bloodsworth. There was no physical evidence to link him to the crime. He was convicted and sentenced to death because he looked like someone who might have committed the crime.
Years later, a new volunteer lawyer had the girl's underwear tested with a new DNA testing technique not available at the original trial. The tests showed that the semen stains on the underwear could not have come from Bloodsworth.

On June 28, 1993, Kirk Bloodsworth was released, after the FBI's DNA testing confirmed that he was innocent.

Clarence Brandley was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a high school student in 1981. In 1990, he was awarded a new trial when evidence was uncovered which showed that the prosecutor had withheld evidence pointing to Brandley's innocence and that prosecution witnesses had committed perjury. All charges were subsequently dropped and Clarence Brandley was freed.

Randall Dale Adams was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a police officer. In 1988, a documentary film, The Thin Blue Line, raised serious questions about the case against Adams. The evidence it uncovered formed the basis for a petition for a new trial.
In 1989, an appeals court judge set aside the conviction, stating, "[the] state was guilty of suppressing evidence favorable to the accused, deceiving the trial court...and knowingly using perjured testimony." Adams was released after the court dropped all the charges against him - but only after he had spent twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Cases involving innocent men condemned to death are not all that hard to find and are not as rare as the public might imagine.
An article in The Miami Herald on July 11, 1988, describes the case of 14 prisoners who were sentenced to death and later were found to be innocent.

An article in the Stanford Law Review in November 1987, reports an extensive nationwide study that found 349 such cases. The book, In Spite of Innocence, expands on the Stanford study and found that since 1900, there have been 416 documented cases of innocent Americans who have been convicted of potentially capital cases.

Unfortunately, once an innocent man has been convicted and sentenced to death, his chances of eventual exoneration are poor. Before the trial, the defendant does not have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the state, which must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, after the defendant has been found guilty, the presumption of guilt shifts in favor of the state. Now the burden falls on the defendant to prove to the court that he is not guilty. And now it is no longer enough to raise a reasonable doubt--to overturn a conviction, the defendant must produce "clear and convincing" proof of his innocence. This new evidence often must be presented within a limited time.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that there are some individuals who, in some sense, deserve to be executed. The real question that should be asked is: Do we really need the death penalty? As long as capital punishment remains a part of our penal system, innocent persons will continue to be executed. It is inevitable.

There are suitable alternatives. Those who favor the abolition of the death penalty do not advocate releasing convicted murderers into society. The choice is not between the death penalty and unconditional release, but between the death penalty and meaningful long-term sentences.

Life with no parole, or natural life sentences, meet the necessary requirements of society. Granted, some innocent people will still be wrongfully sentenced to life imprisonment, but since they remail alive, there is the hope of someday proving their innocence. Once a person is executed, the opportunity for him to prove his innocence dies with him.

Michael Ross #127404 is an inmate on death row at the correctional institute in Somers, Connecticut. A serial killer of eight women, Ross is currently under a stay of execution pending the resolution of the appeals process."

Source:
American Bar Association

And more here, from federal Judge Mark Wolf: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=693&scid=64

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 11-21-2005).]

And how many people have been able to get their verdict changed to not guilty and then gone out to rape or murder again? I'm not going to waste half my day looking for some long internet page to cut and paste, but you know as well as I do that there are more guilty people released than there are innocent people in prison or on death row. As was said, the system is not perfect. Nothing is. But remember, there has never been a guilty person in prison if you ask them.

You figure out a way to get all the guilty people into prison, or even better the people guilty of heinous crimes executed, and I'll gladly trade you those few who you believe are innocent and wrongly killed. People always want to go easy on them until it is someone in their own family who gets hurt or killed by repeat offenders. Heaven help you if that ever happens to you. Heaven help you even more if it happens and you still want to set murderers, rapists, and child molesters free.

It don't matter how many times you type 'capital punishment' as 'murder', it is still very far from the same thing. Murder victims don't have the right to a trial by their peers. They don't have ANYONE standing up for them. They live their last few moments in terror and pain while some piece of trash shows they lack humanity. Personally, I am glad that there are some governments in this country who still believe in consequences for a person's actions. And no, I don't believe being a burden on taxpayers is a consequence.

[This message has been edited by Songman (edited 11-21-2005).]

"Two wrongs don't make a right" - mom

------------------
"Those two. Theyre ruining this war - for all of us!" - Major Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan, RN

Your mom was correct when she said that.. But I bet she also punished you when you did something wrong too. Ignoring it also don't make it right. The punishment should fit the crime. If it is your opinion that capital punishment is wrong, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.. But that don't mean that "two wrongs don't make a right' would fit the situation. One of the 'wrongs' is only your opinion. A jury of the criminals peers apparently had a different opinion than you.

Neptune and I think quite a lot alike on this subject, although I think I still lean a bit more towards support of the death penalty than he, although not much.

If, somehow, we could be absolutely positively sure that the person being executed is guilty, I would have no problem with it, but we can't in many cases and morally, I am not willing to take the risk that we execute an innocent man (or woman).

Aside from that, as the US practices the death penalty, it's not even a deterrent. For any punishment to be effective it has to be two things. Swift and Sure. If you do X, which is against the law and punishable by Y, and you're caught, then you WILL serve the penalty, swiftly and surely. That instills two things in the law, respect and fear, both of which are needed to keep those that would consider doing evil to their fellow man from doing so.

In the case of the death penalty, as has been pointed out, our fear of making a mistake results in the death penalty being neither swift, nor sure. Retribution for an act is not an acceptable reason for the death penalty, IMHO, and shouldn't be used for a reason.

My personal opinion is that one reason we have much of the crime we do is because NONE of our penalties anymore are swift or sure. The white collar guys see enough of people "getting away with it" that it becomes an acceptable risk, even though occassionally we send a Martha Stewart to prison for a few months in a show trial. The kid robbing a liquor store is looking at pretty much the same thing. He hears and sees others getting caught, and then released, and is willing to play the odds.

So, like Neptune, at one point I took the simple route and said "guilty, hang 'em" but I no longer do. I can tell you that if I know for 100% certain that someone has killed a member of my family, they are dead. I will kill them. Against my moral beliefs, I'll personally blow their brains out. What it will take for me to know that for 100% certain is my decision and nobody else's and I'll pay whatever price there is to pay for that.

That is not the same as having governmentally sanctioned killing where others, not involved, make the decision through rules of someone else's making, as to who should live and who should die.

I know that many here will think that hypocritical. So do I. It's a hypocrisy I've learned to deal with for myself, as each of us must.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: I USED to be in favor of the death penalty. After all, there are a LOT of human piles of shite running around that we all would be better off without. Saddam Hussen, for example. Ted Bundy. But I'm not GOD. Are YOU God? Are you infallible in your judgement? I'm not.

quote Originally posted by Songman: Your mom was correct when she said that.. But I bet she also punished you when you did something wrong too. Ignoring it also don't make it right. The punishment should fit the crime. If it is your opinion that capital punishment is wrong, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.. But that don't mean that "two wrongs don't make a right' would fit the situation. One of the 'wrongs' is only your opinion. A jury of the criminals peers apparently had a different opinion than you.

As of now, it is fact - we have put innocent people to death and are continuing to do so. And that is wrong.

[This message has been edited by cccharlie (edited 11-21-2005).]

quote Originally posted by cccharlie: As of now, it is fact - we have put innocent people to death and are continuing to do so. And that is wrong.

Let's take it a step further.
We also have innocent men of other alledged crimes behind bars. Remember OJ and the "dream team" ?
The family is speaking out. They cite lack of money in justice wronged.
I agree.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 11-21-2005).]

I just read the second part to that story today (Houston Chronicle) and I must admit I was drawn into reading it from the title of the story. The fact that the kid knew who commited the crime and didn't come out and say (code of silence) was crazy! The other guy who was there was supossed to be his best friend knew and is just coming out, then the surviving witness knew that was the wrong guy and didn't clear it up! They had years to free this guy and didn't do it. It's scary to know that when something like that goes down, someone has to pay for it, even the innocent.

quote Originally posted by Fiero1Fan: Oh sure let a hundred or a thousand quilty convicts go free. You don't have to live the the all the rapes, murders, etc that they will commit. GREAT idea!

Maybe you'll be one of the innocent people executed, hehehe...

Besides, if you execute an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit, doesn't that mean that the real criminal is still on the loose, committing crimes?

Executing innocent people is not a deterrent to crime at all.

JazzMan

Executing a guilty person can be construed as justice....
Executing an innocent man is out and out murder.

I too am for the death penalty, as long as there is absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt proof, that the accused actually committed the crime.

Have any of you ever seen a statue of justice? Have you seen what she is wearing? It's called a blindfold. Justice is blind.

Is capital punishment a actual deterrent? Because that is the only reason I can actually see to have it. I think it is but I don't really know. Our court system is only as good as the scum that run it or report to it. Cops are people and last I checked there are a lot of bad people out there. I don't think just because you wear a robe or a badge or sit in the DA's chair makes them immune from being scum.

So what is the solution?
I don't really like the idea of spending so much money caring for lifers w/o parole but it is our responsibility. How about we get rid of capitol punishment and send those guys to a special prison that is run by them. If they want to eat they grow it. If they want clothes they make em. If they get out of line and cause troubles Have the rest of the pos inmates decide his fate.
Do a once a month health check on everybody. Tend to the sick or mal nourished and throw em back in the fish tank.
They always have the option of suicide. Or even assisted suicide. We spend a lot of money on these people and the reason is it is government controlled and that means union controlled and that means jobs. Jobs that need to be paid a lot of money. And we know where that leads.

This system we have is better than any other we have but it could be better and it will never be better than the people running it.

[This message has been edited by pokeyfiero (edited 11-22-2005).]

Sounds good to me, Pokey. But the reason we can't do it is because every bleeding heart in the world will talk about how inhumane it is to them... Forget their victims, as usual. I think bringing back the GA chain gang would definitely deter crime. If people actually were punished for crimes instead of being sent somewhere where they get three squares and cable TV, we might see the numbers drop. Yeah, yeah, yeah... Loss of freedom is punishment. I think a murderer, rapist, drug dealer, etc needs a little more than loosing some freedom. My daughter loses TV privileges when she disobeys. Violent criminals need a little more consequence than that.

quote Originally posted by Songman: 1. Sounds good to me, Pokey. But the reason we can't do it is because every bleeding heart in the world will talk about how inhumane it is to them... 2. Forget their victims, as usual. 3. I think bringing back the GA chain gang would definitely deter crime. 4. If people actually were punished for crimes instead of being sent somewhere where they get three squares and cable TV, we might see the numbers drop. Yeah, yeah, yeah... Loss of freedom is punishment. I think a murderer, rapist, drug dealer, etc needs a little more than loosing some freedom. 5. My daughter loses TV privileges when she disobeys. Violent criminals need a little more consequence than that.

1. No one in this thread has expressed any sympathy for guilty violent criminals. Only concern for those who were wrongly convicted.
2. What are you proposing to give the victims? Vengeance, apparently. What good does that do them?
3. Forced labor leads to abuses of power by those in charge. If every convict is forced to work, you have given the government a slave labor force whose toils can be bought and sold by unscrupulous individuals. Apparently you believe our government officials to be infallible and completely honest?
4. Just as likely, they'd grow chips on their shoulders and become more violent. If youre trying to rehabilitate people, cruelty will only demonstrate that violence is acceptable. There would also be far more violent attempts to avoid being caught / prosecuted - you would be sacrificing the lives of police and hostages. And causing terrorist anti-government acts by friends and families of convicts.
5. Apparently, you believe that violent criminals have the same thought processes as your daughter.

The purpose of the justice system is to defend society. The purpose is not revenge. Even if the individual deserves it.

And harsh / inhumane justice systems never lead to peaceful societies. Go ahead and try to think of an example of a harsh justice system that works. Name a country, past or present.

quote Originally posted by cccharlie: And harsh / inhumane justice systems never lead to peaceful societies. Go ahead and try to think of an example of a harsh justice system that works. Name a country, past or present.

I can name one. Saddam's Iraq. Under his harsh dictatorship any religious extremists that challenged his power were killed, often violently. Under his rule there were no car bombings like the one today that killed at least 30, or the several over the last few days that have killed dozens more. Under Saddam there were no suicide bombings that have killed hundreds, if not thousands, in the last couple of years.Under Saddam there were no roadside bombs or IEDs that have killed thousands.

Maybe we can elect Saddam to run this country?

And by the way, how many people here can connect themselves directly to a death penalty case? I can. My friend Jeff Doolittle was shot down in his driveway because a punk named Eddie Johnson apparently didn't get enough money with Jeff's wallet. Jeff was a good guy, one of the really good guys, and his murder destroyed his wife and both their families. Johnson got sentenced to death at a trial that I got to sit in the gallery of for several days. He is a cold-blooded psychopathic killer who freely admitted to killing others before he murdered Jeff. I have no doubts that if Johnson ever got out he would resume killing people for any reason, or no reason at all.

Unfortunately, Johnson had his death sentence overturned and converted to life by the US Supreme court, and because at the time that happened Texas did not have a life without parole option, Johnson will be elligible for parole in just under 40 years. If I can live to be 80 I will be there to meet him if and when he steps foot outside those doors.

JazzMan

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 11-24-2005).]

quote 2. What are you proposing to give the victims? Vengeance, apparently. What good does that do them?

The 2 I know who lost a family member to murder felt it would give them closure and a sense of justice being carried out. Vengence-maybe that's what it is, but law of the land allows for it, if not in so many words. Vengence could also be used as the definition of what is done to perpurtrators of less viscious crimes. If a man steals from you, and agrees to pay back what is stolen, should he just be turned loose on the street after making reparations? Steals a car and wrecks it, and agreees to pay back book value when we all know that replacement value is always much more than book value? No--we punish them for whatever crime they commit. In the case of murder, the punishment is severe, but it matches the crime they commit. No more-no less.

Would you be satisfied if convicted white collar criminals and politicians got off with just paying back what they stole, embezzeled, or wasted? I wouldn't. A multi millionare embezzles or causes the loss of a families' savings thru fraudulent practices. If all he has to do is to repay that amt, there is no justice there, as he probably won't even feel that little amt of $$ being gone.

Traffic tickets. In most, there is no harm done, but there has to be some sort of punishment that will convince the offender not to do it again and again. We put a value of X amt of $ for each offense. There was no loss to the state for the infraction, but we all accept that the fine is justified.
Few courts will accept "I'm sorry and I won't do it again." They just don't believe the defendant, and the same is true for murderers, especially those who have a long record of violent crime.

In a lot of cases, where the convicted is young, shows remorse, and may be able to be turned into a good member of society, I would certainly feel opposed to the death penalty or even life without parole. In instances like Jazzman quoted above, society as a whole is better off if these maniacs just aren't around anymore. They are a danger to correction officers and other inmates.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Vengence could also be used as the definition of what is done to perpurtrators of less viscious crimes. If a man steals from you, and agrees to pay back what is stolen, should he just be turned loose on the street after making reparations? Steals a car and wrecks it, and agreees to pay back book value when we all know that replacement value is always much more than book value? No--we punish them for whatever crime they commit. In the case of murder, the punishment is severe, but it matches the crime they commit. No more-no less.

We lock criminals up for other reasons than revenge/punishment (and I believe I have ordered them by priority):
1. Defense of society - Removing dangerous maladjusted individuals from opportunities to commit further heinous acts.
2. To avoid vigilantism and anarchy. If society lets victims make their own justice, we end up with infinite series of vengeful acts.
3. Rehabilitation - We hope that we can re-educate the individual. Time to mature / detoxify is a large part of this.
4. Deterrence - I doubt this is a factor for any serious criminals. (Kinda like the old saying - locks are for honest people - they won't deter a real crook)

As to your examples - I believe that most nonviolent thieves get parole and suspended sentences unless they become habitual offenders. They are "turned loose" - just monitored. These people are often arrogant and they need to learn one simple lesson - they will be caught / society is watching. Traffic infractions are handled in a similar manner.

[This message has been edited by cccharlie (edited 11-24-2005).]

All you say is true of course, including the deterrence part in regards to honest people and locks.

Capital crimes are different tho in that monitoring can never be close enough to prevent an act that literally takes only a few secnods and is totally irreversible.

Capital offenders can be locked up forever of course, but that doesn't mean they can't or won't be prevented from taking the life of a prison guard or another inmate. Perhaps the life of an inmate who has been rehabilitaed and due to return to society in a short while. The murderer is already serving a life sentence so why would it bother him to do the same crime again--just in prison this time.

Do the ones you've talked to feel like there would be less closure if there was REALLY a life without possibility of parole? I'm just curious.

The problem is that there is almost no sentence anymore that is really "life without possibility of parole".

To answer your question, Jazzman, yes I have known the families of a murder victim. I farmed ground for a lady that would be a second cousin to my father and we are very close to her. Her neice was murdered back in '96. The guy that did it was a convicted murderer out on parole and has been sentenced to die but that's on hold because of the legal dispute on KS death penalty constitutionality.

This was definitely a case where had the death penalty been swift and sure for Mr. Gary Kleypas, Carrie would still be alive (he was on parole after serving 15 years of a 30 year sentence for killing a 78 year old man ). I didn't know Carrie well at all being a distant relative, only met her a time or two when she was visiting her aunt, but I used to know her mother reasonably well. If you want to read more about the case google up Gary Kleypas and Carrie Williams. FWIW, her mother is of the opinion that if she was 100% certain Kleypas would never get out again, EVER, that would be OK, but since he killed her daughter while he was on parole for another killing she really wonders if it wouldn't be SAFEST for everyone if he wasn't executed. As you can tell from that sentiment, she's not an ardent supporter of the death penalty, but really wonders if it doesn't have it's place.

Here is one LINK. You have to scroll down a bit and look for KANSAS as the heading.

This is the problem with the system. Had he not been paroled till he had served his full 30 years, Carrie would still be alive. Had he been executed for the first killing, Carrie would still be alive. Had he not experienced the fact that he could serve half his time and be out of prison, perhaps making him think he would get off lightly on other crimes, would she still be alive? We don't know how that entered into it.

As I said, I used to be in the "guilty, hang 'em" camp. I'm not anymore. Our justice, or rather the PUNISHMENT side of our system, has serious problems that go way beyond the death penalty debate.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by maryjane: The 2 I know who lost a family member to murder felt it would give them closure and a sense of justice being carried out. Vengence-maybe that's what it is, but law of the land allows for it, if not in so many words. Vengence could also be used as the definition of what is done to perpurtrators of less viscious crimes. If a man steals from you, and agrees to pay back what is stolen, should he just be turned loose on the street after making reparations? Steals a car and wrecks it, and agreees to pay back book value when we all know that replacement value is always much more than book value? No--we punish them for whatever crime they commit. In the case of murder, the punishment is severe, but it matches the crime they commit. No more-no less. Would you be satisfied if convicted white collar criminals and politicians got off with just paying back what they stole, embezzeled, or wasted? I wouldn't. A multi millionare embezzles or causes the loss of a families' savings thru fraudulent practices. If all he has to do is to repay that amt, there is no justice there, as he probably won't even feel that little amt of $$ being gone. Traffic tickets. In most, there is no harm done, but there has to be some sort of punishment that will convince the offender not to do it again and again. We put a value of X amt of $ for each offense. There was no loss to the state for the infraction, but we all accept that the fine is justified. Few courts will accept "I'm sorry and I won't do it again." They just don't believe the defendant, and the same is true for murderers, especially those who have a long record of violent crime. In a lot of cases, where the convicted is young, shows remorse, and may be able to be turned into a good member of society, I would certainly feel opposed to the death penalty or even life without parole. In instances like Jazzman quoted above, society as a whole is better off if these maniacs just aren't around anymore. They are a danger to correction officers and other inmates.

quote Originally posted by cccharlie: 1. No one in this thread has expressed any sympathy for guilty violent criminals. Only concern for those who were wrongly convicted. 2. What are you proposing to give the victims? Vengeance, apparently. What good does that do them? 3. Forced labor leads to abuses of power by those in charge. If every convict is forced to work, you have given the government a slave labor force whose toils can be bought and sold by unscrupulous individuals. Apparently you believe our government officials to be infallible and completely honest? 4. Just as likely, they'd grow chips on their shoulders and become more violent. If youre trying to rehabilitate people, cruelty will only demonstrate that violence is acceptable. There would also be far more violent attempts to avoid being caught / prosecuted - you would be sacrificing the lives of police and hostages. And causing terrorist anti-government acts by friends and families of convicts. 5. Apparently, you believe that violent criminals have the same thought processes as your daughter. The purpose of the justice system is to defend society. The purpose is not revenge. Even if the individual deserves it. And harsh / inhumane justice systems never lead to peaceful societies. Go ahead and try to think of an example of a harsh justice system that works. Name a country, past or present.

Dood did you just wake up in a pissy mood or what?

Slave labor?
Abuse of power?
more violent attempts to avoid being caught / prosecuted ?
trying to rehabilitate people?
revenge?

Are you in the right thread? This thread centers around deathrow inmates not common criminals.
You have organized your big tirade against songman and you don't even seem to understand the subject. Besides that I'm the one that said most of what you think your complaining about.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Are you in the right thread? This thread centers around deathrow inmates not common criminals. You have organized your big tirade against songman and you don't even seem to understand the subject. Besides that I'm the one that said most of what you think your complaining about.

The post you quoted replied word for word to what songman said.

It didnt have all that much to do with you. I'm sorry if you felt left out.

And it was no tirade. There was little or no emotional content at all.

[This message has been edited by cccharlie (edited 11-24-2005).]