Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

States could save hundreds of millions of dollars by eliminating the death penalty, according to a report released today by the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit group that researches capital punishment. The report released today cited audits in Kansas, North Carolina, Indiana and California, all of which show the death penalty is more expensive than cases that result in life prison sentences. The 2003 audit in Kansas showed capital cases cost 70 percent more than non-capital murder cases. "We've got life without parole," McGinn said. "We're still paying for this process when we could spend less, lock them up and remove them from society."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

ZombieHunter

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Time to invest in prison stocks.

I'm sure states could save hundreds of millions by eliminating prisons altogether too. Doesn't mean they should.

I'm sure states could save hundreds of millions by eliminating prisons altogether too. Doesn't mean they should.

The death penalty fails miserably as a deterrant and costs more than life imprisonment without parole. What does any law-abiding citizen gain by killing inmates?

A person who has committed murder and then is executed will never murder again - 'nuff said.

The death penalty fails miserably as a deterrant

Link? This link shows that a meta-analysis in 2008 of 30 years of research showed overall support for the deterrent effect of executions, but that the outcome of individual studies depended on how they were conducted.
www.sciencedirect.com

costs more than life imprisonment without parole

Why should cost matter? It would cost less to lock up murderers for one year. That doesn't mean we should do so.

What does any law-abiding citizen gain by killing inmates?

What does any law-abiding citizen gain by locking up inmates in jail?

#3 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-20 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Zombie, you guarentee that the criminal would be locked up for life, work to reimburse the costs of their confinement and held without any of the creature comforts no longer available to his/her victim - and I'm with ya. Problem is, libtards always want to release the offenders or give them cable television, three squares and video games.

I agree that in its current form it is not much of a deterrant. Hard labor without chance of parole may work better. Hell, make them do yard work for the victims family - or pay child support while doing hard labor - or any number of harsher penalties than what goes on in gitmo at least.

" Problem is, libtards always want to release the offenders "

Anymore straw men you'd like to prop up?

Why should cost matter?

Cost always matters. Reality, with its bottom lines and tradeoffs, is a bitch.

It would cost less to lock up murderers for one year. That doesn't mean we should do so.

Everyone agrees that most murderers need to be permanently kept apart from the rest of society. I could understand paroling the guy who waxes his daughter's rapist or something like that, but most murderers are indeed scum. I'm fine with whatever keeps society safe and ensures due process at the least cost to the taxpayer.

The death penalty is or is not a deterrent, depending on what numbers you look at and how much significance you ascribe to them. From 1990 to 2007, states with the death penalty have shown higher homicide rates than states without it (link). The thread link mentions a study that found most police chiefs do not believe the death penalty functions as a deterrent. I can't read the article you linked to since I don't have access to that journal, but let's say it's accurate. There is conflicting evidence, and the police themselves do not seem to have much faith in the process.

I agree that in its current form it is not much of a deterrant. Hard labor without chance of parole may work better. Hell, make them do yard work for the victims family - or pay child support while doing hard labor - or any number of harsher penalties than what goes on in gitmo at least.

Executing/imprisoning murderers is done with the goals of punishing the offender and protecting society.

Which is more important? Is death really a worse punishment than life imprisonment? What do we gain by killing inmates that we do not gain by keeping them locked up for life? The satisfaction of sticking a corpse in the dirt? Everyone ends up there anyway.

There does not appear to be any financial or law-enforcement benefit to executing criminals. If it's cheaper to lock them up permanently, do it. If it's cheaper to fry them, do it. Either way, a murderer is not a part of society anymore.

Legitimate arguements against capital punishment exist. This isn't one of them. This is idiotic. If capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment than we are obviously doing it wrong.

The death penalty is or is not a deterrent

A meta-analysis of 30 years of research disagrees with you. It's time for you to lose that premise and argue based on something else. Fact remains, the article this thread is based on is a terrible argument against the death penalty.

What do we gain by killing inmates that we do not gain by keeping them locked up for life? - Zombie

The 100% absolute fact they cannot commit another crime.

Again, life without parole and hard labor - I'm all for it Zombie. Are you? Even that does not guarentee they will not commit another crime - they could always murder another inmate.

What does any law-abiding citizen gain by locking up inmates in jail?


It removes felons from society.

The Death Penalty the Ultimate in Hypocrisy. It makes killers out of the State as well as every SOB who supports it. All it is is Revenge wrapped up in a label of justice. Simply put it lowers the State to the same level as the killer that they condemn to death.

Larry

A meta-analysis of 30 years of research disagrees with you.

Perhaps you could post a link that can be viewed to support that claim?

Amen to that Larry.

Didn't North Carolina just release prisoners because the courts determined, based on their own legislature, that life in prison really means 80 years and that the prisoners are getting their years cut in half?

I think I've heard they are letting out prisoners early due to this law change and court decision.

So, it'll be cheaper because they are letting them out.

The people, however are probably not happy about it and perhaps think the cost is worth it in keeping some of them behind bars.

Imagine the costs to the public if they let them go. I don't think the public is figuring on financial cost, but security and lives it may cost.

Perhaps you could post a link that can be viewed to support that claim?

He posted it, but you won't be able to read it unless you've access to criminology journals. I would be interested to see how the researchers reached their conclusion when murder rates show the exact opposite trend as you would expect if the death penalty were a deterrent.

What is the death penalty deterring if it is not lowering the homicide rate?

The people, however are probably not happy about it and perhaps think the cost is worth it in keeping some of them behind bars.

That's the point. Locking up people is expensive, but some people are worth locking up.

A lot of money is wasted to keep people in prison when society doesn't gain anything by keeping them there.

Again, life without parole and hard labor - I'm all for it Zombie. Are you?

I don't care if they pay for their keep with hard labor or knitting, but they need to do some sort of work to pay for the cost of their imprisonment. Any prisoner should. It's too costly to house them at the taxpayers' expense.

Even that does not guarentee they will not commit another crime - they could always murder another inmate.

A convict could also murder another inmate during the decades he spends on death row. In theory, swift capital punishment would prevent a convict from ever murdering again, but the death penalty is anything but swift in this country.

"Perhaps you could post a link that can be viewed to support that claim?"

I did.

Then there's that little matter of innocent people being executed. How many innocent lives are too many in the case of capital punishment? I would say one is too many.


but the death penalty is anything but swift in this country.

#21 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Except in texas. This one guy was executed based on some shaky forensic evidence. (for some reason arson is a huge crime in texas). The then-current inspector gen tried to get the execution stopped so the evidence could be looked over. Prick erry (gov texas) had some political interest in executing this guy, so it did, and fired the inspector gen. And that's the way it goes down in texas-town.

"Again, life without parole and hard labor - I'm all for it..."

Good luck forcing them to work. Hell the ACLU would make sure they don't have to do shit. They are more concerned with prisoners having cable tv. Or making sure the needles are sterile before giving them the lethal injection...

I have changed my stance and think they should be held in jail until they die of natural causes. I think more judges equals more jails equals more justice.

chain gangs.

This is NOT NEWS and has been widely known for a long time.

But if somebody killed a loved one with malice and gloated about it, wouldn't you want the sob put to death???

I think they are lying about it costing more to carry out the death penalty on a convict than for him to serve life in prison.
If they want to keep it cost effective they could carry out the execution on the guilty party in a timely manner and the guilty party be executed within and no later than 24 months after being found guilty and sentenced to death...

#27...

As a Sicilian one would think I would be all for revenge.In these cases, I say let them rot in jail...

I have nothing against the death penalty as long as the judge is the executioner and they do the killing at sunset.

No need to bother with appeal after appeal.

#28 | Posted by Dr_Feelgood at 2009-10-20 08:13 PM

How much does one appeal cost the State? Multiply that by about 20. It is way cheaper to house and feed than go through the system of execution.

Hey Dr Feelgood. say You had Your way. Joe Blow gets convicted and setenced to death 23 Months down the road He is executed. Now 10 Years later Don Doe confesses to the crime and is the actual killer. Guess what You can't bring Joe Blow back to life. Now what say You??

Larry

The Death Penalty is Vengence in the guise of Justice.

LARRYMOHR, Joe Blow had 23 months to prove his innocence, no system will ever be perfect, that an innocent person has to serve time or rarely put to death. When the death penalty pronounced and is carried out there should be no DOUBTS or questions whatsoever that the person actually committed the crime, before sentence is pronounced. Don Doe by his confession should be executed within 10 days.

"When the death penalty pronounced and is carried out there should be no DOUBTS or questions whatsoever that the person actually committed the crime, before sentence is pronounced. Don Doe by his confession should be executed within 10 days."


Which is why they have appeals. Right???

Which is why they have appeals. Right???

Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-10-20 08:35 PM | Reply

Ummmmmmmmmm Yeah but Dr Feelgood wanted the whole thing done within 24 Months from start to finish(Execution) Sometimes it takes YEARS for appeals. It's not My argument. I want ZERO Death Penalties. I am 100% opposed to them.

Larry

Josheph Duncan, (wiki).


This fucker will die. Everone in my region will breathe a sigh of content when Idaho kills him. After his capture, the FBI alerted the public that Duncan's GPS device had the coordinates of many daycares, including my children's.

Read the wiki link. It will make your stomach churn.

Other than fuckers like Duncan, put them to hard labor.

AND legalize smoke. All other drugs for that matter. Leave the prisons for the violent.

If Don Doe confesses after an innocent man is executed for the crime he committed, then Don Doe
allowed an innocent man to die for his crime, and is guilty of two murders, and should be executed immediately with no right for appeal.

...And innocent people occasionally get executed
...And poor and minorities are disproportionately executed

that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, it just needs to be improved.

Assplosions in 3..2..1

...And poor and minorities are disproportionately executed


that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do


I don't know why but that is fucking funny.


And if you care about justice, I'm sure you care that 80% of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods, 64% of people who've had abortions were pressured to do so, 20-30% women have severe psychological problems who've had abortions...

Ummmmmmmmm hellooooooo Kirk come in Kirk this is Spock speaking. There is two parties responsible for abortions. The Woman and Her Doctor. Capital Punishment has MANY Parties. That includes the State the Prosecutors the Defendant and YOU and I who live in Pro Capital Punishment States. We become killers of a killer when the State kills a killer. Abortion is between the Woman Her Doctor and G-d. THAT'S IT. To compare Abortion to Capital Punishment in the realm of justice is rediculous.

Larry

Abortion is not comparable to capital punishment. The aborted never get the chance. The unborn could succeed on to raise good people, or end up on death row. Either way, they don't even get to try.

"Capital Punishment in the realm of justice is rediculous."
Larry
#42 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-20 09:56 PM | Reply |

What about in the realm of protecting society? I believe there are certain people who are simply too dangerous to be kept alive. People who will kill again if given half a chance. They will kill fellow inmates. They will kill the prison guards or staff. And God help everyone if they find a way to escape.
You GUARANTEE me that none of the above is possible in our prison system, and I'll agree with you. The truth is, however, you can't guarantee it.
The death penalty can.

That is the excuse many use to support the Death Penalty Hawk and that's BULLSHIT. All You have to do is build a supermax facility and house them individually with next to nill Human contact and problem is solved.

Larry

What do we gain by killing inmates that we do not gain by keeping them locked up for life? The satisfaction of sticking a corpse in the dirt? Everyone ends up there anyway.

#10 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-20 01:10 PM

People that are in prison for life are more likely to kill other inmates or guards because they actually have nothing to lose. Does that mean that you look them up forever in their own cell and never let them out?

Sully was correct, if it is costing more to put someone to death instead of life in prison then they are doing something wrong. The reason the cost is so high because of the stupid amount of appeals that they allow a person, who is sentenced to death, to pursue.

Chain gangs are good for those with chance of parol, not for lifers who have no chance of getting out unless they escape.

There are people who don't want the death penality but I'm sure that 95% of those people have not had a love one killed by a stranger.

Also, a reason that the death penality is not a deterant is because it happens without knowledge of the public. I know this sounds sad but as sad as society is and as much as society likes to see others suffer, pay per view the event and it will pay for itself. It will out sell UFC. Back to reality.. Just think about it, it takes around 7 years from the first sentencing till when the criminal is put to death and you rarely hear about it in the news.

We have a higher percentage of people in prison than most other countries because there are no deterrents. Chain gangs would be great!

Read China's capital punishment laws. You can be put to death for not paying your taxes! I'm sure that they don't pay more for capital punishment than they do for lifers.

Side note, in the wild west, you would be hung for stealing a mans horse. I think that worked pretty well as you could ride up to a saloon and loosely wrap the reigns around a rail and no one would touch your horse or saddle. It all comes down to consequences. Prison life is no longer the hard life.


That is the excuse many use to support the Death Penalty Hawk and that's BULLSHIT. All You have to do is build a supermax facility and house them individually with next to nill Human contact and problem is solved.

Larry

#45 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-20 10:13 PM

Plain and simple, I don't give a rats ass about someone who has no respect for the life of others. They should be put to death quickly and feel all of the pain that they caused others. Society does not need to support these types of people.

"All You have to do is build a supermax facility and house them individually with next to nill Human contact and problem is solved. "
Larry
#45 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-20 10:13 PM | Reply

As I said, get us to that point, and then guarantee it. Then we'll discuss getting rid of the death penalty. But we aren't anywhere near that point yet.
As you can see, I am a death penalty supporter, but I am all for stopping it here and now in the United States. Because, in my opinion, it is very overused in this country in its preesent form. Is everyone on Death Row right now as much of a danger as I described? Not even close.
Want a perfect example? OK, what is Scott Peterson doing on Death Row? (He's the guy who killed his wife and unborn child in San Francisco, if you will recall.) Is he a danger to society? Well, maybe to pregnant women married to him, but that's it. He is a bully and a coward, and I'm all for finding a way to extend his life an additional fifty years and making him spend every minute of it in a 4x6 cell. But as a danger to society, he's a joke.

Glad to help, eberly

Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) actually wanted to "off" the poor and "mongrel races"...

Plain and simple, I don't give a rats ass about someone who has no respect for the life of others. They should be put to death quickly and feel all of the pain that they caused others. Society does not need to support these types of people.

Posted by T_Man at 2009-10-20 10:24 PM | Reply


Congrats because You have become the very same thing To claim vto condemn. Before You jump down My throat I USED to be Pro Capital Punishment Until I reflected upon it. I found that I was NO Better in fact worse than the person that I was condemning to death in My own mind and heart. So how can You declare Your moral high ground and yet support the death penalty. You can't do so. Sorry.

Larry

Congrats because You have become the very same thing YOU claim to condemn. Before You jump down My throat I USED to be Pro Capital Punishment Until I reflected upon it. I found that I was NO Better in fact worse than the person that I was condemning to death in My own mind and heart. So how can You declare Your moral high ground and yet support the death penalty. You can't do so. Sorry.


Larry

EDITTED POST

I bet you a case of beer we could outsource our death penalty cases to China for like $69 a piece.

Larry,
Abortion and capital punishment both kill the intended recipient,
both disproportionately kill minorities and poor people,
Except humanists only cheer for the shedding of innocent blood, not the shedding of (due process concluded) guilty blood...

"So how can You declare Your moral high ground and yet support the death penalty. You can't do so. Sorry."
Larry
#51 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-20 10:29 PM | Reply


I can. I just gave a perfect example of the death penalty's overuse. Now let me give you an example of its necessity.
Remember Timothy McVey? He was, in my opinion, a perfect example of why we need the death penalty.
This was a man whose hatred of the government and society was so great that it was A CERTAINTY that he would launch another attack. He would find a way to escape, or barring that, he would recruit followers in prison who would be released and, following a plan orchestrated by McVey, hit another building and kill many more people. He would have done it.
He can't now. And as a society, we should all feel just a little safer because of that fact.

Abortion and capital punishment both kill the intended recipient,
both disproportionately kill minorities and poor people,
Except humanists only cheer for the shedding of innocent blood, not the shedding of (due process concluded) guilty blood...

Posted by kirk at 2009-10-20 10:34 PM | Reply

Hey I was under the impression that Christians believed in ALL Life being sacred and precisous. If this is so how can You on one hand justify Capityyal Punishment and on the other be against abortion?? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Oh and FYI Pro Choice people believe(This is how I Believe anyways0 I do not believe in abortion for Myself nor if I knock some chick up I do however believe that I have no rights dictating what another Woman does with Her body and that includes the unborn within Her. It is upto Her and G-d if She made the right call. I do not believe in taking away Her free will.

Larry

This has been known since 1994

I can. I just gave a perfect example of the death penalty's overuse. Now let me give you an example of its necessity.
Remember Timothy McVey? He was, in my opinion, a perfect example of why we need the death penalty.
This was a man whose hatred of the government and society was so great that it was A CERTAINTY that he would launch another attack. He would find a way to escape, or barring that, he would recruit followers in prison who would be released and, following a plan orchestrated by McVey, hit another building and kill many more people. He would have done it.
He can't now. And as a society, we should all feel just a little safer because of that fact.

#54 | Posted by hawk at 2009-10-20 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Actually You can't. You had a thirst for Tim McVeighs blood to be shed for His shedding of those 168 peoples blood on April 19 1995. Therefore How can You hold that moral high Ground?? You absolutely can not. You can speculate all You want to about His preceived intentions while in Prison but that is just speculation and to give Your mind justification for the death penalty NOTHING More.

Larry

Larry, get back to me when someone kills your family and you fight for them not to be put to death.

I'm ok with an "eye for an eye". An my moral high ground is still higher than those with no respect for human life. I don't take the death penality lightly but when it's deserved, it should be carried out.

Your comparison of morality is like stealing 10 dollars from someone versus stealing their life's savings. Me wanting some muderer to be put to death is not same as me going out and killing 3 people because I can and want to.

Do the troops that kill in war time have less morals than you? Even when they return for another tour? Are law abiding citizens not at war with criminals? How is a supermax with no light or human contact more humanizing than the death penality? Let's keep them alive for 50-60 years in a 6x6 cell with no outside light or human interaction. You also might want to look at the cost of a supermax as it is double the cost of a regular prison.

Dealth penality's cost more only because of the massive amount of guaranteed appeals. Court cost is where it's at.

"Actually You can't. You had a thirst for Tim McVeighs blood to be shed for His shedding of those 168 peoples blood on April 19 1995. Therefore How can You hold that moral high Ground?? You absolutely can not. You can speculate all You want to about His preceived intentions while in Prison but that is just speculation and to give Your mind justification for the death penalty NOTHING More."
Larry
#57 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-20 10:42 PM | Reply

Not even close. I didn't know the man, and I didn't know anyone in the Murray Building that he destroyed that day. I can, however, see what a danger to society that anyone who could do something like that is.
I think you need to start looking at what the death penalty (and our prison system in general) is supposed to be there for. It was not designed for revenge, it was designed to protect society. If they were doing ANYTHING in regards to rehabilitation, of ANYONE in the system, this entire discussion would be moot. They aren't. Our system has become a warehouse to store these people in.
And some are simply too dangerous to store.

The illogic of the right-wing is nowhere more evident than their support for the death penalty.

First, they claim to be economic conservatives. Yet they favor a death penalty which costs more than keeping someone in prison for life.

They say the death penalty will keep a murderer from ever murdering again. Then they cheer when prison inmates kill Jeffrey Dahmer. Obviously some murders are more "equal" than others.

Further rationalization is made that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. There are over two million people incarcerated in the United States of America, the most prisoners of any country in the world -- even more than China. Clearly the death penalty has not deterred crime.

Finally they deem our imperfect justice system perfect enough to impose the ultimate sanction, one which cannot be undone. In the face of clear evidence of the innocent being executed, they still support the death penalty.

To sum up:
Capital punishment is not a deterrent.
Capital punishment costs the taxpayer more than keeping someone in prison for life.
Capital punishment at times kills the innocent -- exactly the behavior it is intended to deter.

Those who support the death penalty do so out of vengeance or sheer idiocy. Often times both. Some are so dense as to not realize they support the occasional state-sanctioned murder. Others think it's okay for the state to kill innocent people, in some sort of nonsensical "greater good" argument which isn't actually evident when you look at crime rates.

What other explanation is there for supporting a punishment which is more costly than the alternative, cannot be revoked in the event of a miscarriage of justice, and occasionally commits the ultimate transgression it was intended to punish?

This certainly can't be called conservatism, not by any rational mind.

Prisons could easily be eliminated. Determine if the person is guilty or not. If convicted of guilt by a jury, determine if the person is ever to be released into society again. If the determination is that the person should never be released into society again, the death penalty is imposed within 2 weeks. During that two weeks, the person is given lie detector tests, as are all witnesses. Sodium pentathal is administered to see if the convict is innocent or guilty. After all doubt of guilt is eliminated the person is killed with Carbon monoxide, lethal injection, or other means.

If the convict is going to be released inot society again, they are given a tracking bracelet that can't be removed, and put into special apartment complexes that have no guards---they are monitored at a distance with the tracking bracelets. The convicts are trained on the internet to be able to hold jobs of value upon release. The convicts would have to attain a bachelors degree before release. If they escape or cause trouble, the determintation as to whether they should be released into society is re-evaluated. Convicts that can't adapt are eliminated. If a convict attains release and is arrested again, they have to get an advanced degree before release. Again, it would be determined if they are to be released into society again----or not.

I see no value in releasing criminals back into society with no training and no way to make a decent living except through crime. It is asking for trouble, and a danger to citizens who follow the law. If convicts are to be released back into society, they should have the training, and capability to make a decent living.

I see no value to keeping people alive in prison that will never see freedom again. They are a waste on society, and should be killed as humanely as possible. Manson shouldn't have been a drain on society for the last 40 years.

For those who think that educating criminals and forcing them to get degrees before release when law abiding citizens have to pay for college, consider this---all education should be free to those who are capable of being educated. How many great minds has this country lost simply because they couldn't afford college. The money we now spend on prisons could go to educating the population at laege. $50,000 per prisoner diverted to education of ordinary citizens would make America stronger than ever.

So you favor free college for prisoners, but not for the law-abiding?

Yeah that's a good plan.

The Death Penalty is a joke in most States. The average wait time on death row in many places is over twenty years. Of course with endless appeals and increased security, in the long run DP costs more than life incarceration. That's a no-brainer. The real question is, putting money issues aside, is the death penalty how we as a society wish to punish our most heinous criminals?

I see no value to keeping people alive in prison that will never see freedom again.

How about a killer who knows the location of the little girl he murdered twenty years ago, but the body was never found? Maybe her parents would like to give her a proper burial.

Personally I don't see much value in that, but I see some. "No value" goes too far.

$50,000 per prisoner diverted to education of ordinary citizens would make America stronger than ever.

Oh, I hadn't got that far when I made my earlier comment. Not sure what to do with this... sounds like you think you can fix a problem by throwing money at it though. That doesn't always work. Not saying it wouldn't be a good idea.

Countries which offer free education to the "best and brightest" have to pick those few at an early age. One of the great things about education in America is you can go back later in life, or study something purely for your own interests at community college. It is probably our greatest freedom these days. So, as long as your plan doesn't fuck that up, go for it.

The real question is, putting money issues aside, is the death penalty how we as a society wish to punish our most heinous criminals?

PROTIP: You can't put money issues aside when dealing with real questions.

How about a killer who knows the location of the little girl he murdered twenty years ago, but the body was never found? Maybe her parents would like to give her a proper burial.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-21 12:50 AM | Reply | Flag

I see nothing wrong with torture of such a murderer, and negotiation for a painless death, or to be eaten alive by rats. If he is that hard core, the parents would never find their daughter anyway. They would have to suffer, as many parents have to suffer who lose their children in war--never to be found--in airplane crashes, never to be identified except through a DNA smudge--in boat sinkings whose bodies are never found, such as the Edmund Fitzgerald and others..

sounds like you think you can fix a problem by throwing money at it though.

The money is already being thrown away in my opinion. I'm saying that ALL who are capable of higher education, and desire it should have the opportunity for such education. We seem to be able find the money to incarcarate all who need it that we catch.


Countries which offer free education to the "best and brightest" have to pick those few at an early age.

It wouldn't be limited to "those few". All who want it can have it if they are capable, at any age. Not all are ready for college when they are 18. Some aren't ready until they are 30 or 40, or even later. But when they are ready, the education should be there for them. It can only make our country stronger.

One of the great things about education in America is you can go back later in life, or study something purely for your own interests at community college. It is probably our greatest freedom these days. So, as long as your plan doesn't fuck that up, go for it.

I don't see how it could interfere with such a program. Build more colleges, not more prisons.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-21 12:50 AM | Reply | Flag

I see nothing wrong with torture of such a murderer, and negotiation for a painless death, or to be eaten alive by rats. If he is that hard core, the parents would never find their daughter anyway. They would have to suffer, as many parents have to suffer who lose their children in war--never to be found--in airplane crashes, never to be identified except through a DNA smudge--in boat sinkings whose bodies are never found, such as the Edmund Fitzgerald and others..

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-21 01:54 AM | Reply


So Buffalo Bob NOW Supports Dubya's doctrine of "Enhanced Interogation technics"(Torture?? WOW Amazing.

Larry

So Buffalo Bob NOW Supports Dubya's doctrine of "Enhanced Interogation technics"(Torture?? WOW Amazing.

Larry

#68 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-21 02:03 AM | Reply | Flag

Not at all fumbduck. I support torture for convicted killers who have been proven guilty through lie detectors and drug interrogation, and who know the burial place of a child they murdered, and refuse to give up the information. Is that what W supported?

Taking part of a post out of context puts you in the same league as Punk Boy. Congrats

Not at all fumbduck. I support torture for convicted killers who have been proven guilty through lie detectors and drug interrogation, and who know the burial place of a child they murdered, and refuse to give up the information. Is that what W supported?


Taking part of a post out of context puts you in the same league as Punk Boy. Congrats

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-21 02:25 AM | Reply


Torture is torture whther the dude tortured is guilty or innocent. It is Illegal It is immoral and it is WRONG. I don't give a G-d damned if He admitted to it and bragged about it. Yes the viciral reaction would be to tear his eyes out but we are SUPPOSED to be a civilized society where we condemn such acts of barbarian even on barbarians.

Larry

Bob, go back to the thread about the Bible having Bad morals and fulfill my logical deduction challenge before Danforth. He was unable to accomplish such a simple task. You give it a try, as well as anyone here.

Dan suggested that he is logical and reasoned, yet could not get this. Everyone give it a go.

Torture is torture whther the dude tortured is guilty or innocent. It is Illegal It is immoral and it is WRONG. I don't give a G-d damned if He admitted to it and bragged about it. Yes the viciral reaction would be to tear his eyes out but we are SUPPOSED to be a civilized society where we condemn such acts of barbarian even on barbarians.

Larry

#70 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-21 02:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Prison is a form of torture fumbduck. Being taken away from your family, friends, and losing your freedom years, or the rest of your life is a form of torture fumbduck. You've been in jail---you should know this simple fact. Torture doesn't always have to be physical.

The person in question was going to die anyway---all he had to do was tell where the body was buried. Not telling where the body was buried would be torture for the parents. There is no perfect solution. You would let the convict die with his secret. I would torture him till he squealed like a little piggy--until he told me where the body was buried or the rats were full. Then I'd get more rats. Is that what W supported?

Live in Your delusions Buffalo Bob. I have enough troubles keeping my sanity around here the way it is. Live in denial I don't care.

LarryMohr

What do you see me denying? I think you are in denial when you intimate that prison is not a form of torture.

Jail was disheartening it was depressing. It was emotionally draining but it wasn't torture. 3 hots and a cot and board games and card games to play plus cable tv I mean hell if it weren't for being locked up and away from family a person could live like a king in the joint. Especially if He didn't have to worry about bills and shit. Some people find Prison life the shits dude and that's in a good way. Me Myself I found it to be the drizzling shits but torture ummmmmmm no. Some of the shit the other inmates do to You yes but not the jail itself. It's what You make of it that's key. You can let it beat You or You can beat it. It's all upto You.

Larry

I guess it all depends on how one defines 'torture'.

You know better than that JeffJ. We've been over this before.

LarryMohr

Some people like to have their ass beat with a paddle by hot women in high heels---they don't consider it torture. But take away the hot chick and put the paddle in a guys hand, and suddenly it is torture. It is a matter of perspective. To me, scum that have acted like monsters have no rights, and should be eliminated from society. While I don't consider the death penalty to be a deterrent, I do consider being eaten alive by rats to be a terrific deterrent. I doubt many would face that option rather than accept the quick and painless death that they face as an alternative. Rats like eyes, and soft spots. I think we would find the location of that grave, and if we didn't--oh well.

Still, I think your contention that I support W's program is bullshit.

"I guess it all depends on how one defines 'torture'."

Let's put it this way....were I to be incarcerated for a serious crime, I'd rather be offed by being injected with pure capsaicin, and beaten with a rubber mallet, than have your posts read to me, verbatim, each day...

Buildings can't torture You. People on the other hand CAN torture. BIG HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Larry,

Yes we have been over this before.

Torture is a subjective term, as BBob just articulated.


Thus spoke,

My posts fit ALL definitions of torture.

I do consider being eaten alive by rats to be a terrific deterrent. I doubt many would face that option rather than accept the quick and painless death that they face as an alternative. Rats like eyes, and soft spots. I think we would find the location of that grave, and if we didn't--oh well.


Still, I think your contention that I support W's program is bullshit.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-21 03:59 AM | Reply

www.time.com

Bush Torture Memo Approved Use of Insects

The Bush Administration approved the use of "insects placed in a confinement box" during the interrogation of top Al Qaeda official Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2002 document that President Obama declassified for release Thursday.

What's the difference Buffalo Bob?? Only difference I see is You want live rats and Dubya wanted Live insects. Seems to Me You support Dubya's policies.

Larry




...an aside...

With conservative media raising a hoopla over Keving Jennings, the 'Safe School Czar' and his counseling of a 15-year old homosexual boy when he was a teacher it raised kind of a funny thought for me.

An older guy committing statutory with an under-age girl or boy seems beyond creepy.

Yet, you get a hot, 25-year old female teacher riding a 16-year old boy and I find myself happy for the boy.

It's a double-standard to be sure.

What's the difference Buffalo Bob??


The difference is potentially huge.


Are you going to equate hanging out with a caterpillar, petting it and nurturing it, with being masticated by a bunch of rats?

The difference is potentially huge.


Are you going to equate hanging out with a caterpillar, petting it and nurturing it, with being masticated by a bunch of rats?

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-10-21 04:16 AM | Reply


You are out of Your fricking mind JeffJ. You've never heard of bugs eating live people before have You?? Yet You use the ridiculous caterpiller to find a difference. bwhahahaha Too G-d damned funny for words JeffJ even for You. Unfuckingbelievable.

Larry

Night and WB JeffJ

Larry,


My point was that hanging out with a caterpillar is not the same is being eaten alive by a nest of rats. Your argument was a tenuous attempt to accuse BBob as supporting a Bush policy.


The 'petting and nurturing' comment was sarcasm.

What's the difference Buffalo Bob?? Only difference I see is You want live rats and Dubya wanted Live insects. Seems to Me You support Dubya's policies.

Larry

#82 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-21 04:08 AM | Reply | Flag

I know that's all you can see. That's the point. In my scenario, we know the guy has info that we want. In the Bush scenario, they don't have any idea what information they are seeking. In fact, they don't have any proof that many they torture are guilty of anything. In my scenario, there is no doubt that the man is guilty, having been convicted--failed a lie detector--failed drug interrogation, and condemned to die. None of that was a factor in Bush torture.

#88 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob


You raise a good point.

However, how often can we be 100% certain that the scumbag who is about to be tortured is truly guilty of his alleged crime?

To me, scum that have acted like monsters have no rights

If you consider any criminal justice system capable of determining innocence and guilt with zero error, you are an idiot.

I am fairly certain your idiocy is sufficiently self-documented to not warrant further review.

Or maybe you just suffer from Autism or Asperger Syndrome.

Either way, I'm still retarded for arguing with you on the Internet. :)

Insects can eat a human as well as a rat, but I think being eaten by rats is psychologically more frightening. The point is to get the information--not necessarily to torture. In my scenario, the guy has an easy out, is known to be guilty, and has the info being sought. In the Bush system, there will be torture whether the guy talks first or not. Bush system could potentially torture innocents, and even the guilty may not have any informaton that is valuable to the interrogators.

Torture is a subjective term, as BBob just articulated.

This must be some new use of the word "articulated" I haven't heard before.

I enjoy plucking the wings off flies.

I also enjoy giving wedgies to retards.

I have also been known to rip away one of those 'voice-boxes' from some idiot who can't speak without aid and toss it into the fountain.

I also enjoy intimidating little kids.


If you consider any criminal justice system capable of determining innocence and guilt with zero error, you are an idiot.

The guy was convicted---he failed a lie detector---he failed truth serum exam, which included the question of whther or not he knew where the body was buried----he failed every chance and option to show any type of innocence.

I am fairly certain your idiocy is sufficiently self-documented to not warrant further review.

You seem to have no trouble for conviction without half of the examination of which I speak. How about that.

Or maybe you just suffer from Autism or Asperger Syndrome.

A nice personal attack, while disparaging those with serious social mental problems shows your level of competence to debate. Another member of the Punk Boy school of debating.

Either way, I'm still retarded for arguing with you on the Internet. :)

At least we can agree on that point. Unless you aren't retarded, and again are simply disparaging those less fortunate than yourself, which shows you to be again affiliated with the Punk Boy school of debating style.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-21 04:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

The guy was convicted---he failed a lie detector---he failed truth serum exam, which included the question of whther or not he knew where the body was buried----he failed every chance and option to show any type of innocence.


Polygrams, sodium pentathol and even the criminal justice system are not 100% foolproof.

However, how often can we be 100% certain that the scumbag who is about to be tortured is truly guilty of his alleged crime?

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-10-21 04:25 AM | Reply | Flag

In my scenario, there would be absolutely no doubt. Are you absolutely certain Manson did it? How about John Wayne Gacy? Think somebody planted all those bodies under his house and he didn't know it? Think he would know where he buried another body that wasn't found after he failed a lie detector and truth serum? How about Jeffery Dahmer? Any doubt? Ted Bundy--possibly innocent?

How about any of these guys?

www.yesbutnobutyes.com

"I'm still retarded for arguing with you on the Internet."

Not taking sides, but this one was too easy:

piratevitamins.files.wordpress
.com

Polygrams, sodium pentathol and even the criminal justice system are not 100% foolproof.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-10-21 04:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Apply your statement to any of the above killers mentioned in the link posted in #96, and tell me which would have the possibility of not being guilty. When you have a hand cooking on the stove, I think you got some 'splainin' to do Lucy.

www.yesbutnobutyes.com

#96 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB AT 2009-10-21 04:48 AM | REPLY | FLAG: Filed under Freudian Defense Mechanism(s): Projection and/or Reaction-Formation

#99 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-21 04:54 AM | Reply | Flag Tries to make a point---FAILS

BBob,

I agree with the examples you cited.


Guilty?

No question.


However, those are specifics.

In a broader sense, polygraphs, sodium pentathol and our criminal justice system are not perfect. Even when following procedure to the letter, innocent people are convicted. This is the single most compelling fact in opposition to capital punishment IMO.

However, those are specifics.


In a broader sense, polygraphs, sodium pentathol and our criminal justice system are not perfect. Even when following procedure to the letter, innocent people are convicted. This is the single most compelling fact in opposition to capital punishment IMO.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-10-21 05:47 AM | Reply | Flag

I'm only talking about specifics. There would never be any question that the person was guilty---none--zero---just as all those mentioned.

However--even saying that somehow, someone was found with a human head in their refrigerator, and human tissue in their stomach, and they were somehow innocent of all crimes, and were eaten alive by rats, and the just ice system failed completely. Too bad--there is injustice in the world. A man could be paralyzed in wartime and left in a ditch, unknown to his compatriots, and eaten by rats--shit happens. I doubt the guy who was innocent wouldn't pass a lie detector saying he didn't know about the body. Your logic could apply to any of the above mentioned in the link.

BBob,

In a rare moment, I actually agree with you on this.

I was simply probing the degree of certainty that you would require before unleashing on some evil piece of shit.

if we didn't send every pot dealer and user to jail that we found, we wouldn't have a problem cause we'd free up half of our jail space.

BBob,

You can't distinguish between me being certain you're an assclown and saying so on some shit blog, and me being certain you're guilty of murder and executing you.

My Asperger Syndrome diagnosis stands.

Too bad--there is injustice in the world.

You should work this up into a lecture to be delivered at the Holocaust Museum.

Your inability to conceptualize the world in which you live is staggering.

Moon of that world notwithstanding.

I doubt the guy who was innocent wouldn't pass a lie detector saying he didn't know about the body.

I see you've built up a nice little standard of justice with a triple negative at its core.

Keep painting, I'm sure you won't end up in a corner.

I was simply probing

Oh, that's nice, JeffJ and BBob became close friends today.

If Death was replaced with:

--Life in Prison until DEAD. ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY OF "HUMANE" RELEASE. Let them rot and die there, no matter how nice they have been and no matter how "harmless" they are.

--Hard labor, EVEN IF IT KILLS.

--ZERO creature comforts: Prison in Arizona? Sorry, no AC for lifers, EVEN IF IT KILLS THEM. No TV, No Internet, No rec rooms, etc.

--A concerted, delibarete effort, to make sure that EVERY DAY, there is no respite.

--Not merely permission for guards to beat obnoxious prisoners, but a REQUIREMENT to Rodney King their asses, even if it kills the prisoners.

--Only dirt cheap on-site medicine. Even if it kills them.

etc...

Then, yeah, I might start taking efforts to remove the death penalty seriously.

USAF, why is it necessary in your mind to brutalize prisoners?

Isn't simply keeping them away from society sufficient?

I'm not saying they should live in luxury, far from it, but you think they should be savagely beaten? What purpose does this serve?

And aren't you in the least bit concerned that a prison guard whose job is to savagely beat prisoners might someday get upset and apply his skills to his wife or children or some guy he gets in an argument with?

Basically it sounds like you just want to beat people up. Like you'd be a thug if you knew you could get away with it. Which under your proposal, you could.

Also your proposal sounds a bit like Abu Ghraib under Saddam Hussein, or the type of stuff Uday and Qusay used to do for kicks. In other words, you're a sick fucker.

What happened to you?

The reasons for keeping the death penalty banned go well beyond the financial one this article indicates.

Fact of the matter is innocent people go to prison all the time. Sometimes they can prove their innocence and be released rectifying a horrible mistake.

You can't do that to a dead person.

No capitol punishment also tells the prisoner that the state is better than them.

It sez... "You murdered an innocent life but we will not even take a guilty one".

Spud's problem with the American prison system is two-fold.

First, there's just too damn many of them.

Seriously, America's per capita incarceration rate is the highest in the world by a huge margin. Some say that means that America is a land of Laws but others assert that it means that America is a land of criminals.

Second, instead of locking up the hardcores for life and redirecting the salvagable ones towards a productive law abiding life outside the prison by teaching them a trade and modelling their behaviour with positive and negative reinforcements the system, as it exists now, assures that a lot of amature criminals turn into gang memebers or career criminals while in jail, increasing the problem yet again.

Do Not Want.

Be Well.

"Second, instead of locking up the hardcores for life and redirecting the salvagable ones towards a productive law abiding life outside the prison by teaching them a trade and modelling their behaviour with positive and negative reinforcements the system, as it exists now, assures that a lot of amature criminals turn into gang memebers or career criminals while in jail, increasing the problem yet again."

It's a growth industry, spud, with a built-in infinite feedback loop.

It's a growth industry, spud, with a built-in infinite feedback loop.

Agreed.

A Cascade of Crazy.

A Fount of FAIL.

Be Well.

The death penalty is not used properly, the crimes it is applied to are mostly unplanned or actions of the mentally ill. If we killed a few banksters we might actually reduce corporate crime. We should also put all execution on TV and force kids in school to watch so we can send the message out that crime does not pay.

I'm for the death penalty even when it's more expensive. Somethings are worth the money!

Here's why--our country becomes a monster if we quickly execute people and/or don't allow them a "reasonable" amount of appeals.

Our country also becomes a monster if innocent blood shed is not accounted for. Ask the Aztecs.

So Larry, pro-death penalty (for murders with PLENTY of due-process protections) is consistent with pro-life (and antiabortion). Both protect INNOCENT blood.

Humanism and liberalism protects guilty people and condemns 3,000 innocents to death every day.

You can keep your murderous logic.

BTW, I used to campaign against the death penalty with Amnesty International.

So Larry, pro-death penalty (for murders with PLENTY of due-process protections) is consistent with pro-life (and antiabortion). Both protect INNOCENT blood.


Humanism and liberalism protects guilty people and condemns 3,000 innocents to death every day.


You can keep your murderous logic.


BTW, I used to campaign against the death penalty with Amnesty International.

#115 | Posted by kirk at 2009-10-21 08:36 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Don't weasel out of this one like a typical faux Christian. Christians declare that all life is sacred and precious. Yet they are the first to support the Death Penalty and at the same time are against Abortion. You can not support Pro Life and Be Pro Death Penalty. Not Possible.

Larry

I read an Article in the New York times last month about a guy in Texas was put to death for the arson death of his children based on faulty science and corrupted witness testimony. Some other factors in the case were his "Iron Maiden" heavy metal posters. After his death some Science expert with all kinds of degrees found the evidence of the fireman with there high school education was faulty. Why do liberal always have to bring facts and science into things? We need to kill people now and then to prove we are tough on crime.

Yeah BobP the one Governor Perry wouldn't even listen to with regards to the foreinsic evidence?? Yeah just seen the very same thing on the news a few nights ago. Wonder how these faux Christian Pro Capital Punishment folks think about THAT?????????

Larry

Don't weasel out of this one like a typical faux Christian. Christians declare that all life is sacred and precious. Yet they are the first to support the Death Penalty and at the same time are against Abortion. You can not support Pro Life and Be Pro Death Penalty. Not Possible.

Larry

Larry, when Jesus was crucified, two theives were crucified at the same time. As one of the theives mocked Jesus, the other rebuked the mocker, arguing they as criminals were getting what they deserved because they were guilty and Jesus was guilty of no crime. In his response, Jesus did not condem their punishment.

So Jesus identified the difference between punishment for the guilty verses punishment for the non guilty.

Larry, when Jesus was crucified, two theives were crucified at the same time. As one of the theives mocked Jesus, the other rebuked the mocker, arguing they as criminals were getting what they deserved because they were guilty and Jesus was guilty of no crime. In his response, Jesus did not condem their punishment.


So Jesus identified the difference between punishment for the guilty verses punishment for the non guilty.

Posted by midtowncowboy at 2009-10-21 08:51 AM | Reply


No He recognized the ones SInners remorse and gave Him Life in the hear after. Let us also not forget He commuted the Death Sentence of that Adulater Woman. You remember those who have no sin may cast the first stone. Even He didn't support the Death Penalty for if He had He would have surely allowed Her to be stoned to death.

Larry

I believe the Founding Fathers stated that they'd rather let 10 guilty go free than condemn 1 guilty to the death penalty (but not 11).

What's YOUR statistic?

You can not support Pro Life and Be Pro Death Penalty. Not Possible.Larry#116 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-21 08:40 AM | Reply |

Unless you believe in the totality of the Bible.

I unsuccessfully tried to write a paper on how the death penalty was against what the Bible said (after I became a Christian but still opposed the death penalty). I couldn't write the paper because the Bible DOES support the death penalty (when carried out fairly).

Believe what you want to, but there real reasons real Christians do and believe many of the things they do.

The old testament says an eye for an eye. Jesus said turn the other cheek. The Bible can be used to prove that incest and pedophilia are OK. Lets deal with facts and logic as the constitution states church and state should be seperate.

#24 | Posted by Lipzoidial

Except in texas. This one guy was executed based on some shaky forensic evidence. (for some reason arson is a huge crime in texas). The then-current inspector gen tried to get the execution stopped so the evidence could be looked over. Prick erry (gov texas) had some political interest in executing this guy, so it did, and fired the inspector gen. And that's the way it goes down in texas-town.

-------------
The guy's sister admitted after he was executed that he told her that he did commit the crime.

That was not in the New York Times. What is your source?

SNOOFY

At no point in my suggestion did I EVER suggest brutalizing prisoners that are not making trouble.

Any guard that so much as slaps a well behaved prisoner should be severely disciplined, probably fired, and depending on details, very possibly convicted.

As for prisoners that give the guards, or each other, a hard time, no mercy.

Make them work everyday, even if moving rocks from one end of room and then back again. Having said that, extract maximum wealth possible from them.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

My comments are for the sub-human scum who should by rights be hanging at the end of rope.

For prisoners who are being rehabilitated for eventual release, a very very different sort of prison would be appropriate.

Truth told, I'd like to see two classes of prisoners and death penalty, but could settle for three classes.

The three classes would be
--Prisoners being rehabilitated
--Lifers NOT in for Death Penalty level offenses
--Lifers in for Death Penalty offenses

send them to work in salt or coal mines and put um on chain gangs to pick up trash. shoot if they try to escape.

but it is not as fun to watch someone age to death..the right would rather have an eye for an eye that takes 15 years and millions of dollars to reach the end point..all for the illusion of "justice"

Simple fact..the gene that allowed Ted Kazinsky to kill people, the terrorist to kill people and Eric rudolph to blow up clinics is out there.. It is in you , me and everyone else on the planet. It has not manifested itself either through environment, genetic mix or other factors, but at some point will in the future.

people don't like the fact that we are a species of killers and murderers, but look at the past and what was rewarded from Rome to the Nazi's

The guy in Texas never admitted anything, the ex-wives brother said he made some comment about taking away the kids sometime before the fire.

(gov texas) had some political interest in executing this guy,


LIKE.........?

Like not being tough on crime. You have to be tough on crime in Texas.

Has anyone ever proposed that the State offer a death row inmate a choice of giving their body to science? Not talking Mengele like experiments, but something that could do society well? Or maybe asking them to volunteer to be put to death and harvesting their good organs? Rather then rotting in jail, I wonder how many would say accept.

"Among the death penalty's costs are more complex legal issues in cases that can take two years to go to trial, followed by a decade or more of appeal"

Here in lies the problem, a prosecutor knows ahead of time if they will be seeking the death penalty. These types of trials should be sped up and the appeal process cut back to a single appeal. From arrest to death the process could & should take less then a year, 2 at max.

The death penalty is a fantastic deterrent when used properly. The way it is used now, the criminal knows when he's caught it's 3 hots and a cot for the next 20+ years at least. If the DP is used properly and swiftly, it is a great deterrent. Use of the DP should also be expanded to include rapists and child molesters.

Yes, yes.. there is the 1 in a million that goes up the river and is actually innocent, but for a safer society...

#3 | Posted by ZombieHunter

You couldn't be more wrong, see above.

Yes, yes.. there is the 1 in a million that goes up the river and is actually innocent, but for a safer society...


#3 | Posted by ZombieHunter


You couldn't be more wrong, see above.

#133 | Posted by seedeez2 at 2009-10-21 11:16 AM

Have to agree. The costs for the State to kill someone is approx. $25 million. How does killing an innocent person make society safer?

How does it function as a deterrent, seed?

I see no persuasive evidence for this.

#135 | Posted by ZombieHunter

If the DP was used swiftly & if there was no 20 year process involved after conviction where, again, the criminal is treated like the victim, you don't believe it would act as a deterrent?

Even if it still wasn't a deterrent, which it would be if used properly, I absolutely promise you that criminal won't do it again and the costs associated would be minimal.

This article is trying to make us believe that the DP is the problem and that is incorrect. The process is the problem, the DP IS the solution for these "people". Putting them to death costs a few bucks, the process is very expensive.

#129 | Posted by BobP

The guy in Texas never admitted anything, the ex-wives brother said he made some comment about taking away the kids sometime before the fire.

------------------------------
The Houston Chronicle say's different

Ex-relative: Executed inmate confessed to murders

CORSICANA, Texas (AP) -- A former brother-in-law of a man executed in 2004 for killing his three children says the death row inmate had confessed to his ex-wife that he set the fire that killed their daughters.

The statement from Ronnie Kuykendall is included in two affidavits released this week by the city of Corsicana in response to media requests amid suggestions that Cameron Todd Willingham may have been innocent.

Willingham was executed on Feb. 17, 2004, after being convicted of capital murder for the 1991 deaths of the children, 2-year-old Amber and 1-year-old twins Karmon and Kameron. Prosecutors said he set fire to the family's Corsicana home while the children were inside.

Forensic scientists have called into question arson evidence used to convict Willingham, who maintained his innocence until his death. The prosecutor who argued the case still believes Willingham is guilty but acknowledges it would have been hard to win a death sentence without the arson finding.

One of the affidavits is based on a statement Kuykendall gave to Kirby Hill, then an investigator with the district attorney's office in Navarro County.

Kuykendall said his sister Stacy, Willingham's former wife, called her family together on Feb. 8, 2004, to tell them about a visit with her ex-husband, the Corsicana Daily Sun reported.

"Stacy asked all of us to come into the living room, at this time she started crying and told us about her visit with Willingham," Ronnie Kuykendall said in the affidavit.

"She stated that after visiting with him for about one hour and 45 minutes he told her that he had set the fire because he knew that she was going to leave him in January (1992) like she had said and that she was going to divorce him and he figured if he did this she would stay with him and she could get her tubes untied and that they could start another family and that he wanted her to write the board a letter because he did not want to die," according to Ronnie Kuykendall.

Stacy Kuykendall has declined to talk to the media since her ex-husband's execution.

The second affidavit is from a neighbor who this month gave a statement about what he saw on the morning of the December 1991 fire.

Tony Ayala told Corsicana police Detective Seth Fuller on Oct. 6 that he saw Willingham packing his vehicle and moving it out of the carport as smoke poured out of the house.

Ayala told Fuller that he tried to tell police in 1991 what he saw, but he was rebuffed.

If the DP was used swiftly & if there was no 20 year process involved after conviction where, again, the criminal is treated like the victim, you don't believe it would act as a deterrent?

To me, yes, but I'm not planning on killing anybody.

It doesn't deter sociopaths or crimes committed in the heat of the moment, no matter how it is implemented. These sorts aren't thinking about consequences when they kill. Most of the murders I read about are not committed by people who planned the ordeal. The ones that are planned are generally committed by truly sick fucks who wouldn't be swayed by the threat of execution.

The appeals process is drawn out less out of sympathy for a convict than out of the desire to assure that every aspect of the trial was by the book and nothing was overlooked. It's nearly impossible to have a scrupulously fair and speedy death penalty trial, even if you do streamline the process we have now.

It's a good tool for prosecutors who want to get a confession in exchange for a life sentence w/o parole, but I don't see it deterring many murderers. Society needs to decide if the cost of executing a criminal is worth the additional safety of not having to house a violent inmate. A lot of states are strapped for cash, and california is just plain broke. Could the money spent on death penalty trials be put to better use elsewhere? I think so.

...To me, yes, but I'm not planning on killing anybody.

#138 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-21 01:00 PM


Not even zombies?

#138 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Ok, for the sake of argument, the DP will never DETER anyone from murdering, that is no reason to do away with it. Again, the problem is the process, not the DP.

The process is mandated, hell the gov't loves to mandate everything else, to last no more than 2 years from arrest to being put to death. Arrested goes on trial, found guilty, appeal starts next day and you get one appeal and ONLY one appeal, found guilty again, take the arrested out back and string him up/lethal injection/firing squad or my personal favorite, ol' sparky immed.

Problem solved, no 20+ years of food and boarding and that scum bag will never harm anyone again. I promise you, that will be one hell of a lot cheaper than life in prison.

Is this $$ put to good use... Absolutely!!

What does any law-abiding citizen gain by killing inmates?

#3 | POSTED BY ZOMBIEHUNTER AT 2009-10-20 11:53 AM | REPLY | FLAG

I'll start off by saying that I don't believe in the death penalty. However, if a state's citizenry demands it, then so be it.

Yes, there is gained retribution for the family victimized. Further the deterrent effect is 100%. That person will not commit a crime again.

The ex-wife of the Texas arsonist is now talking to the media and is saying the comments made by her brother are false. Anyway the claim is hearsay and can't be used in court in Texas.

I always thought the death penalty was a bit too much of an easy out for the worst of them. Isn't life in a super-max a worse punishment? Maybe even a Guantanamo-based system?

If the state wants to get into the murder business with the rest of 'em, then there should be much cheaper ways to do this. Certainly killing someone does not have to be an expensive proposition? What about the thing the guy in No Country For Old Men uses? It could even be re-used until the gas tank runs low, then it could just be re-filled.


The abstract reality of capital punishment is this;

killing is killing. capital punishment is state sanctioned killing. in the old days when the church was the state, the church was in charge of killing. now the church only handles theft, parochialism and buggery.

It's amazing to me that someone can be so opposed to killing that they would stand up in favor of killing.

It's amazing to me that someone can be so opposed to killing that they would stand up in favor of killing.

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2009-10-21 06:08 PM | Reply

AMEN. It just makes killers out of them themselves. Now how do they find the machismo to condemn killing when they kill a killer?? The ULTIMATE in Hypocrisy.

Larry

Our country also becomes a monster if innocent blood shed is not accounted for. Ask the Aztecs.

So Larry, pro-death penalty (for murders with PLENTY of due-process protections) is consistent with pro-life (and antiabortion). Both protect INNOCENT blood.

Humanism and liberalism protects guilty people and condemns 3,000 innocents to death every day.

Ummm you Christian people are Creepy! Ask the Aztecs! That is your logic?

The problem is the Death Penalty does NOT protect innocent blood very well.

Until you are a God yourself and can bring the innocent we have killed back to life there is no justification for State Sanctioned Murder. It is NOT a deterrent and it is more expensive than life in prison.

The object of prison is not revenege. It is to keep society safe and to rehabilitate the offender in order to reintegrate them back into society as a useful member.

We don't base our punishments on the emotional state of the victim or we would have a lot of lynch mobs roaming about.

Also, If your State is going bankrupt you are not keeping your society safe either.

I unsuccessfully tried to write a paper on how the death penalty was against what the Bible said (after I became a Christian but still opposed the death penalty). I couldn't write the paper because the Bible DOES support the death penalty (when carried out fairly).


Believe what you want to, but there real reasons real Christians do and believe many of the things they do.

#122 | Posted by kirk at 2009-10-21 09:03 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This was BEFORE Jesus died upon the cross for our salvation. The wages of Sin(This is includes killing) was Death. Jesus took that penalty onto Himself when He was hung at the Cross at calvary. But do keep up with the Bullshit that says a Christian must support the Death Penalty.

Larry

This was BEFORE Jesus died upon the cross for our salvation. The wages of Sin(This is includes killing) was Death. Jesus took that penalty onto Himself when He was hung ON the Cross at calvary. But do keep up with the Bullshit that says a Christian must support the Death Penalty.


Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-21 06:15 PM | Reply


Damn another editeded post.

Not even zombies?

They're already dead.

This article is trying to make us belive that the DP is the problem and that is incorrect. The process is the problem

What you're really saying is the Constitution is the problem.

Polygrams, sodium pentathol and even the criminal justice system are not 100% foolproof.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-10-21 04:41 AM

In that case that you cannot be 100% positive that anyone is guilty then we should let everyone free.

You can send someone to jail for life or to a supermax and not be 100% sure that they are guilty but you can't apply the death penality to that same person? Let them all free!

I got mixed feelings about the subject. I'd rather see certain crimes fixed as death cases like leaking nuclear/military secrets that could cause us to lose millions of lives or those unreachable cons who kill within prisons (I mean, where else can we put them? Wax 'em).
Otherwise, it is time to move on. The death penalty is an anachronism when it is not a necessity.

The death penalty is an anachronism when it is not a necessity.

Your Pope mostly agrees. Except he says it's always an anachronism.

You wanna restate your answer, or are you comfortable flying solo on this one?

The Bible can be used to prove that incest and pedophilia are OK. Lets deal with facts and logic as the constitution states church and state should be seperate.#123 | Posted by BobP at 2009-10-21 09:09 AM | Reply |

You know neither the constitution nor the Bible.

This should be laughable!

Please make the arguments for both of those...I'll wait with a bowl of popcorn.

Pedophilia:

Numbers 31

1The Lord said to Moses, 2"Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."

3So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the Lord's vengeance on them. 4Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." 5So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

7They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Rebathe five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.a

13Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14Moses was angry with the officers of the armythe commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredswho returned from the battle.

15"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16"They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord's people. 17Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

That does not indicate pediphelia. It does not say sleep with everyone woman who has not slept with a man does it?

Does it indicate that they will be sleeping with them in their current state?

You have to have some kind of assumption to claim what you claim. Is there not an age that is commonly set for marriage?

Are claiming that today's standards go back to those standards and thus claiming that there are objective morals that are universal and binding, coming from an objective source or being who should dictate and enforce the benefits and consequences of those morals?

He is a bully and a coward, and I'm all for finding a way to extend his life an additional fifty years and making him spend every minute of it in a 4x6 cell. But as a danger to society, he's a joke.

#48 | Posted by hawk

No. That statement is a joke. Scott Peterson is a sociopath who would very likely re-marry and do the very same thing again. Kill his wife. There is no reason to believe that he would not repeat this behavior. Many have done so in the past and are in the process of doing it now. How many times do we hear the story of the guy who got away with killing his first wife and is only found out after he kills his second or third wife.

No, Scott Peterson is definitely a danger to society. Especially the women in society. For you to think otherwise shows naivety.

I can. I just gave a perfect example of the death penalty's overuse. -Hawk


And I just gave you a perfect reason why your example was a bad one.

Further rationalization is made that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. There are over two million people incarcerated in the United States of America, the most prisoners of any country in the world -- even more than China. Clearly the death penalty has not deterred crime.-Snoofy


Maybe not, but the amount of prisoners we have is because of our drug laws. It's funny that you used China as an example also because, "What is unusual about the country is that financial crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud, tax fraud, property crimes such as theft, and smuggling cultural relics, gold, silver or other precious metals can be punishable by death. There are some 68 crimes that are eligible for the death penalty in China."

Think the death penalty doesn't work in China either? The point is not so much of whether it is a deterrent. The point is does someone deserve to die for a certain crime they commit. Do you think someone deserves to die for tax fraud as they do in China? I don't. But I do believe that a man who assaults, rapes, and kills a 5 year old girl deserves to be killed swiftly. Forget whether it deters or not. What matters is do they deserve the ultimate penalty.

If they would give them a fair trial the execute them before the next sunrise it would be cheep.

But I do believe that a man who assaults, rapes, and kills a 5 year old girl deserves to be killed swiftly. Forget whether it deters or not. What matters is do they deserve the ultimate penalty.

I agree that they deserve it, but there's no way to implement the death penalty and not kill innocent people.

At which point you're just as bad as the murderers you want to be punishing for their egregious crimes.

Lock 'em up, throw away the key, but deliberately taking the life of a defenseless person who poses to immediate threat isn't something the state should do.

(I tried to phrase that in a way that makes it acceptable for cops to shoot armed and dangerous people when there's no other option, etc.)

Are claiming that today's standards go back to those standards and thus claiming that there are objective morals that are universal and binding

No, I'm claiming the Bible endorses what we today call pedophilia. I make no commentary on the morality of the issue.

Mass executions by firing squad will cut back on cost. Or maybe throw 'em in a pit with a grenade. That should do it. Line 'em up!

That does not indicate pediphelia. It does not say sleep with everyone woman who has not slept with a man does it?

#156 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION AT 2009-10-22 11:39 AM

Isn't the virgin Mary believed to be 13? Does that make god a pedo when the holy spirit came into her? Nonetheless, she was a helpless child victim, but that doesn't change the fact that she could be tried as an adult in this day and age. Hmmmm. And the lord speaketh.

Again, where would you get such, Mictian101?

My great grandmother and father got married when they were 14, and that wasn't so long ago...

But Mohammad married a 6 year old but waited to have sex with her until she was 9 years old...

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable