Life without possibility of parole in place of the death penalty

[MiserableFailure]

Now I've said before on here that I see nothing morally wrong with executions of sane, non-mentally retarded adult murderers. Absolutely nothing morally wrong with that in my opinion, because I believe that you forfeit your right to life when you unjustly take the life of another. But I am practically opposed to the death penalty because I know that the probability of executing an innocent person is very real, so I can't in good conscience support it. That said, how many of you would support abolishing the death penalty nationwide AND replacing it with a required sentence of life without the possibility of parole for first degree murderers. What I mean by that is that the only way a first degree murderer gets out of prison is if they are later found to be innocent. That is the only way. NO time off for good behavior. Life is life. Now for the sentence. It would be very similar to the sentence that death row inmates get: confinement to single cells, 23 hours a day, 3 meals a day brought to you, and one hour out a day for exercise or whatever. Health care would obviously be provided but no books or other forms of entertainment would be. Now that's a key difference between this plan and the current death row situation, because currently death row inmates are typically allowed to have televisions or radios and also have books in their cell. But not here. All you would do is sit in your cell and stare at the wall, except for your hour out a day.

If you want to turn people against the death penalty for first degree murderers then this is really the only way to do it, because people serving life sentences for first degree murder right now are treated a hell of a lot better than the people would be in the system outlined above. But there's nothing cruel above the system I outlined above. People are able to live out their nnatural lifespan in prison, without fear of being raped or otherwise assaulted by other inmates. Personally, if I had the choice of being executed in 5 years for a murder that I committed, or knowing that I'd have to spend potentially 40 years in the situation I described above, I would pick the death sentence every time. But that's not what I'd get. I'd get what I outlined above which is a lot harsher without having to kill anybody.

Your thoughts welcomed, but I really don't want to hear anything about how what I outlined above is cruel and unusual punishment, because it isn't. Examples of cruel and unusual punishment are crimes that land people on death row in the first place.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Here's what I wrote some time ago when WI was playing with a death penalty referendum:

As an ex-field psychologist for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, I imagine I have met more murderers than the average citizen, and I have very little sympathy for them as a class of people. Nevertheless I oppose the death penalty. Why? I assure you that my position has absolutely nothing to do with tender feelings for anyone who would deliberately kill others. Rather, I am very worried about the consequences for the state as a whole if we enact a death penalty.

Four arguments are commonly made in opposition to the death penalty. Let me review them before moving on to the particular concerns I want to discuss. Here, then, are the traditional arguments:

First, we have no need for a death penalty to protect ourselves from murderers because Wisconsin law permits us to put them in prison for life without hope of ever being released.

Second, it is expensive to seek the death penalty. Studies in other states have shown that it costs more to sentence a murderer to death and then wade through the appeals process than it would have to simply imprison the criminal for life.

Third, there is always the possibility of executing an innocent person. Some people seem to think that the use of DNA evidence is an absolutely certain means of avoiding such errors, but that is simply not so. Any number of events, ranging from misbehavior on the part of police officers to errors at the crime lab, could bring about terrible miscarriages of justice.

And fourth, there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. Just consider for a moment—can you imagine criminals thinking to themselves, “I want to go on a killing spree, but they will put me to death if they catch me, so I won’t do it. However, I would go out and murder a bunch of people if all I had to face was life without parole.”

If you think the death penalty is somehow going to make you safer, how do you explain this?—Murder rates per 100,000 population range from a low of 1.2 in Maine to a high of 13.0 in Louisiana. Twelve states, including Wisconsin, have no death penalty. The average murder rate for these states is 2.90. The remaining 38 states have the death penalty. Their murder rate per hundred thousand residents is 5.3. The probability of this being a chance result is less than one in a hundred.

At 3.3 murders per 100,000, Wisconsin has a slightly higher murder rate than the average for states without the death penalty, but considerably lower than the average for states with the death penalty. Why, then, should we be in any hurry to legalize the death penalty and thereby join the group of states with the higher murder rates?

Another question—Might there be something about having a death penalty that causes states to have a higher murder rate? As a psychologist, I think there may be a connection. Let us make no bones about it. To approve the death penalty is to assert that it is permissible for a large number of people—the state—to gang up and put one of its members to death. When a state authorizes executions, it is in effect saying that killing is not only permissible, but is in fact desirable, in some circumstances, including circumstances that do not involve immediate self-defense. Children learn both behaviors and attitudes by the example of their elders. From what we know of child development, there is every reason to imagine that children who grow up in a society that approves the killing of human beings will have lower inhibitions against killing than do children whose society teaches an absolute intolerance of killing.

Wisconsin has executed only one criminal since attaining statehood in 1848, and explicitly forbade the practice in 1853. This is a proud tradition that I believe to be worth keeping.

[madokie]

3. I'm against the death penalty too

I simply see it as not a detriment. for instance would timmy mcveigh rather relive the horrors,or if he was religious, repent, die then go to heaven

[Bettie]

2. I agree with abolishing the death penalty

For the reasons you outline.

I also agree that life without parole should mean death row like conditions. No TV, no radio I could go with, but I would allow books (carefully screened of course). I guess its just because I cannot imagine a life without books.

Just my .02, take it or leave it.

Bettie

[MiserableFailure]

5. i just don't understand the logic here, i'm sorry

the tendency in these situations is to only focus on the murder and his livelihood and to forget about the victims and how they suffered and had their lives taken from them.

i watch a lot of tv. i can't imagine a life without tv, but i don't see why that means we have to allow murderers to watch it in prison. i also read a lot of books(especially biographies and historical fiction), but i don't see why that means we have to allow murderers to read them in prison.

first degree murderers should have no comforts like books or tv or radio. all they should have is food, shelter and health care. the basic necessities.

and one of the reasons i think this is so important is because it leaves the murderer alone with his thoughts. he is forced to contemplate his ghastly deeds for years and years. if you let them read books then they are a lot less likely to do this.

[Bettie]

17. I respectfully disagree

I think that it is cruel and unusual punishment to leave a human being with no source of mental stimulation at all.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

Bettie

[pitohui]

20. it is deliberate mental torture and consider -- many DO turn out to be innocent and will be insane

we already know from dna tests, the innocence project, etc. that our american justice is bullshit and a jury can about as well tell if someone is guilty of murder or rape as the tea leaves can

think of people in prison for decades, with no stimulation, before their innocense is proved -- such as the case where the men won the big judgment from the fbi yesterday, they were in prison for decades, two of them died there -- and they were innocent

think of innocent men such as hurricane carter, released after only many years of self education, ability to communicate w. the outside world, ability to write and be heard

think of leonard peltier, who we all know to be innocent, still in prison and there for life, now think if he were not even able to communicate with his family, loved ones, those who care about him and his heritage -- they make it damn difficult for him as it is

now think of the advantages to the state, of being able to legally confine someone in a situation that is guaranteed, because of the lack of mental interaction with other humans or with media, GUARANTEED, as we know from research, to drive that person insane -- now all the state has to do to destroy someone's effectiveness as an opposition leader is to "somehow" link them to a murder or say they conspired to murder -- then even if the person is ever exonerated, it matters not, their mind has been destroyed, they will never be the leader or the speaker they could have been

this is a brutal and dangerous power to give any gov't

if i were innocent of a crime and found to be guilty of something i wouldn't do, just put me to sleep, don't set a deliberate policy of taking my sanity too

you really wonder about people sometime, i mean torquemada much?

we should never on a progressive board be advocates for torture, never, the death penalty is something people of good will can disagree about, but i can't understand why anyone here could advocate instead for torture -- and make no mistake, this form of torture suggested is deliberately cruel and intended to destroy mind and spirit

[MiserableFailure]

28. you think leonard pelletier is innocent?

olease tell me you're joking. are you next going to tell me that OJ didn't actually kill Nicole and Ron? yeah, he was found innocent, but that was because of the racist cops and the fabrication of evidence. most people with a brain realize that he did, in fact, do it.

But back to Pelletier. There is no doubt in my mind that the guy murdered two FBI agents in cold blood. He should have gotten the death penalty but at least he has to deal with his two life sentences. There's a reason that President Clinton didn't pardon Pelletier- he knew Pelletier was guilty and it would have put a big dent in Hillary's future career plans. i hope pelletier chokes on his own vomit.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Depends on what you consider the purpose of justice to be

I don't think justice exists to make people suffer for their crimes. I think it exists to make society safer for everyone. If someone commits first degree murder, they need to be locked up for the rest of their lives so that they don't commit murder again. I don't see a point in making them suffer.

[eggman67]

4. No argument here

My only point would be an insistence on enforcement. Otheerwise you'll get a breakdown of the system and we'll be right back to capital punishment.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. No death penalty: it is barbaric. However

life without parole should simply be one of the sentencing options available to the judge and jury. There are murders with mitigating circumstances, removing all discretion from sentencing is not a good idea. See our current prison industial complex and the mess we have created with mandatory sentencing, the corrupt war against drugs we disapprove of, etc.

"Personally, if I had the choice of being executed in 5 years for a murder that I committed, or knowing that I'd have to spend potentially 40 years in the situation I described above, I would pick the death sentence every time."

Of course that is so easy to say if you are not in that situation.

What is the point of prison and incarceration? What are we trying to accomplish with the hundred billion or so we spend on our prison system each year?

[MiserableFailure]

9. Warren,

good questions. but i don't agree. if you are convicted of first degree murder(and there are very few first degree murder convictions relative to the total number of murder convictions, mainly because it is very difficult to prove), then you do not deserve to ever get out of prison imo. I am tired of seeing judges hand out pathetically short sentences for major crimes like rape and manslaughter. Some states have different standards for first degree murder though. Let's compare Pennsylvania's and New York's:

Pennsylvania's first degree murder statute basically says(from Wikipedia):

" First Degree Murder: All premeditated murders, and (in some states) murders involving certain especially dangerous felonies, such as arson or rape, or committed by an inmate serving a life sentence."

Now New York's first degree murder statute basically says this(also from Wikipedia):

"First Degree Murder: Murder involving special circumstances, such as murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime; multiple murders; and torture or especially heinous murders. Note that a "regular" premeditated murder, absent such special circumstances, is not a first-degree murder; murders by poison or "lying in wait" are not per se first-degree murders. First degree murder is pre-meditated."

But in the case of New York, you see that not all murders judged to be premeditated are classified as first degree. This is a mistake imo.

If you look at my original post, you'll see that I was only referring to first degree, and I will now clarify that I am only referring to premeditated murderers, and not murderers judged to have been done in the heat of the moment, or in the commission of another crime etc.

It's easy to say I'd take the execution over 40 years in jail because I know that I wouldn't last 2 days in the situation I outlined above. I'd definitely hang myself. I also forgot to mention, though it seems obvious, that under this plan, the murderers would have no contact with anyone from the outside world except for prison staff in the commission of their official duties: no family, no friends, no visitors, period.

To answer your last question of what the point of prison and incarceration is, well it depends on the situation. If you have somebody with a felony assault or larceny conviction for example, the goal is punishment combined with rehabilitation. The goal for murderers in my opinion is to make sure that they never do it again and that their stay in prison is as unpleasant as is legally permissible. I feel like some people on here would be willing to let a murderer out of jail eventually if they knew for sure that they would never do it again. That is not my position at all, and people who feel this way are not thinking of the victims.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. So for example

a long abused woman who for whatever misguided reasons feels locked into her relationship with her abusive husband decides to kill him and is caught and convicted of 1st degree murder.

Lock her up forever in solitary confinement with no tv no exercise no books no radio and no chance of parole?

In my opinion the point of incarceration is to remove bad people from public life for a specified period of time. It is not to torture them, either mentally or physically. It is to keep them away from us gentle folk.

Offering prisoners the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves would seem like (despite its current lack of popularity) a no-brainer of a plan. Even if they never get out (and I am not opposed to life without parole, I am opposed to mandatory life without parole) allowing prisoners the opportunity to make something positive out of their life in prison does no harm and can result in good.

[MiserableFailure]

12. Warren,

That's a bad example because there have been more than a few cases of women who have gotten reduced sentences or even been acquitted of killing their abusive husbands, especially when they are witnesses to document the abuse. I don't see anything personally wrong with a woman killing an abusive husband and if I was on the jury I would vote to acquit. I suspect that most people would. You don't see many DA's pushing for first degree murder in those cases, but if you can link to an example of what you said happening actually happening, that'd be nice. Have you ever read A Time to Kill by John Grisham? I suspect that most people would acquit someone who did what Carl Lee Hailey did in that book(kill the two men who raped his ten year old daughter). I know I would.

and letting convicted first degree murderers do things like get high school diplomas and associate's degrees at taxpayer expense is a slap in the face to both the victims and to people on the outside who don't have opportunities like this.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. So is the point vengeance?

"letting convicted first degree murderers do things like get high school diplomas and associate's degrees at taxpayer expense is a slap in the face to both the victims and to people on the outside who don't have opportunities like this."

The victim of murder is dead. People on the outside do have access to the public education system. The family of the murder victim has suffered, but is the point of punishment vengeance? If not, then why should the 'slap in the face' of allowing prisoners to read books, watch tv, listen to music, exercise and educate themselves be of any interest to our justice system? It is society that punishes and imprisons, not the victims or the relatives of the victims. We should be doing what is best for our society, for the fabric of civilization, not simply 'those things that don't hurt the relatives feelings'.

The advocates of a lifetime of complete isolation - pretty much what has been proposed here - are advocating for a punishment that will quite quickly drive the prisoner completely insane. To put it mildly, it runs afoul of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the constitution. It is also, as in the trite statements of 'i'd choose death over life in prison' by the non-incarcerated, one made easily by those who will not have to work inside a system engaged in that sort of brutality.

If you think that no abused spouses have ever been convicted of first degree murder, I suspect you are wrong on the facts. In fact I'll bet google-blind that way more than one such person has been executed for just such an act.

"I don't see anything personally wrong with a woman killing an abusive husband "
Well other than the fact that it is premeditated murder, I suppose there isn't anything else wrong with it. The point is that obviously the circumstances do matter, which is why simplistic one dimensional laws are stupid and cruel.

[MiserableFailure]

18. warren,

not to be rude man, but thank god you're in the minority on this one. your heart bleeds so much for the murderers but it can't bleed even a little bit for the victims. and i know it doesn't because you claimed that the victim of murder is dead. only one victim is dead. most murder victims leave families and friends behind and they are victims as well.

yes i want to drive the prisoners insane. that is the goal. you'll bet google -blind on that assertion though huh? i bet it hasn't happened in the past 40 years.

and lol @ you saying that besides it's premeditated murder, because there isn't really anything wrong with it

[Warren Stupidity]

23. "your heart bleeds so much for the murderers"

Ah there it is. The standard fascist complaint. We have to torture prisoners otherwise we are bleeding heart liberals.

As I said, as far as I am concerned, the point of incarceration is to remove bad people from gentle society, not to torture them in an act of vengeance. As I also said, I have no problem with life without parole, however I do have a problem with absolutely no discretion about that sentence, as that is simplistic stupidity.

"yes i want to drive the prisoners insane" then you are a sadist. We are done. Go re-read your constitution. Go read the geneva conventions. Go read the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

[MiserableFailure]

24. i can't believe you think that providing

people with health care, food and adequate shelter is torture as long as we aren't giving them books to read and tv to watch...

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. So, you consider deliberate attempts to drive people insane

"adequate healthcare."

Jesus, you're sick. You need immediate mental health care. I think you are a dangerous person.

[MiserableFailure]

27. yes, i know,

and i shouldn't be allowed to own my guns, right?

jeesh, thank god most people don't think like you. i deal with the scum of the earth 5 days a week at my job.

i've managed to be a cop for 8 years without so much as one serious complaint. oh, sure, you have the occasional complaint like this nutcase woman who claimed that i punched her while i was frisking her, but the tape in the cruiser reveals the truth.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Who said anything about guns?

I am perfectly in favor of you or anyone else owning their own guns. What the fuck are you even talking about.

I was merely pointing out that you cannot say 1) you want to provide adequate healthcare and 2) you want to drive people insane...or, you CAN say them both, but it is contradictory and absurd, since health care would necessarily mean that you want to prevent insanity. But you just want to torture people. I'll leave you to it. I don't think you should be acting under the color of the law if that's your positio n, but I'll leave that to the pysch evals in your department. We don't need sadists with badges, and you appear to be one.

[MiserableFailure]

37. i want to provide physical health care

we don't have mental health parity in our non-prison health care system and you want to provide it for inmates?

like i said, there could be an opt-out. give each person a noose in their cell or something and they might just use it and save the taxpayers some money, which could then be spent on other stuff.

but yes, please keep calling me a sadist. it is amusing, for sure.

i am now a homocide investigator for my county sheriff's office and have been for two years. like i said, i deal with scum of the earth every day, and a new murderer every week it seems like. death is too good for these people. put on my badge and gun and go out there and get shot at before you try to judge me again.

the reason i said the gun thing is that most of the candidates from both parties seem to think that if you are judged to be mentally ill, even if you've never committed a crime, that you should forfeit your right to own any type of gun. sadists are mentally ill and i am not a sadist.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. You are

the scum of the earth, pal, with that attitude. You are no better than the murderers you condemn, or only slightly better.

And you are certainly a sadist, because you want to torture people to suicide. I am chilled to the bone that anybody haqs given you any authority at all.

[MiserableFailure]

41. what a ridiculous statement

so you think because of the opinion i hold on murderers, that this makes me no better than them or only slightly better? i suspect that the families of victims who have had their lives torn apart by tragedy would beg to disagree with you. i also deal with these people a lot and you need to get some understanding.

[Ms. Toad]

59. There are quite a few who would

agree with alcibiades_mystery:

http://www.willsworld.com/~mvfhr/
http://www.mvfr.org/

And you can count me in that group. Although I am not a member of either MVFHR or MVFR, my family has been torn apart both by the tragedy of losing a member to murder - and by the tragedy of having a member sentenced to die for murder.

For more than twenty years, as the immediate families of the victim and of the murderer supported each other through the path toward execution our families lived the truth that all the death penalty accomplishes is to create more grieving mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. who have lost dear ones to violence, whether that violence is perpetrated by individuals or by the state.

[MiserableFailure]

54. ps, i also served as an Army officer for 11 years

So this is not the first time that I've been given authority by a governmental unit or a unit under control of the government. They seem to think I'm a pretty good leader.

[Mike Daniels]

7. I'm fine with life w/out parole replacing the death penalty if the prisoner

is isolated from the overall prison society.

Keep his prison interactions limited to other "life w/out parole for capital murder" inmates and I'd consider that a reasonable trade-off.

[MiserableFailure]

13. i don't understand your post

there would be no personal interaction between any LWOP inmates, let alone interaction between LWOP inmates and non-LWOP inmates. no conversations, no physical interaction, nothing. there would be no bars on the front of the cell, it would be 4 soundproofed walls.

[aikoaiko]

8. I've heard one arguement against against life wo parole as the ultimate punishment

It went something like this:
When death is the ultimate punishment, murderers will plea down to life wo parole.
When life without parole is the ultimate punishment, murderers will plea down to life with parole.
Therefore, eliminating the death penalty will lead to murderers being set free on parole.

I don't know the real world numbers for pleas or releases on parole, but it did give me something to think about.

[DemGa]

10. Human advancement and executions are incompatible

Not much else to comment on that, just seems obvious.

[BlooInBloo]

15. It's just not a power The State should be trusted with - no matter HOW much a particular fucker...

... deserves to die.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. You're a sadist

So your moral proclamations are meaningless.

I'll tell you a million times that your insane and sadistic concoctions are cruel and unusual, and you can fuck a duck if you don't like it. The fact that you sit there thinking these things up says more about your own depravity than anything else. You are a sick fucking twist. Period.

You're also a moron who knows nothing about corrections, because you think it is feasible to maintain large populations of people with zero quality of life and zero hope of improvement. Oh, and then you want to hire bunch of folks to maintain that misery and put them in close contact with these people. You're an idiot. Prison systems work by reward far more than by force. You strip all the rewards, they don't fucking work. All stick no carrot leads to a lot of dead bodies. But don't let reality interfere with your pathetic little S&M fantasy. Luckily, nobody with anything to do with ACTUAL corrections will take you seriously.

[MiserableFailure]

19. put a bandage on it

because i'm sure the murderers are glad to have allies such as yourself. you're spitting in the faces of victims and unapologetic about it. thank god you're in the minority.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Oh right

The usual foolish response of sadistic nutcases when called on their bizarre torture fantasies. I side with the murderers. Right. You, on the other hand, behave like a vicarious torturer. So, who's the moral cretin: the one who wants less pain in the world or more? You're sick. Get help.

[pitohui]

22. "pathetic little s&m fantasy"

i'm glad someone said it, i was thinking the same thing

it is just shocking to see anyone on this site more or less advocate for torture and inhumane treatment of other human beings

[Toasterlad]

31. Dude, Seriously...Chill.

I agree that what he's proposing is cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore illegal, but damn. Aren't there more worthy causes to support then the rights of child murderers?

The only problem I have with capital punishment is the possibility that an innocent person will be killed. If there were a way to guarantee that not happening, I'm all in favor of the frying. I'm not interested in paying room and board for convicted felons, no matter how sucky their life behind bars is.

[MiserableFailure]

33. i agree, thanks

if someone confesses to a murder and we are 100% sure that they actually did it, i say execute the scum and forget about it. being 100% sure is pretty much impossible but we're talking hypotheticals here. to be honest, most people who are against the death penalty are not against it because they are scared of executing an innocent. they are against it because they have heart hemophilia when it comes to murderers. can you believe that people actually shed tears when murderers are executed? they're not shedding tears because they think they were innocent- they can't claim that every person on death row is. no they're shedding tears because they think it's cruel and unusual punishment for someone who murders someone to get their just desserts.

cruel and unusual punishment arguments went out the window when states went to lethal injection. i believe that every state except nebrasks either has lethal injection as the sole method or at least gives it as an option to the inmates. i can guarantee you that the punishment the murderers receive pale in comparison to the punishment that their victims received. and if you look at other posts in this thread, you'll see me being called sadistic, deranged, mentally ill. lol, whatever. the mentally ill people are the ones who can summon sympathy for the inmates and none for the victims. actions speak louder than words. crying about how bad you feel for the victims while opposing capital punishment for any reason except the fact that an innocent person may be executed is pathetic.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. There are many more worthy causes to support

But decent behavior is eroded precisely when the worst among us lose their rights. It's so much easier to start chipping away at general decency when the victims are victimizers themselves. then the bloodlust and sadism kicks in, as in the OP, and everybody forgets that rights are for everyone, including the child murderers, or they are for nobody. You don't get to pick and choose, and God fucking help us if lunatics like the OP do start to think that we get to pick and choose who gets rights, or that decent people start to believe such tripe. And as long as I'm living, I'm going to do everything in my power to see that you DO pay room and board for people we incarcerate, and that we stop the barbaric state-sanctioned murders, and that conditions in the prisons are not deplorable, much less the torture advocated by the utterly senseless OP. Because I believe in rights, my own and yours, not because I like defending child murderers. So you might as well put that talking point aside. It is childish at best, stupid at worst.

[MiserableFailure]

42. no, your talking points are stupid at worst

your slippery slope fallacies and personal attacks that you started only serve to show that you have no interest in an honest debate

[MiserableFailure]

43. you can shed tears over the killing of murderers if you want,

that's your right, but you know that you're not doing it because you're afraid they're all innocent. if you execute 1000 people, and 1 of them later turns out to have been innocent, that doesn't mean that the executions of the 999 guilty ones were immoral.

no, the only reason you're doing it is because your priorities are completely misplaced. i can tell that none of the people posting in this thread with views similar to yours have ever lost a close family member to a murderer. i haven't either but i see enough of the grief and suffering, from the side of the victims, to know what it's like.

lol @ you bud. you act like executing murderers is some recent phenomenon and that it will lead to some awful things, without any proof.

[cynatnite]

25. Let me ask you this question....

What if an 19 year old male murdered a store clerk for a few bucks and was sentenced to life without parole? In sixty years he would be 79 years old. He may have arthritis, diabetes, heart condition or any other number of ailments that come with aging. Either way, he would be in no condition of committing the same crime.

Should someone who is in prison and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, who is so old and feeble that they need a wheel chair or walker, be considered dangerous enough to remain in prison?

Just wondering.

[MiserableFailure]

29. it's not about danger, it's about punishment

what is so hard for people to understand about that?

we can rehabilitate some people, like non violent drug offenders, who should not be in prison. people who commit comparatively minor crimes to murder such as larceny and assault can also probably be rehabilitated, so they should not be given long sentences. but people who commit rape and murder are obviously complete social deviants and belong in prison for the rest of their life.

[cynatnite]

45. It was just something that I thought of while reading the OP n/t

[chknltl]

30. I support you here. Good post.

I have always been against the death penalty. The chance that an innocent man or woman may get put to death is a deal breaker for me.

I know a man who is in prison for life, placed there for the torture and murder of a little girl. I am CONVINCED that he DID NOT do this. I know that this person's fear of the death penalty was the absolute only reason he plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. Because he plead guilty, the real asshole is still out there and there is a great chance that asshole committed more murders. This is another reason I have for being against the death penalty.

(btw: I think Tim Duncan, was the real murderer of the little girl my friend is in prison for. The resemblance and MO fit and he lived within a few miles of that crime at the very time it took place)

[MiserableFailure]

32. well im sorry to tell you but you're the only one who agrees...

if you read other posts you will see that i am basically a fascist and a sick person who needs mental help for suggesting putting murderers through the torture of having no access to books, magazines, radio or television.

[chknltl]

46. hmm...I did go back and read them

I am still against the death penelty for the two reasons I stated: 1: chance of another innocent dieing. and 2: It can cause an innocent person to plead guilt. I did not read further into your conditions....I suppose I was thinking of my friend languishing away in prison and was keen on placing my agreements here before finishing all you had to say. I see the merits of keeping a convicted murderer confined as you suggest but frankly I too do not favor them because I too see it as cruel and unusual punnishment, a form of torture. Yes you are correct that a murderer likely deserves no better but I can not advocate torture for anyone, regardless if they may deserve it or no. I hate Hitler but I would never have voted to see him tortured, same with bush or Saddam Hussein. I actually have a pang of sorrow that he and his co-horts have been put to death, that said, I would prefer to see them put to death quickly over seeing them tortured. Sorry, looks like I side with others here MiserableFailure.

Welcome to DU btw. I hope that you never live up to your name. :pals:

[MiserableFailure]

50. wait wtf

Tim Duncan?

[chknltl]

51. Oops got it wrong, meant Joeseph Duncan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III and my friends case: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/cynthia_allinger_22099.htm

My friend is in prison for life for the torture and murder of Cyndy Allenger, (sp?). My friend Guy Rasmussan, (sp?), "Raz" for short was a roadie for a local band I was photographing back then. He had two priors: The first was havin sex with a 16 year old when he was 18, (his girlfriend), and the other was a bit complicated but in essence was due to a bicycle accident where HE was run into by a group of bicycles, an accident, causing one of the riders another young girl to get hurt. (Her father pressed charges against Raz in order to have someone to pin the doctors bills to). This made Raz a two time "sex offender" (No I am not sure how that worked out, I am just repeating Raz's story)

So when Cyndy Allenger turned up missing the detectives took to watchin the "sex offenders" in the area including Raz. I ran into him AND his 'minders' during the initial investigation. They had latched onto him because his home was within a block of the Allenger home and someone claimed that he was seen with the little girl. Raz's 'minders' had grown tired of tailing him covertly so instead they just hung out with him, they even took him to see movies and stuff. Somehow, during the investigation, someone, (supposedly Raz), took Cyndie Allenger's body, wrapped it in a carpet and moved it to a previously searched area then called it in as a tip. (So how did Raz do this when he did not own a vehicle and he had two TPD Detectives with him 24-7?)

Cyndie Allenger's body had cigarette burns all over it, yes Raz smoked but, Joeseph Duncan had earlier been busted for kidnapping a boy, (same area), sexually molested him and tortured him with lit cigarettes! He spent time in nearby McNiel Island Penitentiary for this and was out on work release living in the same area as Cyndie Allenger when she went missing. A local psychic who sometimes works with the local PD, claims that the man who murdered Cyndi Allenger was accustomed to wearing a uniform. Because the area where the murder occurred is right next to MacCord AFB we all figured he was an Air force or Army guy, (Ft. Lewis is less than a mile away also). The psychic was positive that this was not the case but could not put her finger on it. (Joeseph Duncan wore a prison uniform when not out on work release). Raz, (back then) and Joeseph Duncan look remarkably alike and could EASILY be mistaken for each other. Joeseph Duncan had this on-line thing going on just before his capture in the Groening(sp?) murder/kidnapping case. He confessed/boasted that he got away with many, many more murders that never got solved.

on edit: the blood stained clothes that were "found" in Raz's bedroom were suspect too. I never got all the details but his girlfriend "Nisha" had some of her clothes removed from the clothing scattered around Raz's bedroom, including shorts and underwear which had ...um...bloodstains from something a bit more natural... there has been suggestions that the DNA "evidence" was added AFTER the clothing had been removed. Again I do not have the whole story but this bit of the story from a friend of Nisha's

Sorry, I said "Tim" Duncan, (basketball fame) instead of Joeseph Duncan (seriously sick bastard). I want you to know that I knew Raz. He was a kind soul who would never hurt anyone and was around children often. It is even possible Cyndi had been to his home, it was a large crash pad for band members and a party house on the weekend. Some of the other bandmembers had their wives and kids living there too. On summer weekends there could be up to a hundred folks hangin around the place. There was usually a drum circle around the back yard fire pit...the parties were typically peaceful, pot and mushroom oriented, sorta like a grateful dead style crowd. (Most of the partiers were regulars at "Rainbow Valley", a nearby hippie get together place which got shut down a year or so later) There were always kids hangin around the place. If Raz had been a perv., he had plenty of opportunities. If he had bloodsoaked clothes from a murder, why didn't he burn 'em in the back yard fire pit? It was going pretty much on any given night all summer long.

If I could bring this back around on topic: Raz is a perfect example of why I am against the death penalty. He wound up in prison for life while the real sick bastard was left un-looked for and committed further kidnap murders...well that is how I see it. I can only hope Raz has some comforts in Walla Walla Prison and I would not want him facing those far bleaker conditions you suggested. Joeseph Duncan, I despise more than bush but again, I could not bring myself to vote for torture, even in his case, even if it provided some measure of release for his walking victims: those who knew and loved the ones he murdered! Yes I am FOR life imprisonment, throw away the key, for murderers, (in that part we agree), but no I am not for torture.

[MiserableFailure]

34. Number of death row suicides surpass executions in Cali

I recently read an article that stated this.

SAN FRANCISCO — With the latest death at San Quentin State Prison, suicide has supplanted execution as the second leading cause of death on California's death row. The leading reason for inmate deaths is natural causes.

Tony Lee Reynolds' death Sunday was the 14th suicide — one more than the number of condemned inmates executed in California since the state reinstated capital punishment in 1978.

Why not just give death row inmates to tools to poison themselves if they want to? Give them cyanide capsules. I think you'dbe surprised at the number who would take them.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. Yes! I've been advocating that forever. nt

[MiserableFailure]

38. well how does it feel to be a sadist? :P

that's what i am apparently

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

52. MiserableFailure, if you posted a poll at DU about the death penalty, you would see

very different results than some of the replies you recieved. Many DU members just read and don't post. Tbey do though, vote on polls. You and I are not exceptions. :hug:

[lamp_shade]

44. You've got my vote

I hear "but it's your tax money being spent to keep the murderer alive". Money well spent in my opinion.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. It costs more to get a death penalty conviction than it does to house an inmate

Trials cost a fortune and if the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, the penalty phase is just as long as the actual trial. Add appeals to that and housing the inmate during those appeals.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. If anything I think forms of entertainment make the environment safer for the guards

I'm pretty sure that if inmates stare at a wall for 23 hours a day, they will go insane. I won't get into the morality of that, because that's already been discussed on this thread several times. The bottom line is that it just makes them more difficult for the guards to handle. No TV, fine. But I don't see any reason to deny them reading materials and an inexpensive radio.

[Nikia]

53. If it would turn out that the person was innocent

That person would be difficult to reintegrate into society again if they had spent more than a few months in conditions like you describe.
Even if a person would be clearly guilty, I see no reason to torture anyone like that.
Murderers who are sentenced to life without parole who prove to be a danger to other inmates should be put in solitary confinement but even if isolation proves to be necessary, eventually giving them back privleges of radio, books, tv would give the prisioner incentive to be less dangerous to the guards.

[depakid]

55. "I see nothing morally wrong with executions"

Really?

I guess you live up to your nom de plume.

[Beerboy]

56. Too much emphasis on punishment,

not enough resources earmarked to rehabilitation. Society cannot rid itself of "crime" by imprisoning "criminals". The Germans and Russians did that, turning their nations into huge concentration camps.

[Ayesha]

57. I mostly agree

I think there are a small number of people who still present a danger even if in prison, and should be executed. Ted Bundy, for example, escaped from prison multiple times and more women died as a result. Terrorist, gang, and mafia leaders also have a lot of potential to escape and/or do harm on the outside from the inside. However, such people are a TINY percentage of the overall total of premeditated murderers. We're talking less than 10 people a year.

I believe that we need to do much more psychological evaluation of violent criminals for the purpose of making sentencing and prison environment decisions. Most importantly, we need to use these evaluations to determine if the murderer has a conscience. Persons with antisocial (sociopathic) or narcissistic personality disorder are incapable of feeling empathy. They cannot feel remorse and will continue to commit crimes if they are ever released from prison. There is no treatment that will help or change them. There is no point in wasting resources on them, except to study them. Virtually all of those who are so dangerous that I feel they should be executed, fall into this category. They don't all need to be executed, but they do not need educational programs or anything rehabilitative. For the most part, they are too dangerous to hold jobs in prison. They need to be housed away from others in an extremely secure facility for life. They don't deserve our compassion or mercy in any way, shape, or form.

If the violent convict is not a sociopath, we need to determine whether they made poor choices due to a lack of education, poverty, mental illness, and/or addiction. If we can address these issues, we have a chance at rehabilitating the person. They should at least have access to counseling, education programs, and books, to help them be a more productive prison citizen and reduce violence within the facility. I agree that TV, except for educational programming and an occasional movie that can be used to generate discussion and thought, should not be provided to violent offenders. However, I'd prefer to see these offenders have jobs to help pay for their incarceration, rather than having them sit in a cell all day. This prison sentence would in no way be fun. Its goal would be to teach the values of hard work, personal responsibility, and accountability and remorse for one's crimes.

[Rosemary2205]

58. I think long prison sentences are cruel.

If someone has the potential to continue to commit crimes in or from prison then execution is the only option, IMHO.

For those who are rehabilitatable or who are not a continued danger to society then they should be given some sort of punishment that reinforces a desire to be productive in society. Though I recognize this is difficult to acheive in our mobile and urban societies.

[Madspirit]

60. "but yes, please keep calling me a sadist."

**MiserableFailure..."I really don't want to hear anything about how what I outlined above is cruel and unusual punishment, because it isn't. Examples of cruel and unusual punishment are crimes that land people on death row in the first place....blah blah blah blah....we don't have mental health parity in our non-prison health care system and you want to provide it for inmates?...blah blah blah blah....give each person a noose in their cell...blah blah blah blah...but yes, please keep calling me a sadist...blah blah blah"**



OK, you're a sadist. In law, when they refer to "cruel and unusual punishment" they ARE referring to the treatment of prisoners so of fucking course I can and will bring it up. It goes without saying that the victims are victims and were treated cruelly and unjustly.

Also, he wasn't talking about providing mental health care, though that would be good and in my opinion, adequate health care includes mental health care; he's pointing out that you cannot claim to be providing adequate health care while ACTIVELY driving someone insane. Your treatment would drive any person insane. THAT is not adequate health care. THAT is sadism.

That just swooped right over your head, right? Actually considering what YOU are doing to another human being would never occur to you except from the pound-of-flesh point of view, right? Throw in your well-timed treacle display of sympathy for the victim. Truth is, you have no REAL sympathy for anyone. You just have a real bad urge to hurt someone. YOU are NOW the one doing the sadistic act. That you could do this to another soul shows NOTHING about them and EVERYTHING about YOU. Got it?

The way you would treat these prisoners is the "cruel" part of "cruel and unusual". A side effect of putting someone in a bare room with absolutely no stimulation for their entire lifetime, would be that it would drive them insane. That's psychology 101.

A lot of places now require cops have college degrees and take some psychology. They do where I live.

I have a sudden urge to quote Nietzsche:


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."


Saying we who hate the death penalty and we who find our prison system cruel and barbaric have no compassion for the victim is just...wow...I have no words. This only shows that YOU are limited. It's absurd. I can have compassion for many people. Did you know there are even groups out there consisting entirely of the families and friends of murder VICTIMS, FIGHTING the death penalty AND fighting the kind of punishment you find acceptable? You CANNOT, by definition, know the pain of losing someone to murder the way they know that pain and yet, THEY don't want to torment these prisoners. I guess they are a little more...hmm...I once got yelled at by a member for using the word "evolved" so I wouldn't want to use that......

You are the classic definition of a sadist. You are compelled toward cruelty. It guides you. You have no feelings for justice and mercy. You're scary and that you carry a gun and a nightstick, that kind of sends chills down the spine.

Lee

[Madspirit]

62. PS...and Free Leonard Peltier

YOU have NO idea whether he is innocent or guilty. Do you think you are God? Just curious...you know..."all seeing, all knowing" etc.

I'm an atheist but I do recognize the different delusional states....

Lee

[BlooInBloo]

61. While I can easily imagine *me* doing that to someone, there is *no* circumstance...

... in which I think *The State* should have that power.