I'm right there with you. I have a knife scar down my chest from my personal psycho. I was choked, beaten, sent to the hospital twice (this was before cops were required to arrest whether charges were pressed or not--these cops just told me, "well, we don't see him, but if he comes back, call us"...Yeah, right.), and emotionally tortured. He had people following me, he checked my gas gauge to make sure I didn't go anywhere except work.

I finally got away the time he attacked me, choking me, and I just freaked the hell out. Next thing I knew, my hands were around HIS neck, and if I'd have gotten a better grip, I'd've done my best to kill him. As it was, he threw me back against the wall and left. I used that time to get away and hide from him. It took six months before he stopped looking for me.

I was 18 at the time this happened too. It took two years for me to get away from him. The abuse happened so gradually that I didn't really see it coming until the first time his hands went around my throat. It was just an explosion of violence out of the blue, a massive escalation. By that time, I was walking on eggshells.

For example: if I didn't clean the house well enough, I was attacked. If I DID clean it well enough, then I was fixing it up so that I could meet someone and have an affair. There was no way to win. The psychological torture is such that when they tell you something, you believe them. He told me he had people following me, and that he always knew where I was and what I was doing. He was 28. I was 18. He was my first serious relationship. What did I know, right? I was a kid, more or less, and he used that. He could be charming when he wanted to be, and in front of other people.

I get so tired of hearing people say, "well, why doesn't she just leave?" I'll tell them why: IF you're allowed to have a job, it's a shitty one, so you don't have the money to leave. Some people don't have family or friends, or anyone to help them. Some have children. And 80% of domestic violence that ends in the death of the woman happens AFTER she leaves. You're so psychologically tortured, and so brainwashed, that you have no will, and the strength you do have is put into escaping abuse by doing what you think he wants. Some women don't have vehicles. There are a lot of reasons it's hard to leave.

Abusers don't stop abusing. They just move on to someone else. I see that as a serial criminal. Just because they don't always kill doesn't mean they don't ruin lives irreparably. Perhaps if abuse were considered more than a minor infraction, and people got more than a slap on the wrist for it (if that), we might not have so many murderers out there (since they all claim abuse as kids). Anti-DP's want to start being proactive, start THERE.

But you know what? That abuse didn't lead me to kill. I didn't decide all men were like that and therefore needed to die. Ultimately, it's not our childhood. It's the choices we make. As grown men and women, we have the option of making our own choices in behavior. I'm not going to justify my behavior by blaming it on something that happened when I was a kid, and I'm not going to accept it from a murderer.


Sidhe

so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life...Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends." LOTR

So if you knew it was wrong to kill, then why are you willing to give medals to others who do?

Lady S. and Onyx, I'm right there with you (read my earlier post about deciding to kill the man who abused me). I never ever want to see this man again. I don't want to know if he's alive or dead. I don't care what happens to him, but it would be nice if he never abused another woman again, for whatever reason that prevented him from doing so.

That said, I found that I could not go around hating this individual. Hate and anger are corrosive emotions which destroy the soul. He was abused as a child. I, too, consider that no excuse, but it is an explanation for his behavior. His Mother was a single parent who used to lock him in the closet while she went to work. Beatings were a part of his dailey life as a child. Does that mean he gets to inflict the same treatment on me or anybody else? No fucking way! But it helped me to understand and stop hating. I imagined him as an adorable little 4 year old boy. I imagined this little boy being locked in a closet for 8 hours or more, peeing in his pants because he couldn't go to the bathroom. I imagined this little kid with huge blue eyes getting back handed across the face for the most minor infraction. It made me want to cry. He never learned a normal way of loving anyone. All he was ever taught was anger and abuse. While I will never, ever condone his actions, I feel sorry for him. I am happy, happy, happy that he has vanished from my life. Do I wish him dead? No, I simply wish him healed.

I was beaten down, but my sense of self-preservation, and probably my temper, finally overcame that. For all I knew at the time, I was going to die. The only thing going through my head at the time was, "If I'm going to die, I'm fucking taking him with me." It didn't come to that, but that was my intent.

See my comment on abusers, above. They're serial criminals. They don't stop. They just find someone else weaker.

And to Mari: Mine wasn't abused either. He was kinda spoiled, actually. I found out later that he'd been psychiatrically examined around age 15 or so, and the doctors told his mother he was a borderline personality disorder and should be committed for treatment because he showed signs of being dangerous. Again, personality disorders cannot be cured. Instead of committing him, she let him loose, and look what happened. Two women (that I know of) and a child almost died. He knew what he was doing, and he knew that it was wrong. He was good at evading detection, and never left a mark on me.


Sidhe

"I was not allowed to wear makeup/wear nice clothes. That meant I wanted attention. That meant I wanted guys to look at me. That meant that I wanted to fuck other men. Logical, right?

And God help me if I LOOK at another man. Cuz then I wanna fuck him. And lets face it, no man would want ME. I mean, I'm fat, ugly and am DAMN lucky that I have HIM. I should be grateful to him for putting up with me.

I better go to work (at ALWAYS a crappy job) but not talk to male employees. Also, he will pick me up. This meant arriving 30 minutes before I got off work, glaring at all the males and leering at all the females, trying to talk them into sleeping with them. I got fired from Carl's Jr. once because a female manager felt threatened by him, and since he refused to stop coming to pick me up (forcing me to walk because there's no way I was going to drive MY car anywhere and leave him no transportation, even tho he didn't work), I got fired.

These were the highlights."


Damn, Onyx...that sounds like what I went through.


To everyone else:

I don't think the majority of people understand the constant terror abusers cause. Those who have been abused, in whatever way, DO know. They're excellent brainwashers, and have the ability to keep you in fear constantly. You're on eggshells the whole time because you never know what will set them off. Something that is ignored one day will set off an explosion the next, all to keep you off-balance. They isolate you from anyone who can help you. When they threaten to kill you, you believe them.

IMO, they're as bad as murderers. They destroy something in you, and you never REALLY trust again, not like you used to. And that's for the people who, for whatever reason, are better able to deal with the memories. For those who are more traumatized, and can't deal very well, the abuser has destroyed their lives. And those are just the ones who get through the ordeal with their lives.

And one thing that makes abusers worse than most murderers (except, of course, the thrill-seeking murderers, like sexual sadists) is that they ENJOY the suffering they cause. They enjoy the feeling of power it gives them. They are the true sadists. And they will keep on doing it, over and over, because they love the way it makes them feel.

Even if kevin HAD been abused as a kid, I wouldn't feel sorry for him. He was a grown man, and he made his choice to do what he did, over and over, to more than one person. He'd been in jail for it before (I spoke at length with his ex-wife), and apparantly he wasn't able to learn from his experience.

You know, I grew up in an alcoholic family. I witnessed and ref'd fights from the age of eight to the age of sixteen. I put the adults in the house to bed at night because they were too drunk to make it themselves. But am I a drunk? Nope. I lived it, I learned it, but I made the choice to not inflict such behavior on the family I would one day have.

It seems to me that these criminals who are blaming abuse for the way they act, wouldn't want to treat someone the same way, because they know how awful it is. Like someone who was beaten as a child choosing to use other methods to discipline their own children, because they don't want to repeat the pattern. Many people are abused as kids. They don't all grow up to kill or abuse, because they make the CHOICE not to. It's all about power. Murder is about power. Rape is about power. Abuse is about power.

Choices we make as adults (and as children) should have consequences. When they don't, all that is shown is that one can get away with bad behavior. The DP is all about consequences for the ultimate in unacceptable behavior. If we're going to start somewhere, start with rewarding good choices, and punishing the bad ones. We learn as children what is and is not acceptable social behavior. When these little juvenile delinquents get slap on the wrist after slap on the wrist, they learn that bad choices don't have consequences that outweigh the pleasure of the bad behavior.

I, personally, think we should bring back public humiliation for lesser crimes and first offenses (this is in reference to non-violent crimes, property crimes, and the like, not for murderers, rapists, abusers or child molesters).

Bring back the stocks and the canes.

Don't put a thief in jail, put him in the stocks in the public square for a couple of days and sell rotten fruit to throw at him (that'll pay for his food and water); don't stick the little gangsta wannabe in jail for robbery--cane his ass in front of his friends (I say this because a few years back, when the caning issue came up because of the American delinquent who got caned...there was a town in the states--I can't remember the name of it offhand--in which they had a problem with defacing public property. The Elders of the town suggested caning instead of jail time. When reporters interviewed some of the gang members in jail, the gang members said that they'd rather have jail time than be caned.) It hurts like a bitch, but it does no lasting damage and doesn't cost the state a thing. I'm sure someone would do the caning for free. People are very sensitive to humiliation. I think public humiliation would do some good. All that's hurt is pride, and maybe someone's butt, and it would keep our jails and prisons free for the murderers, rapists, abusers and other violent criminals.


Sidhe

From the Advocate:
 

Amite Jury finds Man Guilty in Killings of Woman, Children

Bob Anderson--Florida Parishes Bureau


Amite: A jury convicted Simon Hutchinson of four counts of second-degree murder in the killing of an Independence family, court officials said Monday.
A jury unanimously found Hutchinson guilty of the murders of Barbara Jean Curry, and her children, Joseph Curry, 17, Daytoria "Coco" Curry, 15, and 16-month-old Jocorey Marshall. Jurors deliberated for about 40 minutes before returning the verdict Friday, according to Brenda Bickford of the District Attorney's office.
Fire officials found the toddler's body in the family's burned-out mobile home, setting off a search for the rest of the family.
The following day, authorities found the bodies of the mother and her two older children in a wooded area near Uneedus.
Detectives said the three were forced to lie down and each was shot in the head.
Under state law, Hutchinson, who will be sentenced Wednesday, must receive at least one life sentence, but could get four consecutive life sentences, ads did Perry Pooler, who was convicted previously in the same case, prosecutor Don Wall said.
Pooler was called to the stand last week in Hutchinson's trial, but refused to testify despite being promised immunity from any further prosecution resulting from his testimony. District Court judge Bob Morrison added another six month sentence to Pooler's prison time for refusing to testify, court officials said.
Prior to their trials, Pooler and Hutchinson had each given statements blaming the other for the shootings, authorities said.
Authorities said two guns were used to kill the three oldest family members.
One of those was identified as having belonged to Hutchinson, Wall said.
Hutchinson did not testify and the defense did not call any witnesses, court officials said.
Wall said robbery appeared to be the motive for the break-in and fire at the Curry's home, but there were indications that the family members had been killed because they recognized Pooler.


Four people are dead. An entire family, including an infant, because two men wanted someone else's property and were willing to kill so as not to be identified-- and the men who did it get LIFE?? Pathetic. :angry: :rar:

Let's see...four people, plus their family...just counting immediete family, that could probably add up to somewhere around, oh, if there are aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents on both sides, lowest estimate, twenty people whose lives were shattered. At LEAST. :mad:

Sidhe

Thats awful. What a thing to happen to a family. Add to that total any relatives the murderers themselves have. Their loved ones( if those men are loved ) arent dead but they are no longer part of the same world. Must be horrendous to love someone and them do something like that. How does anyone cope with that? I doubt they garner much sympathy from people, theirs must be a very lonely brand of grief.

I agree. I feel sorry for the families of the murderers, because from now on, people are going to whisper about them when they go out in public, and think about how hard it is when they have to deal with their friends....

Assuming that these two men did not come from abusive families, then that means they also ruined the lives of their own families, who are innocent in all of this. They have to live with knowing that their child/brother/cousin/grandson/nephew/uncle is a cold-blooded killer. It'll reflect on them, whether they deserve it or not.

Just another example of the callousness of murderers. Not only don't they care about strangers, but they don't even think about their own families when they do things like this. They're so self-centered that no one ever crosses their minds except themselves.

I don't want these people breeding. If you want a champion show animal, you breed for desirable traits, and breed out the undesirable traits. I don't want to have to worry about these people continuing to breed their undesirable traits back into the gene pool.

And before you ask, yes, I'm all for genetic advances. I see no problem with cloning or stem-cell research. ;)


Sidhe

I dont think there is much chance of those two going forth and multiplying
Talking of stemcell research have you heard what British scientists have beenup to? Stem cells to grow teeth....No more need for dentures....Figures thats what our scientists would be devoting their time to. :D Now maybe us Brits can keep our teeth past 40!

And eugenics, apparently.

We'll be on the eugenics side, and you can be on the dysgenics side.

Edit: Sidhe posted from me by accident, but I agree with her this time. :D

OMG! He AGREES with me? Call Ripley's, quick!!!;)

Sidhe

So two wrongs make a right?:)

Bruce. where is that sig from? Its been bugging me for ages, it seems familiar

Genetically altering people is an inevitability. The Jews have been doing it for centuries. We should go ahead and get the mistakes out of the way so we can learn from them and start getting it right.

All of the (conservative, religious right) attempts to stifle research in America will accomplish is to put America behind on the world stage.

What do you mean?

Their strong belief in marrying well. Their attitude, which some would call mercenary, is that you should go out of your way to marry someone who is successful.

By making marrying well such a priority it pushes the curve upward by making prospective mates strive that much harder to be worthy.

If every person looking to marry is looking for a doctor, a lawyer, or a rabbi, you are forcing more people to raise their standards of achievement.

An upward spiral of the quality of the resultant offspring for so long as the trend continues.

If they have, they've been doing a bang-up job ... breeding for Tay-Sachs and Depression by limiting mating choices to a narrower gene pool.

I didn't say it worked flawlessly, just that that was what they were doing.

What is Tay-Sachs ?

A genetic disorder that you can only get if you are Jewish and both parents carry the necessary recessive gene. Guarantees an early death.

Info available here.

Edit to add: National Tay-Sachs and Allied Diseases Assoc. (check it out for the image and headline on the homepage. Man oh man. They are trying to draw people in with this?

Yikes.

Wow

Yeah, genetics is ugly, even if only from the perspective of how many things can go wrong.

The NTSAD-DV notes that Jews are not the only ones affected by Tay-Sachs.

You have some sources for this?

It's like the belief here in America that only blacks get sickle-cell anemia.

It also occurs in people with mediterranean ancestry.

A personal observation actually. I wasn't claiming that that was actually the results.

Wolf's post may give it some corroboration though. I'd have to give it some more study.

I think that the Jewish folks are more interested in marrying within the Jewish community. I think it's more of a faith thing. The interfaith marriage isn't as big of a deal among Protestants, but I know that strict Catholics tend to marry the same; they have to get a special dispensation to marry a non-catholic. People who place a high value on orthodoxy tend to marry those who also place a high value on orthodoxy. I wouldn't doubt that another part of it is racial pride. The fact that Jewish men tend to gravitate towards jobs that make an assload of money is just lagniappe.

I see no problem in breeding for good genes. It seems the logical thing to do. Look at what not considering genetics has done for hemophilia in England's royal family. Look at what it did to the Egyptian Pharoahs. These are just examples of what being more concerned with maintaining the blueness of the blood than with introducing new blood into the gene pool can result in.

This is why we don't marry within our own families (many royal families throughout history did this, because one had to marry within one's own station, and extended family was the "logical" choice if one was to be sure of bloodline, ancestry, and breeding). It strengthens the recessive genes, therefore making it more likely for the negatives to reappear. If we do that long enough, then even when one does marry outside of the family group, they have more of a chance of passing on a larger and stronger set of recessive genes.

That's fine if you code for blue eyes and blonde hair, but not if you code for hemophilia. Men either have it or they don't, becaue it's carried on the X. Women, who have two X's, can carry it, but don't have it unless it's on both. So that means if a female carrier marries a male who is sick, then any male children they have will be sick, and end up passing it to their own children. Any girls they have will be carriers. So, hemophilia becomes more and more widespread as the children grow up and marry and have children of their own.

I don't think there's anything wrong with breeding with genetics in mind. Several traits are genetic, one of which is intelligence. Research has found that children of two highly intelligent people can, due to environment, not measure up to the intelligence of their parents, but that children of parents with lower intelligence can only advance so far intellectually, again depending on the environment (Disclaimer: NO, I am NOT saying that stupid people should not be allowed to breed, despite any personal feelings I may have concerning said breeding).

The more research we do with genetics (the church needs to keep the hell out of it, IMO. All they're doing is impeding progress) the better off our future offspring will be.

Think about when we can use cloning to grow a hand or a foot or an eye. Think about being able to look at genetic profiles of parents so that any problems with the fetus can be corrected in utero (as they're doing with some congenital illnesses now, like spina bifida. A friend of mine and his wife had their child's spine worked on while the wife was pregnant, and the child is doing fine now.)



Sidhe

Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

That is sound wisdom in a world that has fate and magic, but I don't believe that it is applicable to this world.

Terminating proven murderers could very well stabilize the future.

We don't know. We do know that keeping them around does no one any good.

DanaC and I were commenting on how the actions of a murderer affect his own family. Here's a quote from a book called "An Hour To Kill," a true story about Ken Register, an 18-year-old who abducted, raped, sodomized and stabbed to death one of his best friends, Crystal Todd. The following excerpt is a quote taken from his mother:

"You don't know what it's like to go to the store and have someone stare as if to say, 'That's Ken Register's mother.'"...Conversations ceased when she entered rooms. People sensed that small talk was no longer appropriate. Shirley felt in her heart that she needed to respond, that it was somehow important for her to speak up. But what was there to say? What words woul let others know what she and her family were going through?


And, contrary to popular belief, religion isn't the answer. Ken Register and his father were involved in the church; they helped to build the new church, Ken himself often accompanied the minister and did chores for some of the older church members. He attended church regularly. People took that as evidence of his moral upbringing and good character. He had, in fact, spent the morning of the day that Crystal was murdered scrubbing the floors of the new church that he and his father helped construct. He arrived early at church the next morning after visiting the mother of the murdered girl, and during the service, he played his guitar and led the music. He attended church services that day and later went to attend another church function with his girlfriend. He was a pallbearer at Crystal's funeral.

There's no way that anyone will be able to convince me that an 18-year-old boy who was raised in the church doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. He drove her out to a secluded area, raped and sodomized her, and then murdered her and threw her into a ditch.

There were 35 different cuts and stab wounds, seven bruises, and three abrasions. Some of the wounds were made before she died, some during, and some after. Her face had been cut on her left cheek, on her right eyebrow, below the right eye, and below the inside corner of her right eye, 11 stab wounds to the face and head in all. She had bruises on the left temple, upper and lower lip, right eyebrow, right upper eyelid, and in the right temporal area. There were 3 knife wounds to the neck, any of which would have been fatal. The slashes were so deep and made with such force that they sliced the bones on her spinal column, and the only thing holding her head on was her spinal column. There were six more stab wounds in her chest measuring more than a half inch long and two and a quarter inches deep. One of the wounds penetrated the right lung. One was made through the middle of the stomach and under the breastbone into the liver while Crystal was dying. Twice she had been stabbed in the back with such force that the knife stuck in the bone of the spinal column. Another 3-inch-deep wound was made between the ribs and penetrated the aorta. Most of the additional knife wounds made to her abdomen were made after she had died and penetrated the liver and small bowel. Two wounds had opened the abdominal wall, and her intestines protruded through the holes. The examination of the head showed three stab wounds on the left side that penetrated the skull and passed into her brain. One of the medical examiners said that he had never, in the 400+ autopsies he had performed, seen knife stabs so deeply penetrate the brain.



The medical examiners ruled the cause of death as exsanguination, and concluded that she was conscious during the several minutes that it took her to die and that she was cut and stabbed repeatedly as she was dying. The medical examiner said that she was conscious while she was being stabbed repeatedly in the head and face. A stab wound just above her left ear paralyzed the right side of her body, yet she continued to fight off the attacker with her left hand, which suffered multiple cuts. She was nearly decapitated, and a necklace was imbedded in the cuts. The sexual part of the forensic investigation indicated that a foriegn object was inserted into anus up to and after her death. The doctor explained that Crystal was anally raped while being stabbed, while bleeding to death, and after she died.

Medical examiners also discovered significant bruising around the vaginal and rectal areas from blunt force. Sperm was found in both the vaginal and anal areas.


He confessed to the murder when the DNA made it clear that he was guilty.

He destroyed a girl's life. He destroyed the lives of her family members. He destroyed his family's life.

And so, remind me again why he deserves to live?


Sidhe

edited to include the autopsy report...

Whether or not he deserves to live is besides the point. Whether or not it is right for *us* to kill him is the question

Why would it not be right?

Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

You might think that...I think they could be beneficial for research purposes.

Re: Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

What sort of research?

Because there is no way to be sure that everybody sentenced to die is guilty even if we can be totally sure of some......Because violence is cyclical and state violence against it's citizens ( even those who have committed terrible crimes) gives a message that violence and murder is alright in special circumstances ( beyond self defense) ....Because there are other ways to deal with murderers which allow for later appeals and changes in law....Because when the state has the right to kill it sets a dangerous precedent ( imo) which can then be used a as tool in class/race conflict.....Because it doesnt solve the problem it just removes one murderer from the world, trust me another will come along to take their place. ....Because it has no deterrant effect......Because two wrongs do not make a right......Because it is symptomatic of the dehumanising of criminals to the point where people on here can claim a murderer to be "not a person"
.......Because it is disproportinately carried out against the killers of white people despite the murders of black people being just a smuch of a problem. .....Because it disproportinately affects black people .....Because it disproportinately affects those too poor to acquire good advocates.....

Those are just a few of my reasons as I think we've already discussed.

So you'd rather create another problem than try to solve the real problem.

I dont see how not wanting to execute murderers is creating a new problem. I mean....if you guys were executing your killers and that had solved the problem well, then I could see how you might think that. But you kill your murderers and we dont yet we have a very similar level of crime.

Re: Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

If they would LET us use them in a lab, I'd be all for it.


To DanaC "Whether or not it is right for *us* to kill him is the question":

The State has the responsibility of ensuring the safety of its citizens. The penalties for infractions of the law are public, and therefore anyone who breaks the law is by definition subjecting himself to that punishment if caught. I get tired of hearing convicted murderers say "they tell me I was wrong to kill, and now they're going to kill me." They KNEW the penalty when they committed the act. No use whining, trying to get sympathy, now that they have to pay the price for their act. They should've thought about that before.

It is right for the state to execute those they deem too dangerous to live because that is how society is set up. The rules are there for everyone to see. Society has agreed upon them, and have thus empowered the State to execute.

I maintain that lawful execution is no more murder than lawful confiscation is stealing.



Sidhe

I would agree. Protecting it's citizens is something my own country takes as seriously as yours yet we dont kill for any crime. I do not think capital punishment has the effect of protecting citizens.

Re: Re: Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

Our thoughts on this issue are probably quite different.

The question is not race. That's a red herring. The question is, "did they do it?" We all know OJ did it, but he got away, even with overwhelming evidence. DNA doesn't lie. It can be altered to NOT look like who it is, but it cannot be altered to LOOK like who it ISN'T.

Are the poor folks guilty? Would you rather we give them a sleazy high-class lawyer like OJ's, so they can get away with murder?

Race and class aren't as much of a factor as people try to make them out to be, IMO. They seem to me to be just things brought in to cloud the issue.

I don't care WHAT color you are, I don't care how much money you have. If you're guilty, you should pay the penalty.

Sidhe

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

Yup. I'd be willing to bet they are.

If that works for you guys, then rock on. Over here, we get rid of them permanently (ostensibly). Perhaps if all the states were like Texas, the death penalty WOULD be more of a deterrent than it is now.

I maintain my position that I don't feel that I should have to pay for these people to be housed and given luxuries that I can't afford, such as medical care. Putting them in prison for life is doing just that. It means I'm working to feed, clothe, shelter, and give medical care to the enemy, while they sit there being worthless and useless. They serve no purpose IN prison, and they're too dangerous to let out. What's the point of their existence?

Sidhe

Given that the quality of your legal representation is dependant upon your bankbalance I would posit that those with money are more likely to be found innocent and those without money guilty regardless of whether or not they did it. OJ is a case in point. He was able to afford the best of legal defense and therefore got away with murder ( we presume)

And whilst you may not care what colour or income bracket the defendant falls into the scales of justice seem to.

These are stats you provided earlier in the thread:

White-- 1,701 -- 46.71%
Black -- 1,562 -- 42.77%
Hispanic-- 312 -- 8.54%
Native American -- 45 -- 1.23%
Asian -- 32 -- 0.88%

You never provided a source for these...what are they? Where do they come from?

If that figure is suggesting that 42.77 per cent of those on death row are black then there is a serious problem. Unless 42% of the population are black that suggests the death sentence is being disproportionately applied to black americans

Or are those figures indicative of something else? more info please:)

I followed the link you provided on your post . Wasnt able to find those figures but did find a very interesting article

Towards Death Penalty Reforms

Nope...12%.

12%? I'd stabbed a guess at 10% so I wasnt far off;)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875651.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

I believe that's where I found them.

More interesting links:

http://www.geocities.com/bigmike_75/essays/w/11.html
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cp01.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/cap_punishment/
http://www.4essays.com/essays/CAPITAL_.HTM



Sidhe

46.3% of state and federal inmates are black? Thats terrifying

"Between 1973 and 2002, 102 inmates on death row have been exonerated and freed. The most common reasons for wrongful convictions are mistaken eyewitness testimony, the false testimony of informants and “incentivized witnesses,” incompetent lawyers, defective or fraudulent scientific evidence, prosecutorial and police misconduct, and false confessions. In recent years, DNA played a role in overturning 12 of these wrongful death row convictions."

So.....without DNA testing ( a fairly recent addition to the legal eagles arsenal) thats at least 12 people who would have been wrongfully executed. One wonders how many people each year who didnt have access to such methods have been killed wrongfully. The fact that so many deathrow inmates have been exonerated suggests to me there are likely also many who havent been exonerated and yet have been wrongfully convicted.

I mean......it's great if you happen to be one of those who have a good legal team working on your behalf, but from what I have read some states ( like Texas) are less than thorough in ensuring appeals are available and fully supported.

If the UK had had the death sentence over the last twenty years I know of at least 10 Irishmen who would likely have been hung for offences they were later proved to be innocent of. I simply do not trust the state , the judges, the jury or the legal system as a whole not to fuck it up and kill an innocent, either by accident or design

http://www.streetgangs.com/

How about that?

Much street violence, including murder is committed by gangs (No, I'm not saying that ALL street violence is committed by gangs, so everyone keep your shorts on). Check out the number of black gangs and then the number of latino, asian, and white gangs.

So basically, what you're saying is, for every one minority we execute, we should execute a white guy? Doesn't guilt matter? It shouldn't matter if it's a black/asian/latino/white guy, and another black/asian/latino/white guy evaded justice. It doesn't change the fact that this guy is still guilty, no matter his color.

A small percentage of the society is generally responsible for the larger percentage of crime, and perhaps race may have an influence on what type of crime one commits. But it doesn't make the person any less guilty. I can't help but feel that if white guys were found guilty and executed in disproportionate numbers, that no one would give a shit. But when it comes to minorities, it's considered racism and persecution.

I'm mostly Native American (a quarter), but I don't bitch about the number of Native Americans on death row. If they committed the crime, they deserve to be there.

This is just one more way to emphasize race. If race is being used as an excuse for everything, racism will always be an issue. Keep throwing it up in people's faces, and they'll use that as an excuse for racism. I've seen it happen.

People need to worry about guilt, not race. If someone murdered someone in my family, I wouldn't care what color they were or how much money they had. Given the chance, I'd execute them myself and save the state an assload of money.

Sidhe

Wow. *it* is subhuman? Did you really just say that?

I think this is where I get off this particular merrygoround. I cant argue with that.

Does it matter whether or not they're guilty?


102 out of how many in 29 years? Considering the thousands of people on death row, and the advanced science we have now, that's not a bad ratio.

Sidhe

Damn, Onyx....you just make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...:)


Sidhe

I can only offer my respect and support for coming through such an ordeal without loosing your sense of reason, as happens in so many cases. There is an overwhelming trend to base actions (and reactions) on past experiences so forgive me for assuming your pro dp stance is entirely emotional and rooted in past conflict. If you have succeeded in objectivising the argument and still believe in 'eye for an eye', I cannot then argue this is an irrational response resulting from years of undeserved abuse.

So what then do I argue? We have already agreed that:

- past experience/abuse is no excuse for killing
- it is disproportionately expensive to keep them alive
- the act of murder is dehumanising (although I cannot concede to 'subhuman' - they are still physiologically, technically and literally human beings)
- a killers 'worth' is questionable

Aside from the economical factor (which I believe is callous and should not take precedence in this argument), the above statements are all condemnations of the act of killing - and are not automatically a valid advocation for our right to terminate. We are all in agreement here that killing, particularly the brutal cases you refer to, is abhorrent and intolerable. Where we differ in opinion is that it is right to take their life 'in return'. You may argue the above as justification - and you may be quite right - why should an abuser, a torturer, a killer - deserve to live? Maybe they don't. But that they deserve it is not a good enough reason to act upon it. That hypothesis underpins our justice system - a culture of punishment, not of response. I do not feel that committing a person to death is a response to their crime. I do not have the breadth of experience or knowledge to suggest an appropriate response. I do know that some things in this life lie beyond our power of expression, that sometimes a feeling so strong although not 'proven' should be acknowledged - and this I feel most strongly about. No one has the right to kill, no matter whether it is deserved. It is cyclical, endless and irresolvable.

"Aside from the economical factor (which I believe is callous and should not take precedence in this argument), the above statements are all condemnations of the act of killing - and are not automatically a valid advocation for our right to terminate. We are all in agreement here that killing, particularly the brutal cases you refer to, is abhorrent and intolerable. Where we differ in opinion is that it is right to take their life 'in return'. "




The only real answer I can give to that is the fact that the penalties for crimes are well-known. We have established punishments, agreed upon them, and codified them as law. The individual, as part of the society, accepts those laws, and when s/he violates one or more of those laws, s/he knows the penalty.

If you don't believe in state-sanctioned execution, don't kill and therefore place yourself in the position of being executed if caught. Murderers on death row seem to be the most vocal anti-dp voices in the world. Murder is apparantly ok, as long as it's not THEM facing death.

The simple fact is, the state has said, "if you murder, the penalty for the life you took is your own life." That's the law. It hasn't changed yet, so the fact that it is law, and that it is WELL-KNOWN law, is its justification. This is how we have chosen to deal with the most dangerous predators. If you don't want to die, don't commit cold-blooded murder. It's very simple, and doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the logical connection.

The economical factor IS important, however. While it may seem callous, it really isn't. It's an example of how crime and recidivism drains society's resources, resources that could be used to the betterment of society rather than the upkeep of society's predators. WHY should we first have to worry about where they will strike next until they're caught, and then be forced to take care of them for the rest of their lives AFTER they're caught? We don't owe them that. We don't owe them ANYTHING. They owe society. However, they prey on society when they're on the outside, and then leech off society when they're in prison. That seems to me to be placing the well-being of the predator over the short-and long-term well-being of the society that they've offended.

For instance, we have to pay the cops who patrol. Then we have to pay them overtime when they're trying to find a killer. Their family life suffers because of the time they put in (I know some cops, and I've heard it from them); think of all the money we spend in court costs, appeals costs, costs for recidivists, food, shelter, clothing, weight rooms, medical, dental, vision, free schooling, cable, law libraries, attorney's fees, etc. All this, for the rest of their lives. That's a huge price tag.

If we're not allowed to make them useful, such as in the laboratory, and prisons, rather than being self-sufficient, depend on society for their upkeep, society is not benefitting, other than the fact that the predator is in jail, using up yet more of our resources.

Some people do not deserve life. When one person's life causes misery and destruction of the lives of others wherever s/he goes, when this person cannot be rehabilitated, cannot be studied, cannot be made useful, then there is no point in this person's existence.


I think that the benefit to society should outweigh the concern for the murderers. Kinda along the lines of, "if you don't contribute, you don't eat." The Arizona governor who put inmates in tents in the desert had the right idea. They bitched and moaned about how HARRRRD it was, but he said that if it was good enough for our boys in Iraq, it was damn sure good enough for them.

That's just an example of how we cater to criminals. They don't have a RIGHT to accomodations any better than that which can be afforded by the poorest of us. If that's a tent, so be it. If it's a box, so be it. They shouldn't be entitled to health care, when most poor folks, and not-so-poor-folks, on the outside can't afford it. They shouldn't be entitled to entertainment that can't be afforded by people on the outside.

If we'd strip them down to the bare minimum needed for survival, like a lot of honest folks live on, we'd save a lot of money. Anything after food, water, clothing, and minimal shelter is lagniappe, and they aren't entitled to any of it.


Sidhe