sdl
New Arrival
Posts: 0
|
Post by sdl on Nov 3, 2005 19:55:17 GMT -5
I know I would be banned, since I;m not a lunatic like Benty and Joe Phillips; 2 members who exemplify America at it's worst..and yes, I *am* American...
|
|
|
Post by dio on Nov 3, 2005 21:57:08 GMT -5
Avctually I am banned because I do not kiss ass.I was TOLD I would retract my statements to Panty and that I WOULD appologize......HEHE wanna bet what my answer was .....Dio does not appologize to fools and dio does NOT kiss ass...Perhaps I will someday be banned from here as well.But I shall go knowing I stood for what I believe,I defended that which I believe,AND I kissed NO ass in the process...Love me,like me,screw it HATE me I shall lose no sleep ovr a fool who knows not what she believes.Nor shall I bow before a pervert that sleeps with gay rats. dio
|
|
sdl
New Arrival
Posts: 0
|
Post by sdl on Nov 3, 2005 23:49:23 GMT -5
Avctually I am banned because I do not kiss ass.I was TOLD I would retract my statements to Panty and that I WOULD appologize......HEHE wanna bet what my answer was .....Dio does not appologize to fools and dio does NOT kiss ass...Perhaps I will someday be banned from here as well.But I shall go knowing I stood for what I believe,I defended that which I believe,AND I kissed NO ass in the process...Love me,like me,screw it HATE me I shall lose no sleep ovr a fool who knows not what she believes.Nor shall I bow before a pervert that sleeps with gay rats. dio Rule #1 on the lunatic board: Benty is always right. Rule #2: If Benty is wrong, refer to Rule #1.
|
|
|
Post by distel on Nov 4, 2005 7:35:15 GMT -5
Hi all,
Okay, I hope that I could explain now why I do not believe that one can limit the DP to an undefined (or not exactly defined) group called "the worst of the worst".
I agree with dio, that someone who kills only once could belong to them.
Like many people who oppose the DP, I can not understand why simply not wishing to have the state kill criminals, means that one has no compassion for the victims of crime. First, a sign of compassion for victims of crime or their surviving relatives would be that the victims get help, for example a psychological counsel, funds to reorganise their lives, stuff like that. Second, one could only help victims and society itself with DP if it really deters murder. Which it does not.
(And even if it would deter only one special kind of killer, it would contradict equality before the law if executions would be reserved for this one kind of killer.)
It is no lack of compassion when I say that some murderers are not evil. And some may be evil but they can (like every human) change and become good people. I know that the common reply to this is "think of the victim, the killed victim can never change again" or something like that. And it's true.. if the state legally murders, the states' victim too, can never change again. LWOP is nearly the same, it's a punishment that ignores peoples' ability to change their lives. Maybe the inmate changes, but if he has to spend his life in prison no matter what, this is ignorant. The only reason why LWOP is still a little better than DP, is that you can't imprison thoughts.
Speaking about murder rates in the "Wild West"... maybe some were really good in serial killing of native Americans, but did those victims count?
distel
@miss spearmint: I saw only now that you've answered above, I leave this posting as it is and will write back later.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Nov 4, 2005 11:00:34 GMT -5
Hi all, Okay, I hope that I could explain now why I do not believe that one can limit the DP to an undefined (or not exactly defined) group called "the worst of the worst". I agree with dio, that someone who kills only once could belong to them. Like many people who oppose the DP, I can not understand why simply not wishing to have the state kill criminals, means that one has no compassion for the victims of crime. First, a sign of compassion for victims of crime or their surviving relatives would be that the victims get help, for example a psychological counsel, funds to reorganise their lives, stuff like that. Second, one could only help victims and society itself with DP if it really deters murder. Which it does not. (And even if it would deter only one special kind of killer, it would contradict equality before the law if executions would be reserved for this one kind of killer.) It is no lack of compassion when I say that some murderers are not evil. And some may be evil but they can (like every human) change and become good people. I know that the common reply to this is "think of the victim, the killed victim can never change again" or something like that. And it's true.. if the state legally murders, the states' victim too, can never change again. LWOP is nearly the same, it's a punishment that ignores peoples' ability to change their lives. Maybe the inmate changes, but if he has to spend his life in prison no matter what, this is ignorant. The only reason why LWOP is still a little better than DP, is that you can't imprison thoughts. Speaking about murder rates in the "Wild West"... maybe some were really good in serial killing of native Americans, but did those victims count? distel @miss spearmint: I saw only now that you've answered above, I leave this posting as it is and will write back later. Distel, I don't support the DP for vengeance, but rather the deterrent effect. When you speak of different offenders being judged differently well that doesn't change if LWOP is the maximum sentence. Some crimes simply cross the line and we shouldn't be interested in giving this deliberate and especially cruel offender the theoretical chance to become a human being again-if there ever was any humanity to begin with. This sends the wrong message to potential 'hobby killers' at large, that should they be arrested there will be no DP, but rather a bunch of gullible softies eager to re-embrace them into humanity. The worst of the worst are brillant manipulators and deceivers-we shouldn't waste our time on them, everyone else in this big world is more worthy of our compassion. We should ensure the safety of our innocent loved ones by sending potential predators a clear and deterring message. Looks like Another reason for your support for CP does not exist. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They are called "volunteers" -- inmates who choose to give up their appeals and be put to death. Whether they do so out of remorse, boredom or frustration, the result is the same. Hastings Wise appears to be one of them, scheduled for lethal injection at 6 p.m. today for killing four workers at an Aiken County plant in September 1997 as revenge for his firing several weeks earlier.Wise, who tried to commit suicide in the plant after the shootings by drinking insecticide, has asked to die since his arrest. He refused to let his lawyers call any witnesses to ask the jury to spare his life and has brushed off any attempts to appeal. "At almost every opportunity he has expressed his wish to die," said attorney Joseph Savitz, who also has represented other "volunteers." "Once you get someone who's convinced they want to die, it's difficult to change their minds." As he stood before the judge to have his sentence formally read after his 2001 trial, Wise said he was ready to receive his punishment. "It was a fair trial. I committed these crimes," he said in a voice so soft few in the courtroom could hear. Wise will be the sixth person put to death in South Carolina without using all their appeals since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. All have died by lethal injection instead of the electric chair, and Savitz said that's not a coincidence. "Lethal injection has changed the dynamic of the whole thing," Savitz said. "These guys are no longer scared to be put to death." Wise will be the 34th inmate put to death in South Carolina since 1976. -- www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/states/south_carolina/counties/york/13077979.htm
|
|
|
Post by distel on Nov 4, 2005 12:00:37 GMT -5
Hi Miss spearmint, thanks for the reply For me it's very hard to believe that one supports the death sentence not for vengeance. The deterring effect is too much in dispute. I believe that you only want the best, and save possible victims of such killers. But this can't be achieved without taking the lives of "normal murderers". >When you speak of different offenders being judged differently well that doesn't change if LWOP is the maximum sentence. In your two examples, the woman who killed her boyfriend was convicted of 2nd degree murder, maybe because the killing was the outcome of a long time violent relationship and not planned. I personally think that she should have simply left this guy. (Did you know that in some german news pools you may not post news from the BILDzeitung because this paper is so frequently lying or giving the wrong facts?) the second example, the killer of two children, did not receive LWOP. There is no such thing in Germany. I don't know if there's information in english about it, but you can read this: SicherheitsverwahrungThis detention for life is not a normal punishment. You don't get it for your crimes. You are getting it because of who you are, and the person who defines you are "dangerous" or "the bad guy" is an independent expert, maybe a doctor or psychologist. You can be in detention for life _after_ you have done your sentence in Germany. This was invented in 2002 after some spectacular cases of sexual offenders who raped and killed children. The "Sicherheitsverwahrung" is - if you really look at it, not a prison sentence for what you have done, but for what you might do in the future. And this is very very dangerous. Imprisoning someone in order to prevent him from committing crimes is taking this persons civil rights away. Germany can not order LWOP for only "the worst of the worst" because this would f*ck up the whole legal system (see above about equality before the law), so they invented "Sicherheitsverwahrung" which I think is slightly outside of legality already. you couldn't invent "Capital Prevention" - executing people because they could commit crimes in the future! Even the most cruel offenders are human beings. I can't understand how one can so easily exclude them from humanity. You know, in 1994 in Rwanda, many many men and women who have never been criminals before, cut their neighbors into pieces with dull knives while they were still alive. They dropped little babies from high bridges. They burned families alive. They raped women and killed the people they had been knowing for years in most cruel ways. WHY? And so many did this! It may be very hard to acknowledge but humanity has a very dark side to it. I dispute that we, the so-called "normal people" are so different from the "monsters in prison". Even in their most cruel action they are humans, and there is a potential for most cruel crimes in many, if not all, humans. Maybe. But I can't support this at the expense of the lives of people who made terrible mistakes but are no "worst of the worst serial killers". Then you must support it against other killers, too. "Sicherheitsverwahrung" is no example for punishing the worst of the worst differently from others. It's an example for a law, which contradicts justice somehow, which is applied to you because one expert says you're sick, and not for what you did. You get a prison sentence for what you did, you get "security detention" _after_ you've done that sentence, for being dangerous. It's not the same! And you can not order an offender being executed because for what he is (according to an expert) and what he might do in the future. So I think there is no DP for the "worst" only. It's impossible. Yes. But it would be against all normal justice systems if you put those other factors above all other things and do not punish the crime anymore, but the person. Do not fool yourself. This woman in Paderborn was far from being just a "tormented victim". Did you ever have a female friend who was beaten by her man, and still does not leave him? The "vampire" didn't hold her captive against her will. She stayed there!! She had to kill him to free herself, because she bound herself so irrationally to him. Not because _he_ did something. He was killed because this woman was so obsessed with him that she could not walk away. Miss spearmint, I think I understand your opinion. And I believe you. that you don't want vengeance. IMO there is just no way to translate your wishes into a good and just system of dealing with offenders.
|
|
|
Post by dio on Nov 5, 2005 3:38:50 GMT -5
The death penalty is also probably useless as a deterrent in curbing the unlawful and self-destructive reactions of victims to criminal acts
I don't support the DP for vengeance, but rather the deterrent effect
Ummmmmm OK which is it a deterrent or not?Gotta love a "pro" that can't decide what they support....Gee it reminds me of a certain person that used to post here ......... dio
|
|
|
Post by paleone on Nov 5, 2005 11:14:49 GMT -5
Gotta love a speechless anti....LOL...I'll retract my WB at your request.... dio I know a speechless pro is kinda loveable as well...Gee maybe thats why so many hate me....LMAO ha i dont know if i should laugh or just tell you to shut up..haha (trust me not actually telling you to shut up, just being silly)...i am not a "speechless anti" i just choose not to speak here...it was consuming quite a bit of my time and i realize the internet arguing is pretty much a waste of time as we have no clue who is on the other side of that computer...like i said before, could be some 15 year old cracking up that he/she is riling up a bunch of antis..... i do plenty o' stuff i just choose to no longer debate here because everything i ever had to say is said..it would be redundant to keep repeating it every time a new pro comes to argue the same topics already discussed as far as deterrant, it's been well proven through studies that it is not one...if it were, then the non-deathpenalty states would have a much higher murder rate, and that's simply not true...In fact, only 2 states are above the national average as far as murder rates go...and the next non-deathpenalty state is well below the national average...
|
|
|
Post by janet on Nov 6, 2005 10:23:59 GMT -5
I can only say, as studies bear out, that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.
|
|
|
Post by hazel on Nov 6, 2005 10:42:04 GMT -5
I can only say, as studies bear out, that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. I do agree with you. No sooner has someone been executed then another one comes along to fill the empty cell. Its not stopping nothing really.
|
|
Mo-DAWG
Settlin' In
Yes... this is the real Mo-DAWG ..
Posts: 47
|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Nov 6, 2005 11:03:59 GMT -5
I can only say, as studies bear out, that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. i dont even think its meant to be but they have to call it justice, deterrent or whatever cuz the truth wont sound too well: lynchmob vengeance Mo-DAWG
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Nov 7, 2005 14:35:25 GMT -5
Supporters of capital punishment assert that capital punishment deters murder on the assumption that people's behavior can be influenced. Simultaneously, advocates also contend that convicted murderers deserve the death penalty on the assumption that human nature cannot be changed and thus criminals cannot be rehabilitated. Because these arguments rest on contradicting assumptions about human behavior, the use of capital punishment to deter crime is problematic. In order for the penal system to work effectively, a third alternative to these contradictory theories must be recognized. People must be viewed as being significantly influenced by external factors, such as poverty and abuse, which can result in criminal behavior. Moreover, according to the same theory, criminals can be taught moral responsibility so that they can attain their freedom.
On Friday, March 9, 2001, Lionel Tate, a Black fourteen-year-old Florida boy, was sentenced to life in prison without parole--for a crime he committed when he was twelve. This life sentence rests upon the assumption that, at twelve, Lionel Tate was fully responsible for the killing of Tiffany Eunick, age six. In addition, the sentence appears to presume that at no time in the long life remaining to him can this child be rehabilitated. He freely chose to do what he did, we are told, and now "He must pay for it."
The same defenders of the criminal justice status quo assure us that sentences such as these deter similar crimes. This opinion is shared by defenders of capital punishment. While insisting that the death penalty deters murder, they would have us believe at the same time that convicted killers are beyond redemption--that all attempts to rehabilitate them will fail.
Few proponents of this theory of justice seem to be aware that it rests upon two fundamentally contradictory views of human nature: it is both deterministic (in holding that punishment can cause others to be deterred from crime) and indeterministic (in proclaiming that incarceration cannot cause the culprit to be rehabilitated). This incoherent view of human nature reflects a larger inconsistency that is manifested in the extant politics and corporate practices of our day. One face of this contradiction, which we will call "the operative theory," is presupposed in marketing strategies and political campaigns. The other face, "the public theory," is encountered in political rhetoric and corporate public relations campaigns.
The operative theory
By this account, human motives can be identified, mapped, and measured, and, when applied to a marketing or a political campaign, this knowledge can be put to effective use. (Lately, the strategies and tactics of advertisers and politicians have become virtually identical, as the same "experts" manage both marketing and political campaigns). If public tastes and opinions do not incline toward the company's product or the party's candidate, then these tastes can be "manufactured" to order.
Evidence? Consider annual expenditures for advertising--more than $30 billion just for television ads. Business enterprises will not casually throw that kind of cash at the television industry without a firm and proven expectation that such investments will produce the intended results, namely sales. As [journalist] Vance Packard pointed out a generation ago, and [interviewer] Bill Moyers a decade ago, all the accumulated skills and knowledge of behavioral science are put to use to the task of utilizing, and perchance creating, public motives and tastes to profitable ends. No laboratory of applied psychology is more lavishly funded than that of the market researcher. From Dr. Ernest Dichter's application of Freudian "depth psychology" in the 1930s to GOP pollster Frank Luntz's "focus group" microanalyses in the 2000 presidential campaign, "the consumer and citizen mind" is examined, cross-examined, and meticulously inventoried, and this information is then applied to the greater benefit of the candidate or the bottom line.
In the jargon of philosophy, the operative theory of marketing and politics is deterministic: that is, it holds that human behavior ("output") is the result of prior experiences ("input"), and that if the inputs are carefully designed and skillfully manipulated, then public motives, tastes, and behavior can be "usefully directed" and even manufactured. Of course, public relations is not an exact science; however, it is a highly empirical and experimental science. Numerous strategies and devices are tried until the public "hot button" is located, whereupon it is "pushed" as long as it "works out." ("Let's run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes.") But while there is much trial and error in marketing and political strategies, implicit throughout is the assumption that public behavior is the result of external causes. What then remains is the task of finding and applying the most "efficacious" causes.
The public theory
Corporate spokesmen and their political fellow-travelers (the so-called conservatives) have prepared a contrary theory for public consumption. According to this account, each human personality appears ex nihilo, independent, autonomous, and undetermined. Being "unformed" by outside causes, each individual is fully and completely responsible for his or her behavior. "But why does poverty correlate with crime?" No explanation is offered or even felt to be necessary. To cite a typical example, when a conservative lawyer was recently asked on a television talk show why the Columbine High School killers did what they did, her reply was, "Those boys were just evil, that's all." Why they were "evil" was regarded as a pointless question.
Behavior isn't "caused," this theory asserts, it is simply freely "chosen," and that is all there is to it. "Don't ask me, or 'society,' or (heaven forbid!) the government to do anything about it. It's just not my concern." Clearly, according to this public theory, the only appropriate response to those who commit crimes is "lock 'em up." If the culprits are given less than a life sentence, then we can only hope for the best when they are released. No point in attempting rehabilitation or teaching a useful skill to prepare them for life after release.
As with behavior, so too with public taste and preferences. Tobacco companies tell us that "We are only giving the public what it wants." Likewise, from the media we hear, "Don't complain to us about the sex, violence, and vulgarity in the movies, on television, or in rock lyrics. We're only giving the public what it wants." Those "wants," we are told, which free enterprising entrepreneurs are so generously satisfying, also appear ex nihilo--uncaused and freely chosen by each consumer-citizen. "What the public wants" is thus unexplained and unexplainable, and thus out of reach of "cultivation." It follows that there is no need to squander tax money on art and music education, or on noncommercial public broadcasting.
According to the public theory, marketing has no side effects or unintended consequences. Sex-saturated ads and media are totally disconnected from the incidence of teen pregnancy and single-parent families. "Just do it!" say the ads. "Just say no!" reply the Christian conservatives. But if the teens "do it" anyway, don't blame the promoters. The kids are "just sinful." A child's encounter with tens of thousands of depictions of violent murders on television, we are expected to believe, has nothing to do with whatever violent behavior he or she might exhibit. "Guns (and the gun culture) don't kill people, (autonomous) people kill people."
In sum, the public theory insists that "private enterprise" bears no responsibility whatever for social problems. "The social responsibility of business," [political commentator] Milton Friedman once wrote, "is to increase its profits." All social problems, according to this theory, issue from the uncaused and freely chosen behavior of "simply evil" individuals.
The contradiction
It is abundantly clear that these two "theories" are radically contradictory. If business executives genuinely believed the nondeterminist theory that they present to the public, they would not invest a thin dime in their advertising campaigns. On the other hand, if they were to extend the determinist operative theory beyond their corporate conduct, they would be burdened with a responsibility for the harmful "side effects" of their marketing schemes--effects upon public health, taste, and morality. Instead, they move back and forth between these contradictory determinist and indeterminist theories, as the requirements of public relations and the bottom line demand--all with the ease with which one sheds one's raincoat and puts on one's sunglasses as the weather changes.
In the same way, when conservatives claim (contra the evidence) that capital punishment deters murder, they are determinist. But when they refuse to attempt to rehabilitate incarcerated prisoners, preferring "retribution" and "punishment," they are indeterminists again. According to this latter view, because convicted murderers are "beyond redemption," the only suitable response to their crimes is to "do away with them."
There is a third alternative to these contradictory theories--what philosophers call "compatibilism." By this account, human beings are significantly influenced by the circumstances of their birth and upbringing, and thus criminals are more likely to emerge from conditions of poverty and abuse. However, unless severely traumatized by such misfortunes, most individuals can be educated to a condition of moral responsibility--informed as to the consequences of their acts, recognizing the humanity and dignity of others, and capable of acting according to moral principles--whereupon each attains the freedom to conduct his or her own life.
This is the humane theory and practice of penology found in most enlightened nations. Sadly, the United States of America has yet to achieve this stage of civilization.
"Arguments for the Use of Capital Punishment as a Deterrent Are Flawed" by Ernest Partridge. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Roman Espejo, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press, 2003.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Nov 7, 2005 14:38:39 GMT -5
The most commonly advanced argument in support of capital punishment has been that no offender wants to die, therefore the threat of execution will deter homicide in society at large. While this may seem a common sense fact, it is anything but sensible. The scientific facts are very simple. No credible study of capital punishment in the United States has ever found a deterrent effect.
In studies of contiguous states, at least one with the death penalty and at least one without, research has shown that there is no deterrent impact from capital punishment.
In studies of states where the death penalty was adopted or reinstated after having been abolished, research has once again failed to show any deterrent effect.
Comparative data also fails to demonstrate any deterrent value to the death penalty. The United States is the only Western democracy that retains the death penalty. The United States also has, far and away, the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world.
Comparative data compiled by region within the United States shows the same pattern. According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Southern states have consistently had the highest homicide rates in the country. In 1997, the South was the only region with a homicide rate above the national average, despite the fact that it accounts for 80% of all executions. The Northeast, which accounts for less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest homicide rate. Similarly, when states with the death penalty are compared to those without the death penalty, the data show that a majority of death penalty states have homicide rates higher than non-death penalty states. In 1997 the average homicide rate for death penalty states was 6.6, while the average homicide rate for non-death penalty states was only 3.5.
The alleged deterrent value of the death penalty is refuted by all the data we have on violent crime. The death penalty, if it is to deter, must be a conscious part of a cost-benefit equation in the perpetrator's mind. There are very few murders that involve that level of rationality or consciousness of the outcomes. Most murders are (1) committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol; (2) committed by people with severe personality disorders; (3) committed during periods of extreme rage and anger; or (4) committed as a result of intense fear. None of these states of mind lend itself to the calm reflection required for a deterrent effect.
Some proponents of the death penalty argue that capital punishment provides a specific deterrent which controls individuals who have already been identified as dangerous criminal actors. According to this argument, the presence of the death penalty ought to reduce a wide variety of criminal acts. The weight of scientific evidence tells us that it does not.
If the death penalty deters homicide then it should prevent incarcerated people from killing again and reduce the number of homicides among prisoners. The fact of the matter is that over 90% of all prisoner homicides, killings of other prisoners or correctional officers, occur in states with capital punishment.
An extensive death penalty study, using multiple means of measurement that measured the impact of capital punishment in three distinct and different ways could find no evidence that the death penalty had any effect on felony crime rates, "this pattern holds for the traditional targeted offense of murder, the personal crimes of negligent manslaughter, rape, assault and robbery, as well as the property crimes of burglary, grand larceny, and vehicle theft. In other words, there is no evidence ... that residents of death penalty jurisdictions are afforded an added measure of protection against serious crimes by executions," [states author W. Bailey].
Finally, it has been argued that capital punishment specifically protects law enforcement officers by deterring assaults on and killings of police. There have been five major studies addressing the question of whether capital punishment protects police officers. In no case did the death penalty provide any deterrent to killing law enforcement officers, nor did it reduce the rate of assaults on police.
Once again the scientific evidence is clear, the death penalty does not provide specific deterrence from other crimes. It has no deterrent impact on other felonies, it has no deterrent impact on crimes against law enforcement officers, it has no deterrent impact on drug crimes, and it has no deterrent impact on violent crimes. In fact, the death penalty is more likely to endanger the lives of police who investigate crime and pursue fugitives, and endanger the lives of witnesses who may provide evidence necessary for conviction. The reason is obvious, preventing capture and conviction becomes far more pressing a matter in death penalty states.
Excerpted from Gary W. Potter's statement before the Joint Interim Health and Welfare Committee, Kentucky Legislature, March 20, 1999.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Nov 7, 2005 14:40:50 GMT -5
If I were a death penalty advocate, which I'm not, I would use John Taylor as the poster boy for lethal injection.
Taylor is the guy who masterminded the Wendy's massacre in Queens, [New York, in May 2000]. He tried to execute seven people, but two of them survived and fingered him.
His motive for the crime: money. (He and his accomplice made off with $2,400 in cash.)
His motive for the murders: eliminating witnesses.
He and his mentally retarded assistant duct-taped the mouths of the seven people, put white trash bags over their heads, herded them into a walk-in freezer, lined them up on their knees, and systematically shot them execution-style.
The reason this is the perfect death penalty case, as far as arguing for and against, is that for 50 years now the national debate has centered on one principal issue: Does the death penalty deter crime?
Do Desperate Criminals Consider Consequences?
Since half of the capital crimes that end up going to court are armed robberies gone bad--the stereotypical convenience-store gunman--the whole debate hinges on what we should do when a murder occurs during the commission of a felony. You can argue it either way. Some believe that we'll have fewer armed robberies if potential criminals see the prisons full of drugstore robbers waiting to die.
But the argument is also made that the death penalty doesn't deter crime because the kind of person who wants to hold up a liquor store is not going to be thinking "But what if I kill somebody?" He's already a desperate man, and he's not considering consequences.
But John Taylor ends all ambiguity. He intended to kill those Wendy's employees from the get-go. He didn't think, "If I can get the money and get away clean, I'll let them live." He thought, "The only way I can get away clean is to make sure they're all dead." He simply botched the job.
We know this because he was a fired employee of this particular Wendy's, and the only reason they let him inside at closing time was that everyone knew him. Fleeing the scene after a robbery would have gained him nothing. They all knew his name, and the company itself knew where he lived. So the only logical conclusion is that he thought his need for money was worth seven murders.
(The other possibility is that he went postal and decided to carry out a massacre as an act of revenge against the company that fired him, and the robbery was just an afterthought. In that case it would be a depraved hate crime that would probably be defended with an insanity defense. Since his public defenders didn't use this, I think we can assume Taylor was not crazed.)
I think the absolute strongest argument for the death penalty comes in cases involving the killing of witnesses. In many crimes, the victim is also the only witness. Most murders by child molesters, for example, are carried out simply to make sure the child doesn't identify the rapist. The idea is that we need the death penalty so that felons will think it's better to let witnesses live than to kill them and get lethally injected later.
If you're thinking about the consequences of your potential crimes when you first case the joint you're going to hold up, your liability runs something like this:
1. Armed robbery: 5 to 15 2. Simple murder: 20 to 40 3. Capital murder: death
The difference between 2 and 3 is what is supposed to keep the witnesses alive. Capital punishment is supposed to encourage the felon to rob but not kill. The idea of getting "stretched" in prison--a sentence often years or more--is frightening to even hardened criminals. And so the question is: are they more frightened by the idea of being killed than being stretched?
After all, if you don't have capital punishment, then there's very little difference between going down for robbery or going down for murder. If you believe you can get away entirely by killing a witness or two, then your additional risk is not that great.
An Undeterred Murderer
And then you have John Taylor. He knew that New York state has capital punishment. It's impossible to live here and not know that. He knew he would have to kill the witnesses if he had any chance of avoiding prison. And he chose to do the crime anyway.
This is why I think the death penalty doesn't work. Capital crimes are not committed by people who weigh the consequences of their acts. They don't think, "Well, I'll risk 40 years in prison but I won't risk death." Their whole makeup is focused on the short term. "Tomorrow" is not in their vocabularies.
John Taylor did receive the death penalty, and the verdict was applauded by everyone. But you can't really justify it under any theory of deterrence. He knew he was going to kill. He knew the result of his killing could be his own death. And he was undeterred.
In the future, let's retire this word "deterrence" entirely. It's no longer relevant. Let's call it what it is: vengeance. John Taylor must die so that society can feel that a wrong has been righted. But let's not delude ourselves that somehow we've made the streets safer or saved a future life. This is blood for blood. The certainty that he'll die makes us feel better.
John Bloom, "The Perfect Death Case," United Press International, January 20, 2003.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Nov 7, 2005 16:52:27 GMT -5
Dear Sky, If I had to name somebody as a poster boy for CP, it would be Erick Rudolph, who is among the worst of the worst as far as I am concerned.
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|