Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I respect your personal convictions on the matter, but I think you are turning it upside down. You make it sound as if those convicted of capital crimes and are actually innocent outnumber the guilty ones executed. There is no irrefutable evidence that an innocent person has ever been executed in modern times. But to be fair, I will acknowledge that the laws of averages suggest that it has probably happened at one time or another.
But this is where the moral question comes in. That is, in terms of lives, is it better to take the very small risk that an innocent person may be executed and by doing so assure that many callous killers will never again take an innocent life? (the death penalty is definitely a deterrent; that guy ain't gonna do it again).
OR, is it the morally superior position to take the chance that the same brutal killer(s) may one day be paroled or escape to kill again because such is preferable to permitting the state to judicially take the life of one of its citizens?
I obviously go with the former choice, but certainly hope and pray such never occurs (I might also add that if an LEO or zealous prosecutor is ever proven to have deliberated convicted an innocent person of a capital crime, they should suffer the same fate in turn).
Anyway, we all know about Ted Bundy, but here is another example of such an instance that occurred in my native state. This article first appeared in Texas Monthly magazine:
Kenneth McDuff is one of the most sadistic, vicious murderers Texas has ever produced. Why did the state parole board put him back on the streets?
Revenge is a personal thing, while retribution is a societal thing. Which is why a criminal justice system exists. It is the state acting on behalf of society at large. Now whether or not the people of the said state want capital punishment is something they decide by voting for candidates whose position they favor on the issue.
I don't know much about the McDuff case. I'll agree with you that he obviously shouldn't have been paroled. However, I don't think the solution is execution, but a smarter parole system. From what I know, upon getting a life sentence, you either can or cannot get parole. Personally, I think all criminals should have the option to get parole, though certain crime would obviously require a lot more 'work' to get it, like McDuff's. Under the current system however, I'm rather surprised they let him apply for parole at all.
I guess I'd need more information, and perhaps a degree in criminal justice. I would say something went wrong in his psychiatric evaluation. I know they evaluate mental health prior to deciding parole, and obviously something fell short in that area. I don't know if it's the prison's fault or some other error. Perhaps McDuff is just dangerous smart and tricked his way into parole (which is what seems to me to be the most likely possibility).
And this is the moral demean, isn't it? Obviously, someone like McDuff didn't deserve parole, but at the same time, what if he genuinely had been rehabilitated? Now, in cases like his, that's not terribly common. He seems to fit the definition of either a serial killer or being clinically insane (there's usually overlap anyway). But you and I both know that many murders can and have been rehabilitated and got parole and became upstanding citizens. This is another reason why I'm against capital punishment; it's prevents the possibility of a brighter future.
So to answer you question, is the risk of releasing still dangerous murders worth it... sort of. The answer is of course no, but I don't think the risk is tied only to capital punishment. I think the risk of releasing dangerous people back into society can be reduced (and ideally eliminated, but that's realistically impossible since human error is bound to occur in a human run institution like prison) by adjusting the parole process and how prisons operate. There's many solutions to the problem you bring up and I think those solutions can involve the removal of capital punishment.
You did bring up the point about democratically decided capital punishment; no argument there. I don't get to determine all of the laws, for better or worse. If the majority supports it, all I can do is hope to convince them otherwise. Frankly, I am a fan of middle ground. I'm mostly willing to listen to the idea of capital punishment. If putting down people like McDuff was something I was allowed to take part in deciding, if I was outnumbered in saying he should be executed as opposed to life in prison, I'd concede defeat.
I don't know much about the McDuff case. I'll agree with you that he obviously shouldn't have been paroled. However, I don't think the solution is execution, but a smarter parole system. From what I know, upon getting a life sentence, you either can or cannot get parole. Personally, I think all criminals should have the option to get parole, though certain crime would obviously require a lot more 'work' to get it, like McDuff's. Under the current system however, I'm rather surprised they let him apply for parole at all.
I guess I'd need more information, and perhaps a degree in criminal justice. I would say something went wrong in his psychiatric evaluation. I know they evaluate mental health prior to deciding parole, and obviously something fell short in that area. I don't know if it's the prison's fault or some other error. Perhaps McDuff is just dangerous smart and tricked his way into parole (which is what seems to me to be the most likely possibility).
And this is the moral demean, isn't it? Obviously, someone like McDuff didn't deserve parole, but at the same time, what if he genuinely had been rehabilitated? Now, in cases like his, that's not terribly common. He seems to fit the definition of either a serial killer or being clinically insane (there's usually overlap anyway). But you and I both know that many murders can and have been rehabilitated and got parole and became upstanding citizens. This is another reason why I'm against capital punishment; it's prevents the possibility of a brighter future.
So to answer you question, is the risk of releasing still dangerous murders worth it... sort of. The answer is of course no, but I don't think the risk is tied only to capital punishment. I think the risk of releasing dangerous people back into society can be reduced (and ideally eliminated, but that's realistically impossible since human error is bound to occur in a human run institution like prison) by adjusting the parole process and how prisons operate. There's many solutions to the problem you bring up and I think those solutions can involve the removal of capital punishment.
You did bring up the point about democratically decided capital punishment; no argument there. I don't get to determine all of the laws, for better or worse. If the majority supports it, all I can do is hope to convince them otherwise. Frankly, I am a fan of middle ground. I'm mostly willing to listen to the idea of capital punishment. If putting down people like McDuff was something I was allowed to take part in deciding, if I was outnumbered in saying he should be executed as opposed to life in prison, I'd concede defeat.
Thanks for a well-written reply even though we will disagree to some degree or another on lots of things. But you do make a good case for your beliefs.
The only thing I really want to comment on, as we have pretty much laid out our respective positions, is the bolded part. McDuff (and Bundy and Bittaker, etc) are pure sociopaths and I can't think of a single instance of one of that type ever being rehabilitated. But you yourself generally acknowledge that. And one could really never know in any event, as the breed is very good at manipulation. There are two types of people that polygraph tests are almost useless with. One of them is the sociopathic personality as they are emotionless and the test depends on emotional reactions to questions.
That is also why many of them slip thru the cracks, because they are often extremely good at fooling psychiatrists and parole board members. The former often want to believe their treatment has had an beneficial effect, and many of the average middle to upper-middle class types who sit on parole boards may have a hard time really accepting that there really are truly evil people out there.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 03-13-2015 at 10:26 AM..
Reason: Fixed formatting
I don't know much about the McDuff case. I'll agree with you that he obviously shouldn't have been paroled. However, I don't think the solution is execution, but a smarter parole system. From what I know, upon getting a life sentence, you either can or cannot get parole. Personally, I think all criminals should have the option to get parole, though certain crime would obviously require a lot more 'work' to get it, like McDuff's. Under the current system however, I'm rather surprised they let him apply for parole at all.
I guess I'd need more information, and perhaps a degree in criminal justice. I would say something went wrong in his psychiatric evaluation. I know they evaluate mental health prior to deciding parole, and obviously something fell short in that area. I don't know if it's the prison's fault or some other error. Perhaps McDuff is just dangerous smart and tricked his way into parole (which is what seems to me to be the most likely possibility).
And this is the moral demean, isn't it? Obviously, someone like McDuff didn't deserve parole, but at the same time, what if he genuinely had been rehabilitated? Now, in cases like his, that's not terribly common. He seems to fit the definition of either a serial killer or being clinically insane (there's usually overlap anyway). But you and I both know that many murders can and have been rehabilitated and got parole and became upstanding citizens. This is another reason why I'm against capital punishment; it's prevents the possibility of a brighter future.
So to answer you question, is the risk of releasing still dangerous murders worth it... sort of. The answer is of course no, but I don't think the risk is tied only to capital punishment. I think the risk of releasing dangerous people back into society can be reduced (and ideally eliminated, but that's realistically impossible since human error is bound to occur in a human run institution like prison) by adjusting the parole process and how prisons operate. There's many solutions to the problem you bring up and I think those solutions can involve the removal of capital punishment.
You did bring up the point about democratically decided capital punishment; no argument there. I don't get to determine all of the laws, for better or worse. If the majority supports it, all I can do is hope to convince them otherwise. Frankly, I am a fan of middle ground. I'm mostly willing to listen to the idea of capital punishment. If putting down people like McDuff was something I was allowed to take part in deciding, if I was outnumbered in saying he should be executed as opposed to life in prison, I'd concede defeat.
You make it sound as if there is some kind of "cure" for murder.Like its ok... you killed a human being or tortured a child to death,but hey, with a little therapy,and a few pills we can "cure" you and its all ok......
Thanks for a well-written reply even though we will disagree to some degree or another on lots of things. But you do make a good case for your beliefs.
The only thing I really want to comment on, as we have pretty much laid out our respective positions, is the bolded part. McDuff (and Bundy and Bittaker, etc) are pure sociopaths and I can't think of a single instance of one of that type ever being rehabilitated. But you yourself generally acknowledge that. And one could really never know in any event, as the breed is very good at manipulation. There are two types of people that polygraph tests are almost useless with. One of them is the sociopathic personality as they are emotionless and the test depends on emotional reactions to questions.
That is also why many of them slip thru the cracks, because they are often extremely good at fooling psychiatrists and parole board members. The former often want to believe their treatment has had an beneficial effect, and many of the average middle to upper-middle class types who sit on parole boards may have a hard time really accepting that there really are truly evil people out there.
Sociopaths are a difficult thing to discuss. There are an estimated 12 millions sociopaths in the United States. It's a fairly common thing. Obviously, most aren't killers. The ones that are, are quite dangerous. The question of if they can be rehabilitated, I cannot honestly answer. I'll concede that.
In theory, it's possible. Until then, life in prison may be a better option. While some argue it's inhumane, I think studying sociopaths would be a wise decision. You can't really do that if they're dead. By doing so, we can address what creates these people (and by that, I mean sociopaths who are also serial killers; the US having the most serial killers as compared to other countries). We need to address the factors that create dangerous people and start there. This is one of many issues I have with the criminal justice system. It focuses primarily on punishment (dealing with the criminals after they've committed a crime), rather than prevention.
So I hold my stance that serial killers should not be executed. I'm willing to compromise on issues like this to a point, of course. For example, if Hitler were alive today and on death row, I wouldn't throw a fit (though I think life imprisonment is more of a punishment than death).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner
You make it sound as if there is some kind of "cure" for murder.Like its ok... you killed a human being or tortured a child to death,but hey, with a little therapy,and a few pills we can "cure" you and its all ok......
Statements like this are what bother me about the criminal justice system. It's all pained with a broad brush. ALL drug offenders are lazy addicts who are desperate for their next fix. ALL sex offenders are monstrous pedophile kidnapping rapists. ALL murders are cold blooded lunatics. This is how many view these issues, when statistics don't point to these conclusions at all.
There are different kinds of murder, ranging from things like manslaughter (accidental murder) to crimes of passion to what you view as all murder (cold-blooded cruelty). I'd argue that many murders can be rehabilitated. If they killed due to alcohol induced rage, you address their alcoholism or anger management techniques.
Given the uneven application of the death penalty and the exoneration of quite a few on death row, I can't support the death penalty.
Personally, I would revel in the idea that someone who killed someone I loved was basically entombed alive in a cement prison. So many people talk about how great prisoners have it, and I can only assume they have never known anyone who has been to prison or have really pathetic lives. My freedom is EVERYTHING to me. I can't even watch "Orange Is The New Black" because the idea of being without my freedom is so far beyond horrifying to me - that show is worse than any horror movie as far as I'm concerned.
To know I would never again have the road stretching before my car or that I would never again have a dog or that I would never again set foot in the woods and swamps of my childhood? To know that I would never spend another night out with my buddies or a dinner out with my two best friends? Never cuddle my cousins' children? Dying in prison is pretty much the worst punishment I can think of. If I was given the option of execution over that, I'd go skipping down the hall to the gurney.
No, that some areas it is 30eyars of appeals doe not mean the punishment should be abolished at all. After all the federal govenemnt just not log ago added death penalty to some offenses. Look at the Boston bomber case.
2. The risk of innocent people being convicted/executed.
Being found not-guilty and pardoned decades later doesn't help an innocent person who was wrongfully convicted.
True, they don't. But of course, the statement is dependent upon agreeing with that capital punishment is morally wrong. Which I don't.
2.
Quote:
The risk of innocent people being convicted/executed. Being found not-guilty and pardoned decades later doesn't help an innocent person who was wrongfully convicted.
This is true in a strict sense. However, on the flip side, there is no proof positive that an innocent person in modern times has ever been executed. I have conceded earlier that the law of averages would lean in that direction, but by the same standard the number of truly innocent people who have been savagely murdered by remorseless killers who have either escaped or been paroled cannot be brought back either. And in terms of sheer numbers, the former are debatable as to the existence of any at all. The latter group is right there on the record for the counting.
The problem I see with California keeping these people around for so long the killers have become famous books, tv movies, and talk shows have been produced. This has created a cult following these people have websites, and are some are allowed to get married the ones doing life like Manson. 30 years later no one even knows the victims names only the killer who is about to be put to death we forget the pain this person caused to the family.
Quote:
This is true in a strict sense. However, on the flip side, there is no proof positive that an innocent person in modern times has ever been executed. I have conceded earlier that the law of averages would lean in that direction, but by the same standard the number of truly innocent people who have been savagely murdered by remorseless killers who have either escaped or been paroled cannot be brought back either. And in terms of sheer numbers, the former are debatable as to the existence of any at all. The latter group is right there on the record for the counting.
There have been several people exonerated from death row because of DNA prior to that these people would have been put to death and they were. Unless we had a way to tap into the brain and see with 100% clarity what someone did it's impossible to say that %100 of death row inmates are guilty.
No. What is sad is that some of the same people that don't want to sentence obviously guilty people to death, where there is no question about their crime, would allow the death of unborn children even up to partial-birth abortions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
