Kelsey Patterson was executed in Texas yesterday for killing 2 people. He is a schizophrenic who still suffers from delusions. He made bizarre statements on the death bed before his lethal injection.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles had voted 5 to 1 to give him a reprieve, but Governor (and possible future presidential candidate) Rick Perry denied it.

Texas law forbids executing mentally retarded people, but not mentally ill people. The law only states that the person must be aware and able to understand that they are going to be executed.

The victims families were thankful.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Pending/04/may04.htm

poor dude coulda let him be in a facility sure what he did was wrong but he was not in the right state of mind... but still i would be happy if my a family memmbers killer was excuted

Well, being a killing machine as Texas governor didn't hurt Bush's political career - it got him to the White House, where he's now able to pursue it on a far grander scale.

damn floridA!

I read about this in the paper today. Doc, your post is studiously neutral... how do you feel about this?

I know some people disagree, but to me it doesn't make one whit of a difference, mentally ill, mentally retarded, etc. Why spend more money on a mentally retarded murderer to put him in life long therapy, then we spend on a child in the public education system? People need to get their priorities straight. I'd rather pay my tax dollars towards a few needles and drugs, then tens of thousands of dollars monthly to produce absolutely nothing.

I have mixed feelings about it. Texas unfortunately does not have a "life without parole" option. I would go for that in some cases, but I definitely support the death penalty in others.

One feature of the legal system is so awful. You cannot even tell the jury that "life" means 40 years, or that a 20 year sentence means they will get out in 5 or 10 years. A few years ago inmates here were serving 1 month out of 12 because of overcrowding. I think the jury should have all that information. It is forbidden, and would cause a mistrial if it were brought up.

This guy WAS and probably always would have been dangerous, and without a guarantee he would be off the streets for good, Governor Perry made the right decision imo. It took guts to go against the decision of the parole board.

And I wasn't that neutral, the last sentence was a hint, as was the website I chose. Funny I couldn't find much online about it...I got that info from the Houston paper.

I'm for the death penalty for the most heinous crimes, but I'm appalled at what's become of it in different states. In Texas criminals have been executed with patently ineffective defense attorneys. Some of the lawyers have actually fallen asleep during the trial. It's the opposite in California where hundreds sit on death row to serve until the end of their natural lives because the legal system bogs down. We got rid of Rose Byrd just because of that issue, but it hasn't got any better. The number of cases in Illinois that turn out to be erroneous convictions is staggering.

You'd think that it would be cheaper to execute an inmate than to house and feed it for the rest of his life, but the legal system being what it is that just isn't so. California's going bankrupt but all those hundreds on Death Row get due process ad nauseum with us taxpayers paying for the prosecution, the defense and the judge. So here's my

Modest Proposal

Pass a constitutional amendment that gives each state the right to execute no more than x number of capital criminals per year, based on population. I would suggest .5 per million. That would force states like Texas to spend some time making sure that only the very worst of the worse, the ones who have been properly defended are executed. In California, that would give the state legal cover to move most of the Death Row inmates off of death row into a somewhat less expensive environment. I mean, from a practical point of view, these guys aren't getting executed anyways, so they might be able to barter their rights to future appeals for a move off of death row. Everybody but the blood-sucking lawyers benefit.

I think I am going to agree with Doc and bernie on this one. The death penalty is a tough concept. The only reason we have a prison system in the first place rather than public executions and fines paid to the victim or their families was supposed to be for re-habillitation. Currently our prison system is set up to be more punitive than theraputic.

We have too many repeat offenders and they get worse after each visit into our penal system. Too many people are imprisoned who are innocent and we have juries that don't get half of the corresponding information.

As I have stated elsewhere it is pretty sickening to me to discover that we have a life in prison and death penalty on the federal level for non-violent crimes like growing marijuana. I definitely don't see how that is a suiting punishment for that type of crime.

However, looking at violent crimes and the offenders we have to ask the question of whether that person can be re-habillitated or not. If so then we need to give them more options out of prison. If not, then we need to either end their lives or ??? Problem is it isn't good for the famillies of the victims or for the criminal to spend a life behind bars. That is almost a worse punishment than death. And it doesn't serve the purpose it should. But I still feel that death shouldn't be the quickest answer. It is a tough call to make if you are at all conscientious.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty per se, but Texas's record of meting it out is spotty at best (that's putting it mildly). I can't say whether Perry made the right call in this particular case because I don't know all the facts, but given the political climate in Texas it doesn't take "guts" to make a decision like Perry's - the gutsy decision would have been to take the parole board's recommendation and stay the execution. But that would have earned Perry no political points in Texas. We like to see 'em dangle 'round these parts.

Take a look at the number of people who have been convicted of a capital crime who later on prove to be innocent. Can you correct the wrongful conviction if they have been executed?

"Death? Certainly he deserves death. But many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? If not then dont be so qiuck to dole out death."
Lord of the Rings

Originally posted by Seenitall
Take a look at the number of people who have been convicted of a capital crime who later on prove to be innocent. Can you correct the wrongful conviction if they have been executed?

"Death? Certainly he deserves death. But many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? If not then dont be so qiuck to dole out death."
Lord of the Rings

I don't see that Lord of the Rings quote as an argument against the death penalty. It seems more an argument to be more careful.

Some people just have to die. But this particular case of the mentally ill being executed is very disturbing to me. Texas justice seems to require accountability for ones actions no matter what the mental state of the accused and I'm troubled by that. I also have a hard time with the guilty verdict of that woman who put her 5 children to death. Here was a woman who's mental illness was thoroughly documented and uncontested. What's the point of having a "not guilty for reason of insanity" law on the books if she wasn't acquitted?

On the otherhand, that serial killer in Washington who killed around 50 women and then escaped the death penalty in exchange for information makes a mockery of the death penalty. That SOB needs to fry slowly.

I have no problem with the death penalty.

What I do have a problem with is the judicial system. It's not something I'd want to trust with my life.

You are missing the point I was trying to make. MANY people have been wronfully convicted. If you execute them and they are later found innocent, how would you feel about that? What if it was your brother who was wrongly convicted ahd executed?..Also wahat about the possibilty that a guilty person is acquitted because someone on the jury who would have convicted if the penalty was life, but couldn't convict beacause of the death penalty. When I see posts like these that are so confident in their judgementr (given that we are fallible) to take someone's life, I just have to shake my head.

Seenitall, who's missing that point? You're pointing out the obvious.

Sorry to be blunt.

Originally posted by Seenitall
You are missing the point I was trying to make. MANY people have been wronfully convicted.

I think posters here do get the point if you read the posts openly. We want to find a way to be more sure, not to do away with the death penalty. You, on the other hand, are using mistaken convictions as an argument against the death penalty, when I suspect your moral conpunction is against putting a person to death under any circumstances.

Anybody else think that OJ should have been executed by now?

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
I have no problem with the death penalty.

What I do have a problem with is the judicial system. It's not something I'd want to trust with my life.

That is the point. As long as the Judicial system (In Canada or the US) is not to be trusted, we shoudnt execute anybody. If you can gaurantee that a person is guilty, them Maybe the death penalty is OK.

Being blunt is fine with me.

Originally posted by Seenitall
That is the point. As long as the Judicial system (In Canada or the US) is not to be trusted, we shoudnt execute anybody. If you can gaurantee that a person is guilty, them Maybe the death penalty is OK.

Being blunt is fine with me.

You can never be sure of anyone's guilt. Even if you see it before your own eyes.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
You can never be sure of anyone's guilt. Even if you see it before your own eyes.

If someone confessed to a capital crime, we can be pretty sure that they committed it.

Originally posted by Seenitall
If someone confessed to a capital crime, we can be pretty sure that they committed it.

People admit to crimes they did not commit. Some are unstable mentally, others are coerced. I'm sure there are other reasons. My point is, you can never be sure of anything. What your eyes see are not what is actually there. It's all run through filters within your optic nerves, and then looked at with a brain that sees what it wants. We also make a ton of assumptions about things. And our law is not absolute. Motive plays a large role in deciding if someone should go to jail for 10 years, life, or even jail at all.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bernieunger
[B]I think posters here do get the point if you read the posts openly. We want to find a way to be more sure, not to do away with the death penalty. You, on the other hand, are using mistaken convictions as an argument against the death penalty, when I suspect your moral conpunction is against putting a person to death under any circumstances.

Good of you to tell me what my moral compunctions are. You still dont address the point of wrongful convictions. You are SURE someboby is giutlty, right? Ya, we gat DNA evidence against them. Todays paper has this article:

Washington (AP) Lab Scientist Pleads Guilty to falsifying DNA Reports.

Oh ya the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt-DNA evidence said so.
Maybe your moral compunction includes a strong dose of vengance, but who am I to criticise?:)

I guess he is cured now.

Originally posted by bernieunger
Anybody else think that OJ should have been executed by now?

Nope. Despite what the general public may believe, in a court of law he was found innocent. He could basically go on live TV and tell everyone in the world that he killed his wife and her lover, and there is nothing that could be done to him. Our Constitution does not allow someone to be tried twice for the same crime.

Personally, I'm all for the death penalty provided all possible steps have been taken (in a reasonable amount of time) to prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty. Keeping someone on death row for twenty or thirty years is ridiculous. One, maybe two years, and that's it. Then it's the Hot Death Injection.
;)

Kill them all and make examples of them.

Before you decide:

http://www.geocities.com/trctl11/contents

Originally posted by Seenitall
Before you decide:

http://www.geocities.com/trctl11/contents

Before I decide? The decision to commit a crime that warrants a capital conviction was made a long time ago by the offender.

I may be in the minority here, but I have no remorse for convicted murderers and criminals whose convictions are carried out.

Andrea Yates (the woman who drowned her 5 kids) lived only a couple of miles from my house. I saw her husband at Circuit City shortly after the verdict, and I talked with him about digital cameras or something. He seemed strangely normal. I think she will probably get an appeal, the prosecution psychiatrist was an idiot and made a stunningly false statement on the stand about the same thing happening on a TV show. She has a great attorney.

OJ had a great defense team too. That trial was amazing. I wonder if he would have got off here in Texas, but the damn glove sure DIDN"T fit, did it? (I wonder if it fit his son.....that's another hypothesis out there.)

The serial killer in Washington surely deserved the death penalty, but I agree with the many families' (with missing daughters) desire for closure. What a quandry.

Does this seem like a good use of the death penalty to you?

Death Penalty for
Two Ounces of Marijuana!
(from September/October 1996 Marijuana Policy Report)
Picture this: An indiscreet American college student returning from a vacation in Mexico is caught with two ounces of marijuana in his pocket. A judge is forced to sentence him to spend the rest of his life in federal prison. If this is his second offense, he will be executed.

Could this really happen in America? Yes, if U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and his cronies have their way.


U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) introduced H.R. 4170,
the "Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996."
On September 22, 1995, Gingrich promised "to pass legislation mandating the death penalty for anyone caught smuggling 'commercial' quantities of drugs into the United States," according to The Washington Post.

"To stop the influx of drugs into the United States, Gingrich called for life sentences without parole for anyone who crosses the U.S. border with commercial quantities of illegal drugs. Drug dealers, he said, should receive capital punishment. A bill will be put before Congress in September with the harsher penalties, Gingrich said," reported The San Francisco Examiner on August 18, 1996.

On September 25, 1996, mere days before Congress adjourned for the year, Rep. Gingrich introduced H.R. 4170, the "Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996." Within a few days, the bill had attracted a coalition of 26 Republican co-sponsors.

But what are these "commercial quantities" of which Gingrich speaks? While the bill purports to increase penalties for major drug traffickers, it would actually catch small-time drug users. Individuals convicted of importing "100 usual dosage amounts" of several illicit substances, including marijuana, would be sentenced to federal prison for life without parole.

If convicted of a second offense -- presumably the first offense would have to be committed prior to the enactment of this law -- the defendant would be sentenced to death.

Federal law -- as established by the 1994 crime act -- already allows the death penalty for being involved with the cultivation or distribution of 60,000 marijuana plants (or seedlings) or 60,000 kilograms of marijuana.

According to a DEA memo dated October 20, 1988, the DEA defines a marijuana dosage unit to be 0.5 grams -- therefore 100 dosage units would be 50 grams, or less than two ounces of marijuana.

Although H.R. 4170 is effectively dead because Congress has adjourned the 1995-96 session, the MPP urges people to write letters to their U.S. representatives strongly opposing this bill. If members of Congress don't hear loud voices of protest from their constituents now, this legislation could very well be reintroduced in 1997.

Because Congress was busy passing appropriations bills during the final days of September before adjourning for the year, Congress failed to pass any omnibus crime or drug bills -- although a methamphetamine bill (S. 1965) and a rohypnol bill (H.R. 4137) were enacted. In the next Marijuana Policy Report, the MPP will analyze the appropriations bills that fund the DEA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and other federal agencies.

No.

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
Before I decide? The decision to commit a crime that warrants a capital conviction was made a long time ago by the offender.

I may be in the minority here, but I have no remorse for convicted murderers and criminals whose convictions are carried out.

You arent choosing the color a your car here-you are choosing to have the stste kill someone who MAY be innocent. There are over 40 documented cases of people executed in the US who were later found to be innocent. This thread started with the question"Should mentally ill people be executed?"

All I did was expand the question to "Should anyone be executed?"
Sorry if that troubles you.

Originally posted by Seenitall
Before you decide:

http://www.geocities.com/trctl11/contents
That website is huge. This part was interesting:
Their bare arms are strapped to boards projecting from the sides of the gurney. Trained technicians then insert a 14 gauge catheter (the largest commercially available needle) into a vein in each arm, a process that sounds much simpler than it often is. Once the catheters are in place, they are flushed with 10ml of a Heperin solution, to prevent clots forming inside the catheter, then a 1000 ml bag of saline solution is connected to the catheter ends and the prisoner is either wheeled into the execution chamber or the curtains surrounding it are drawn back to allow the witnesses to see the procedure. When the condemned person has made any final statement, the prison warden gives the signal for the execution to begin and the technician(s), hidden from view behind a two way mirror, begins to manually inject the three chemicals comprising typically 15 - 50 cc of Sodium thiopental, 15 - 50 cc of Pavulon (the generic name for Pancuronium bromide) and 15 - 50 cc of Potassium chloride. There is a short interval between each chemical during which saline solution is injected to clean the IV line and prevent any chemical reaction which could block it. Typically the actual injections will take from three to five minutes to complete.

All the chemicals used in America are standard medical drugs. Sodium thiopental is a short acting barbiturate which is used widely as an anaesthetic and normally causes unconsciousness very quickly if injected into a vein. Pavulon is a muscle relaxant that paralyses the diaphragm and thus arrests breathing whilst Potassium chloride finishes the job by causing cardiac arrest. It is used in cardiac surgery to stop the heart.
In most cases the prisoner is unconscious about a minute after the Sodium thiopental has been injected and is dead in around eight minutes, with no obvious signs of physical suffering.

14 gauge catheters are *huge* - the size for donating blood I think. I'll bet they can't get 14s in all these guys - all you need is any access at all, the tiny ones would work too. Many of these guys have killed their veins with IV drug abuse, so it would be tough to get that big a catheter in.

Pentothal heavily sedates them immediately. Pavulon paralyzes not only the breathing apparatus, but the whole body. Any suffering by the inmate would be hidden by this - they are completely unable to move anything at all, even an eyelid. The potassium stops the heart. It burns a lot going in the vein, especially in a concentrated form like they use in these situations. If it burns or hurts, there would be no way to know, because the inmate is unconscious and paralyzed.

Still better than the chair or a noose, or certainly much better than their victims got.

Originally posted by Seenitall
You arent choosing the color a your car here-you are choosing to have the stste kill someone who MAY be innocent. There are over 40 documented cases of people executed in the US who were later found to be innocent. This thread started with the question"Should mentally ill people be executed?"

All I did was expand the question to "Should anyone be executed?"
Sorry if that troubles you.

This is an argument for judicial system reform but for abolishment of capital punishment. It is the judicial system that has wrongfully convicted the 40 people that you mentioned above, not the penalty that is enforced upon them. I hate to inform you of this, but the judicial system in the country is broken. It is the system that allows for early release on inmates. It is the system that wrongfully convicts people. It is the system that doesn't track parolees properly. It is the system that doesn't reform prisoners, but instead teaches them to be better criminals while in jail. It is the system that I as well as others who have posted in this thread would be scared to trust with their lives. Make no mistake by it my friend, the entire judicial system in this country is broken.

As for the original question, I give a resounding HELL YES. If someone is convicted of capital crime then capital punishment is in order so they should be put to death, regardless of their mental state.

Capital punishment is a necessary punishment in a modern society that deals with capital crimes and individuals that commit them. If you don't want to receive the death penalty in Texas then don't commit the crime. Wrongful convictions are a reflection of a break down in a societies entire judicial system, not in the commencement of a single type of punishment.

Get your arguments strait and stop using wrongful convictions as a scapegoat because under analysis that argument doesn't hold water.

If you admit that the Judicail system is broken, and this broken judisial system we have decides if someone gets convicted and dies, how can you justify thiis? If we were living in some ideal world where we could be absolutely sure of someones guilt, ok.lets burn the bastard. Bit we are not..As they said in the movie
ANALYSE THAT

Who draws the line?

Rather than death, what about jail time? Do you also feel for someone who was innocent and put to life in jail? How about 50 years jail? 30 years? 10 years?

Of course you don't want an innocent person being punished, regardless of the type of punishment, but that does NOT mean you don't bother punishing people for crimes they've been convicted of.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have crime, and this wouldn't even be an issue.

If you really want an eye opener, do some research about how the prison system came to be. If you know how it came to be, you'd know how useless it is. The thing is, how do you force someone to behave as society desires when they don't want to, and their actions are socially unacceptable? Australia, been there, done that :)

Did you all read my post above? I know ER Doc did. What is a capital crime? Different people have different ideas. Some are more extreme than others. I don't see how growing 60k in marijuana deserves the capital punishment. I don't see how it deserves life in prison either. In this case someone would be punished to death for not killing anyone. Does that seem strange? I believe that there are crimes that should be punishible by death but I also think we need to rethink what those crimes are.

Originally posted by 93rdcurrent
Did you all read my post above? I know ER Doc did. What is a capital crime? Different people have different ideas. Some are more extreme than others. I don't see how growing 60k in marijuana deserves the capital punishment. I don't see how it deserves life in prison either. In this case someone would be punished to death for not killing anyone. Does that seem strange? I believe that there are crimes that should be punishible by death but I also think we need to rethink what those crimes are.

Yes, I did read your post and in the interest of discussion I will give you a US government class 101 lesson.

The bill which you speak of was introduced into the Houston of Representatives which as of last count has 435 members. 224 of them are Republican. The 26 supporters who signed on board where obviously a minority other wise the other "cronies" would have jumped on the bandwagon. This bill didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing so don't make statements to the contrary.

A capital crime varies in definition from state to state as well as on the federal court level (yes todo, there is a completely separate federal judicial system as well). Each state's legislature has the duty of making statutes that govern this stuff. If you don't like YOUR states criminal statutes, then I encourage you to campaign your state legislature to change the laws. I live in Texas, I am happy with the laws and regulations of the state that I live in.

Back on topic. The federal statute that you have listed above is part of a group of laws that were passed during our nations glorious War on Drugs. They have been on the books for years. If you don't like them, then either work within the existing system to change them or start a revolution, win the revolution, and then make your own laws to your liking. Do something about it. :D

Originally posted by Seenitall
If you admit that the Judicail system is broken, and this broken judisial system we have decides if someone gets convicted and dies, how can you justify thiis? If we were living in some ideal world where we could be absolutely sure of someones guilt, ok.lets burn the bastard. Bit we are not..As they said in the movie
ANALYSE THAT

Tell me, what higher power do you have to render judgment or retract it? What occupation do you have? What office do you hold?

You speak all high and mighty but you give no alternative to the existing system. You criticize but offer no cure. Your words ring out hollow without a proposed solution to the problem to which you speak.

Sit down young one and let me fill you in on a little secret. Ideal worlds where everyone is good, nice, well mannered, polite, and law-abiding don't exist in reality. Reality depicts the criminal system's punishments and the crimes committed within that reality explain the convictions. Reality and the world we live in is all the justification that is needed.

Tell me, what world or alternative plane of existence do you live in, I am dying to know.

Just some info then my opinions,

One of the reasons that they don't do life without parole is that it can become very dangerous for others in the jail - guards, inmates, etc. If a guy knows good behavior isn't going to get him anywhere, he is likely to behave badly in jail.

In states where there is no death penalty period, it gets even trickier. If the inmate can't be executed for his murders and he is on a life without parole sentence, what will his punishment be if he kills again? Solitaire? Should we put all life without parole inmates in solitaire? Might fall under cruel and unusual punishment.

Speaking of cruel and unusual for a second. There was a time when we used to put criminals in stocks in the town center and spit on them, taunt them, demean them - effectively humiliate them. Humiliation was the point. Personally, I find the publicized treatment of the Iraqi prisoners appalling not because the prisoners in question were humiliated, but because the armed forces did not honor our word to obey the Geneva convention and because obviously quite a few service men got some morbid entertainment out of performing the stunts.

The definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" as mentioned in the Bill of Rights has been watered down through the years. From memory, Thomas Jefferson once wrote a paper saying he felt it proper that a convicted rapist should have a three inch hole bored through his nose to permanently disfigure him and so that everyone would always know what he had done. Some might find it cruel and unusual, but Jefferson orchestrated the Bill of Rights. This is the type of punishment he saw fit. If someone raped a female friend of mine, I would be glad to do the nose boring myself.

Back on track,

To me the problem with letting schizophrenics go free, is that if my life depended on it, I could probably fake it. To me it is somewhat immaterial. For example, I consider someone with totally screwed up morals to also be mentally ill as well. Also considering that the death penalty obviously isn’t popular with everyone, a doctor’s diagnosis could mean life or death. He would have the power not the citizens or the state. People who don’t think schizo’s should die are typically those who don’t believe in the death penalty to begin with. To me they are separate arguments.

When people count the number of executions, I think people forget that Texas is the second biggest state in the union (I'm sure our per-capita is still the highest none-the-less, but it is usually the total number that keeps getting publicized.)

Still the question remains is Texas killing too many or other states killing too few? What is the proper number?

When 12 men and women after hearing the evidence decide unanimously that the punishment of death fits the crime, I tend to agree with them. Those 12 people have to decide whether the person deserves to die or deserves to live with the chance they may kill again.

To me the innocent go free and are usually not tried in the first place. Sometimes the guilty go free as well, but if you are found guilty there is an extremely high probability that you've done something bad.

Executions are not about saving money, capital murder trials and subsequent appeals are very expensive. It is about finding a punishment that fits the crime.

-Mr. Wigggles

Nice post. I agree with all of it too.

I would love to meet you and rotarygod and Gigolo Jason and rev-2-9k (we still need to do that Stage 1 comparo dude!) some time, and the rest of the Houston/Texas crew. Hopefully at the next meet - I will make every effort.

edit: it would be hard to fake schizophrenia though. Maybe for a few hours or days, but long term it would be hard. Those are really some bizarre characters.

One inmate I remember tore open his mattress at the prison, emptied out the stuffing, defecated and urinated on the pile of stuffing, and ate most of it, then crawled into the empty mattress and made bizarre animal sounds.

Then again, there are the bleeders who cut themselves repeatedly to get admitted to the prison hospital, where there are TVs in every room. We got where we would put their arms in plaster to prevent more cutting and send them on back to their units. They would walk around with one third of their normal blood volume.

They would also swallow ANYTHING to go to that hospital. Scissors, forceps, toothbrushes, whatever they could get. One guy purposely drove a nail into his knee to go to the hospital. When the surgeon took it out without anesthesia, the guy complained a bit. The doc said, "you didn't numb it up to put it in, why should I numb it up to take it out?" Yank.

Those guys are real pieces of.....work.

Originally posted by MrWigggles
I consider someone with totally screwed up morals to also be mentally ill as well.

Who's to judge what is the absolute correct definition of morality? It all depends on what time period you were born into, and what country you were raised in. With globalization, we're starting to see more of a global morality, though it's difficult to infiltrate some societies built to resist out side forces.

Morals and ethics are always going to be unique to an individual. No group will ever agree on everything discussed.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
Who's to judge what is the absolute correct definition of morality?
No one. That is part of the problem. We have laws but we don't have a central morality.

It is a sad day when it is easier to define legal versus illegal over right versus wrong.

It all depends on what time period you were born into, and what country you were raised in. With globalization, we're starting to see more of a global morality, though it's difficult to infiltrate some societies built to resist out side forces.
Global morality? In Cali we have "meat is murder", in Utah we have "no sex until marriage", in iraq we have the total subjugation of women, and in Germany all bets are off. I don't consider the world to be coming together at all.

Morals and ethics are always going to be unique to an individual. No group will ever agree on everything discussed.
That is why it is much easier to rule homogeneous society versus a heterogeneous one. President of the United States is the toughest job in the world.

Wether it is Clinton or Bush, I don't always agree but I have tremendous respect for their ability to make it through the day.

-Mr. Wigggles

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
rev-2-9k (we still need to do that Stage 1 comparo dude!)



http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28518

I think I saw you the other day with two kids in the car? I waved to your son in the front seat.

Maybe I was wrong we were on Bay Area Blvd.

I ran in the area behind Elington where it runs up to Red Bluff, with an anonymous member of this board.

If it was me, I'm sorry I didn't see you. If the car was hauling ass, it probably was me. :D

I would love to do a different comparo with you. I have the original CZ Stage 1 (not 1.1) and not sure which flash, but definitely pre L. Have to be a couple of weeks or more though, I'm pretty busy until June.

I kind of suspected we would get the results you got..... :(

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
Tell me, what higher power do you have to render judgment or retract it? What occupation do you have? What office do you hold? [/B[QUOTE]

None-If we must render judgement lets keep the fact that we are not perfect before us when we decide to inflict the ultimate punishment.

[Quote]You speak all high and mighty[QUOTE
] No YOU talk all high and mighty-I talk cautiously and unsure of myself.

[QUOTE] but you give no alternative to the existing system. You criticize but offer no cure. Your words ring out hollow without a proposed solution to the problem to which you speak. [QUOTE]

The alternative is obvious-life without parole. Then if we find out we have make a mistake, we can give the guy back his life.

[QUOTE]Sit down young one and let me fill you in on a little secret.
Ideal worlds where everyone is good, nice, well mannered, polite, and law-abiding don't exist in reality. Reality depicts the criminal system's punishments and the crimes committed within that reality explain the convictions. Reality and the world we live in is all the justification that is needed. [QUOTE]

I'm 61 years old.
Ideal worlds to me are NOT do gooder places, but places where reality is accurately described. If this were so, we could be confident that a convicted person was guilty. In that case I would NOT be against the death penalty.

[Quote]Tell me, what world or alternative plane of existence do you live in, I am dying to know. [/B]

I live in a world where I am not comfortable with deciding to take someones life unless he is right now trying to kill me or someone else.

I have made a lot of decisions that I regretted later. If you decided to execute someone who later was proven innocent and that is a responsibility you are willing to take, I am happy not to be in your shoes.

Sorry for the sloppy editing job- I'm still learning
:)

Originally posted by Seenitall
I live in a world where I am not comfortable with deciding to take someones life unless he is right now trying to kill me or someone else.

I have made a lot of decisions that I regretted later. If you decided to execute someone who later was proven innocent and that is a responsibility you are willing to take, I am happy not to be in your shoes.

Sorry for the sloppy editing job- I'm still learning
:)

So what you are saying is that you are willing to completely and totally sacrifice the rights of the victims and the rights of the victims families because of a moral conundrum you are having due to the multitudes of egregious errors and bad decisions that you have made in YOUR life? These are not victimless crimes of which we are speaking and I am disgusted and highly insulted by your brazen disregard for the rights of fellow law abiding citizens within society.

Maybe you should reconsider who you are championing here. You need to be defending the rights of the victims who no longer have a voice to defend themselves rather then the rights of the convicted and condemned.

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
Yes, I did read your post and in the interest of discussion I will give you a US government class 101 lesson.

Back on topic. The federal statute that you have listed above is part of a group of laws that were passed during our nations glorious War on Drugs. They have been on the books for years. If you don't like them, then either work within the existing system to change them or start a revolution, win the revolution, and then make your own laws to your liking. Do something about it. :D

I am actually quite active politically. That is one of the reasons I posted that information. What's the matter didn't see how it was relevant? One of the ways I like to make change is by bringing up information that other people are usually unaware of and here in the lounge there are a few different formats for me to bring up different ideas about it. If you think the laws are good as they are good for you then defend them. If not then state an opinion. If you don't care then don't respond. I wasn't singling you out with that statement I was simply making note that we have capital punishment laws on the books for people who have possibly never been violent in their lives. I say WTF were lawmakers thinking. Is marijuana such a huge problem that people are dying from its' use? Of course not. So what is the reasoning and under a topic of capital punishment I don't see how this is not relevant.

Show me a country with a perfect judicial system. Any nation in history with a perfect judicial system. I can't think of a single one, and that's the point. There is no perfect judicial system. Does that mean that we should not dish out judgments or punishments, or even try to make it the least flawless system we can come up with? Last time I checked, there's been no perfect government in history either, but we still try to make the best one we can, and we still let them make laws that we abide by.

The point of the death penalty is 2 things: deterrance from others commiting those crimes, and to keep vigilante justice from taking place. This according to Justice White in the 70s when the supreme court made decisions which enacted changes in the way the death penalty was dished out and administered to try and make it a last resort punishment.

The big picture is does the death penalty deter anyone else from doing it? This is a tough question because you can't look inside anyone's head. The other question is whether or not we should dish out the death penalty knowing full and well that we might make a mistake and send an innocent person to execution.

Originally posted by 93rdcurrent
I am actually quite active politically. That is one of the reasons I posted that information.

Good that makes two of us.

Originally posted by 93rdcurrent
What's the matter didn't see how it was relevant? One of the ways I like to make change is by bringing up information that other people are usually unaware of and here in the lounge there are a few different formats for me to bring up different ideas about it. If you think the laws are good as they are good for you then defend them. If not then state an opinion. If you don't care then don't respond. I wasn't singling you out with that statement I was simply making note that we have capital punishment laws on the books for people who have possibly never been violent in their lives. I say WTF were lawmakers thinking. Is marijuana such a huge problem that people are dying from its' use? Of course not. So what is the reasoning and under a topic of capital punishment I don't see how this is not relevant.

The bulk of my response was directed specifically at clarifying the spin job you put on the Newt Gingrich bill supported by "26 republican cronies."

As for my last paragraph within that statement, I thought my sarcasm was rather evident in my remarks to the glorious war on drugs and hints toward a revolution. My intent was to inspire you to act instead of just posting and debating a topic within the privacy of their own homes and offices. I ment to harm by the statement in itself and I agree that the specific federal statute in question should be put under review.

I do however stand firmly behind the decision in Texas that was stated in the original post and the need for capital punishment within a societies criminal justice system.

Originally posted by Skapunk
The big picture is does the death penalty deter anyone else from doing it? This is a tough question because you can't look inside anyone's head.

Unfortunately there will never be an answer to this question. As you have stated, there is no way to look inside the minds of the convicted as well as no way to find and examine those who are potentially "deterred."

Originally posted by Skapunk
The other question is whether or not we should dish out the death penalty knowing full and well that we might make a mistake and send an innocent person to execution.

Start correct the flaws and injustices within the system and society as a whole and this question will have no need to be asked.

Point taken. Sorry if I got a little defensive, I just keep hearing these voices in my head... :) Anyway I am torn on this decision. I have listened to both sides of the issue in other cases and in certain situations I can see no re-habillitation possible and for that reason death seems like the only good answer to protect society. On the other hand in states that have a 3 strikes law and either capital punishment or life in prison is inevitable regardless of the type of crime... that where it moves into a gray area with me.

Also it seems that many of our law enforcement tend to buckle under the pressure of "trying to get their man." I posted a while back about a story coming out of Katy, Texas where young woman went missing. The story was aired on 60 Minutes and was called "The Devils Playground." Soon the town had appointed several people to help with the investigation and everyone became suspect including the officer leading the investigation. Within no time he was arrested and eye witnesses were badgered into stating that it was a Satanic cult involving several of the people in town (including the officer above) and the missing woman was supposed to have been killed in a strange ritual. Many children were also supposed to have been sexually abused and killed as well. This was eventually figured out and the officer has since been exonerated of the crimes but there are still people in this town who believed it happened. To date the body of the young woman hasn't been found and the investigators are still working on the case. Had this gone to trial and the officer been convicted he would have been facing the death penalty. This is scary when you think about it and I guess it depends on who the 12 jurors are, exactly how safe you will be.

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
So what you are saying is that you are willing to completely and totally sacrifice the rights of the victims and the rights of the victims families because of a moral conundrum you are having
I'm not sacrificing the rights of anyone here, except maybe the people who enjoy executions.
due to the multitudes of egregious errors and bad decisions that you have made in YOUR life? [/B]

None of the bad decisions in my life Have anythig to do with breaking the law. If YOU have never made a decision you later regretted, my hat is off to you.

These are not victimless crimes of which we are speaking [/B]
Every tome someone is killed, we are ALL victims.

and I am disgusted and highly insulted by your brazen disregard for the rights of fellow law abiding citizens within society.[/B]
If you are REALLY disgusted, GRAVOL may help.
Maybe you should reconsider who you are championing here. You need to be defending the rights of the victims who no longer have a voice to defend themselves rather then the rights of the convicted and condemned. [/B]
If I convict and execute an innocent person, I have created another victim. If he is later found innocent. I havent F**cked up irretrievably.:) :)

But the officer was exonerated because he was found innocent.

That was a strange story, I saw it on 60 minutes as well. It only proves that there are even stranger people out there.

Good thing he was exonerated. I feel that some cases such as this get through the system without the serious 2nd look. I still have to ask a serious question of the people who oppose the death penalty. Let's say that someone sits on death row for 20 years only to be found innocent? What kind of a life do they have left? is there anything that will replace what they've lost? Think about it... kids growing up, marriage (if married wife would've likely filed for divorce and if not how do they plan on meeting someone with a jaded past?), family, house, etc. All these things woud have been taken away and the person is left with nothing. I would probably want my life ended after such an ordeal. I'm not stating that we should kill these people I am just bringing up the argument that life in prison is no worse than death. I would want to be killed early on and not have to suffer all these losses, even if it meant my release in 20 years.

Originally posted by Seenitall
I'm not sacrificing the rights of anyone-the convicted person sits in the slammer the rest of his life.
I made mistakes in my life, yes.
NONE OF THESE INCLUDED BREAKING THE LAW

Yes, you are. You are sacrificing the rights of the victim who has no voice, the victim who cannot speak and has been silenced by the criminals on death row.

Life in prison means that they still get to breath, live, read, see, eat, shit, and sleep. Unfortunately their victims no longer have these abilities as there rights as human being were taken away by a psychopath.

How does it feel sleeping at night knowing that you are further violating the rights of the victims with your misguided attempts at humanity? Your disgust me good sir with your lack of compassion for the innocent parties fo which these maniacs have buttered.

Make no mistake, your proposal violates them a second time.

All these things woud have been taken away and the person is left with nothing.
I think I'd have to rob a bank or something. A job would be out of the question. They should pay such a person a huge settlement for the inconvenience he has suffered so that he wouldn't be forced to make decisions like that. It definitely wouldn't be fair to make him start from scratch, or have to go through legal obstacles to get a settlement.

I can't believe this thread is still getting action. I kind of posted it as a whim.

Caught you before the EDIT above. :D

Originally posted by Seenitall
If I convict and execute an innocent person, I have created another victim. If he is later found innocent. I havent F**cked up irretrievably.:) :)

Then fix the system and don't blame the punishment for its flaws.

Your weakened moral character has no business being forced onto other, unless that is truly the Canadian way. Who are you to pass judgment on a society that you do not live in nor support?

I am a Texan, I live here, I pay my taxes, and I wholeheartedly support the decisions of my state government in its choices of punitive laws.

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
Caught you before the EDIT above. :D



Then fix the system and don't blame the punishment for its flaws.

Your weakened moral character has no business being forced onto other, unless that is truly the Canadian way. Who are you to pass judgment on a society that you do not live in nor support?

I am a Texan, I live here, I pay my taxes, and I wholeheartedly support the decisions of my state government in its choice of punitive laws.

My weakened moral character-I better mention that one when I go to confession Sunday morning.

We ALL pass judgement with every choice we make.

Why critcise me as a Canadian when 12 of the States dont have capital pubishment?

The last time I checked, this was an OPEN forum with no signs "FOREIGNERS NOT WELCOME"

Try not to get too personal when you post-it only makes you look silly:)

Whimsical as it may have started out it is getting interesting now... I agree but here in lies the problem... Once someone in our society has been deemed an outlaw the problem becomes that they don't have the same treatment even after being sent back into society as a "free person." So let's say we pay them for injustices 20 years later? What is 20 years of pain and suffering worth when you have had to endure all kinds of heartache in the meantime while knowing you are innocent? All I'm trying to say is that life in prison doesn't really make sense in our system. Either we are truelly trying to re-habillitate the inmates or we are just too feable to do what should be done. Either they should be executed for crimes against society and a lack of abillity to re-habillitate them or they need to given something more than a felony the likes of which keeps them from being able to do more than pump your gas or work as a janitor away from anyone else. I hear that construction can be good for ex-felons...

What I am trying to point out is that it just doesn't seem to work to take someone from a f'ed up life in the first place, convict them of a felony, have them serve their time and release them into nothing. I would re-offend too. I would have no way of making a decent life for myself and all I learned in prison was how to do other types of crimes (well that and how to make my 290 lbs cell mate happy I'm sure). So given these circumstances is at any reason that non-violent offenders go back to the judicial system as violent offenders? Then later we see people with manditory life sentences or death row for later crimes. And if they did have children what do you think the chances of them getting inducted into the system are 50, 60, 80% likely?

Originally posted by Seenitall
Try not to get too personal when you post-it only makes you look silly:)

Maybe you don't get it yet, but this issue is personal for me. And since your arguments have yet to make any congruent sense other then making yourself look the fool, you are the silly old man in Canada who doesn't know a damn about what he has to say or the issues.

Originally posted by 93rdcurrent
...all I learned in prison was how to do other types of crimes... and how to make my 290 lbs cell mate happy...
You just don't strike me as the 'bitch' type. :)

(then again, I'd rather you didn't strike me!)

There are opportunities in prison for inmates to get an education and learn a trade. I wonder how many of them take advantage of their time (not "free time") to do it. I don't think some of them can be reformed either. There are some sick people in the world.

The above is called quoting out of context, and it is done all the time by the media.

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
Maybe you don't get it yet, but this issue is personal for me. And since your arguments have yet to make any congruent sense other then striking a personal cord with, you are the silly old man in Canada who doesn't know a damn about what he has to say.

The defence rests :)

Originally posted by Seenitall
The defence rests :)

You have no defense, you haven't made an argument other then some sort of moral conundrum about your past misgivings in life that I have proven to not hold water.

Come back and talk to me when you form a complete argument that you can carry through.

The word as it stands now is that you are WRONG, deal with it.

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
You have no defense, you haven't made an argument other then some sort of moral conundrum about your past misgivings in life that I have proven to not hold water.

Come back and talk to me when you form a complete argument that you can carry through.

The word as it stands now is that you are WRONG, deal with it.

If you say so:confused:

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
The word as it stands now is that you are WRONG, deal with it.
While my views are closer to yours, there definitely is no right or wrong in this discussion. Let's keep it civil.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
While my views are closer to yours, there definitely is no right or wrong in this discussion. Let's keep it civil.

Is this WHAT THEY CALL FLAMING :) :)
Actually, you are right .I should have realized this was getting out of hand and let it go. Live and learn

I disagree that capital punishment has any deterrent value; if it did, then no crimes warranting them would ever be made, correct? That doesn't seem to be the case. This may be simplistic, but hear me out... Is there any argument for deterrence that doesn't assume rational self interest? Because it seems like there are people out there who just dont give a rat's ass about their lives, (and I sort of think even just criminal behavior implicitly carries this), who are quite simply not going to be deterred, and will commit heinous crimes. These crimes will be committed, as unfortunate as it is.

So what if capital punishment has deterrent value because it deters enough? Like maybe there are those who are afraid of losing life such that they choose not to commit warranting crimes. So those crimes won't be committed, and some people do not become victims or victim's families. I was thinking about this and it seems probably true.

But how many such crimes are opted against based on the calculation that execution is that much worse than life imprisonment. This subtracts from deterrent value because life imprisonment would have comparable deterrent value. Furthermore, how often do people actually make this calculation in the 'heat' of the crime? A friend just informed me that capital punishment is usually made based on premeditation... so I guess the perpetrator has time to think about it. But to have the frame of mind to go out of the way to commit these crimes seems a contrary argument. I'm least sure about this point. However I am somewhat sure that the mentally ill are probably less likely to make a death vs. life imprisonment calculation. So capital punishment might have deterrent value in that it deters enough, but what's the use of capital punishment when people, including the mentally retarded/ill, will not be deterred?

I guess what's left is capital punishment's value in retribution, and the value in getting these people out of society. Retribution seems to only have value for the victim's family/friends, and so whats the difference between this and vigilante justice? or rather, why is vigilante justice not allowed? Due process, maybe, to establish guilt "as best possible" through the judicial system. So how come victims are not allowed to throw the switch? I think the trivial answer would be to prevent some kind of sadism, but if retribution is valued why disallow that extra bit of retribution to the victim's family? I ask this because I really don't know... it seems like some ethical question for which there is some standard answer.

I don't know if retribution is really a value for anyone else than the victim's family/friends. As for me there are so many unknowns, and I have never really followed such a case from beginning to end to ever conclude this for myself.

Let's play name the movie:
"Do you believe in karma, Joe?"
"Karma? Karma is only justice, without the satisfaction."

So the third value is keeping these people out of society. I think life imprisonment does the same function.


If you notice I left out any discussion of costs other than the guilty's. I'd like to attempt to discuss these other costs now. Someone brought up the cost to taxpayers, I think in addition there are cost to the innocent. I'm not sure about this, but it seems that crimes are sunk costs, and should be ignored in light of the other costs. I think whether or not the guilty's continued existence represents a cost to the victim's family/friends is unclear enough to fall under the previous discussion of retribution or is otherwise a tangent discussion.

The cost to taxpayers for this choice is the price of life imprisonment minus cost of execution. This cost I think only exists if it is argued that capital punishment has retributive value or deterrent value for those who can be deterred, otherwise there is no choice to make. The cost to the innocent is their life.

These two costs are inextricably related, because they both result from the same choice. I take as assumption, given the thread discussion, that the judicial system is not perfect, that with some probability some of the innocent will be convicted.

I think it is at this point that many would say that the choice boils down to taxpayers each saving a few bucks on their 1040's at the expense of some poor innocent bastard losing his life. This in turn has something to do with valuing life much much more than life imprisonment, which is arguable. The truly innocent are different than the truly guilty and so they are in how they evaluate their lives.

However, since not everybody evaluates life absolutely, you can also take insurance estimates of the value of human life. This is where it gets too detached (though maybe also inaccurate, i dont know) for many people. But if you do accept this framework of argument, then you can do a cost comparison: cost to each taxpayer of life imprisonment minus the probability of falsely convicting the innocent times dollar value of life. The former cost is choosing life imprisonment, the latter is the cost of capital punishment. This is the choice at the individual level, that each individual makes. Societies do not make choices except as the result of individual choice.

However, this isn't the complete picture, as it focuses only on costs, and maybe not all of them at that. I don't know how to factor in deterrent or retributive value, and also when an individual supports capital punishment they also take on the risk of false conviction to their own person. I did think it was an informative point though.

I'm told the statistics of overturned sentences make a strong case by itself, I was wondering if anyone had those.

But that's all I wanted to say. I'm not a lawyer or an economist or anything really but I do think these points are valid. As such, i think only counterarguments specific to these points or other points in the thread topical to the discussion are similarly valid.

I was enjoying it,

Arguments like this make me wish I was still in collegiate debate.

ER Doc, True some of this is available to long-term inmates and I would recommend that they use their time to some good. I'm just making the point that it is not the focus of prison to do that even if that was the original idea behind prisons.

I think that the ones we can't "fix" should be executed. All these child molesters that get to 60 kids and can't even seem to stay in prison... Just recently a violent rapist was released here in Washington State. This guy is considered a predator that has no chance at changing even by his own admition. This guy was let out on a technicallity that just doesn't make sense to me. Why is he still alive? Here's a link: http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66545 .

Yeah, he doesn't seem llike a likely rehabilitation candidate.

We had a child molester locally who soon after his release put up flyers offering to babysit 2 to 6 year old children, and be like a "big brother" to them. Wonder what his family was like?

Those scumbags make me sick. When I did prison hospital work, I stopped looking at the part of their folder where their crime was, because I couldn't look at them the same way or treat them the same knowing that they had molested children. It was better for me to not know.

Capital Punishment vs. Life Without Parole

Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape, like Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min commiting murder again. He was executed by the state of Virginia on November 14, 1997.

Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. Take the Moore case in New York State for example.

In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!

If Pamela's parents knew that they couldn't trust the state, Moore could have been executed long ago and they could have put the whole horrible incident behind them forever. Instead they have a nightmare to deal with biannually. I'll bet not a day goes by that they don't kick themselves for being foolish enough to trust the liberal sham that is life imprisonment and rehabilitation. (According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is five years and eleven months.)

Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that he will strike again. And there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow him to repeat his crime.

Kenneth McDuff, for instance, was convicted of the 1966 shooting deaths of two boys and the vicious rape-strangulation of their 16-year-old female companion. A Fort Worth jury ruled that McDuff should die in the electric chair, a sentence commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as then imposed. In 1989, with Texas prisons overflowing and state officials under fire from the federal judiciary, McDuff was quietly turned loose on an unsuspecting citizenry.

Within days, a naked body of a woman turned up. Prostitute Sarafia Parker, 31, had been beaten, strangled and dumped in a field near Temple. McDuff's freedom in 1989 was interrupted briefly. Jailed after a minor racial incident, he slithered through the system and was out again in 1990.

In early 1991, McDuff enrolled at Texas State Technical College in Waco. Soon, Central Texas prostitutes began disappearing. One, Valencia Joshua, 22, was last seen alive Feb. 24, 1991. Her naked, decomposed body later was discovered in a shallow grave in woods behind the college. Another of the missing women, Regenia Moore, was last seen kicking and screaming in the cab of McDuff's pickup truck. During the Christmas holidays of 1991, Colleen Reed disappeared from an Austin car wash. Witnesses reported hearing a woman scream that night and seeing two men speeding away in a yellow or tan Thunderbird. Little more than two months later, on March 1, 1992, Melissa Northrup, pregnant with a third child, vanished from the Waco convenience store where she worked. McDuff's beige Thunderbird, broken down, was discovered a block from the store.

Fifty-seven days later, a fisherman found the young woman's nearly nude body floating in a gravel pit in Dallas County, 90 miles north of Waco. By then, McDuff was the target of a nationwide manhunt. Just days after Mrs. Northrup's funeral, McDuff was recognized on television's "America's Most Wanted'' and arrested May 4 in Kansas City.

In 1993, a Houston jury ordered him executed for the kidnap-slaying of 22-year-old Melissa Northrup, a Waco mother of two. In 1994, a Seguin jury assessed him the death penalty for the abduction-rape-murder of 28-year-old Colleen Reed, an Austin accountant. Pamplin's son Larry, the current sheriff of Falls County, appeared at McDuff's Houston trial for the 1992 abduction and murder of Melissa Northrup.

"Kenneth McDuff is absolutely the most vicious and savage individual I know,'' he told reporters. "He has absolutely no conscience, and I think he enjoys killing.''
If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.''
At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect.

His riegn of terror finally ended on November 17, 1998 when Kenneth McDuff was put to death by the state of Texas by Lethal Injection. May his victims rest in peace.

There has also been major political hay made out of a nasty scandal involving a prisoner named Willie Horton and Massachusetts' controversial "Prison Furlough Program." Massachussets governor Mike Dukakis was genuinely committed to the program, and had worked hard to bolster it, despite serious public concerns. In 1976, he'd actually vetoed legislation that would have banned furloughs for first-degree murderers, defending the practice as an essential "management tool."

Thus, a decade later, in June of 1986, there was nothing in the law to deny convicted murderer Horton what was supposed to be a routine 48-hour leave.

Predictably, Horton didn't play by the rules. He fled, eventually arriving in Maryland, where, in April of 1987, he had pistol-whipped and knifed Clifford Barnes, then bound and gagged him and twice raped his fiancee, Angela. When the story of the furlough became known, Horton's brutality created a public uproar.

The Maryland judge who subsequently sentenced Horton to two consecutive life terms refused to extradite him to Massachusetts. "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed . . . This man should never draw a breath of free air again," said the judge.

The scandal heated to a rolling boil. In April of 1988, embattled Massachusetts legislators finally killed the 16-year-old program -- without further resistance from Dukakis. Thank God!

This is why for people who truly value public safety, there is no substitute for the best in its defense which is capital punishment. It not only forever bars the murderer from killing again, it also prevents parole boards and criminal rights activists from giving him the chance to repeat his crime.

Death row inmates always have a story to tell and in this internet age somebody is going to be willing to listen. It is every journalist dream to find that one guy on death row that was framed. The movie A Thin Blue Line was about that. In 1976 a man was convicted of a murder the didn't commit. It wasn't until the 1988 documentary that it became clear he was truely innocent. He was released in 1989.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are also cases like Gary Graham who was a complete SOB in the early 1981 who was on death row for 19 years before being executed.

You have websites such as this one: http://people.freenet.de/DeathRow/Memory.html that paint a totally one sided story of the event. They forget to mention that:

1. the key eye witness was black women who never changed her story from day one despite intense pressure over the years from the "black community" (That is in quotes because I don't know how many black people are actually Graham fans.)

2. The murder was at the very end of a series of attempted murders, burgarlies, muggings etc violent crime spree that Graham and his friends had been on. In 2000, when Hollywood got involved in the matter, I heard the direct acount on the radio of a story of one of Grahams victims (wish I could remember his name) who was picked up by a very befriending Graham when the guy was having car trouble. Graham and his friends in the car stayed friendly while they pretended to give the guy a ride. Graham then turned totally switched gears, became very enraged, hateful and violent. He took out his shotgun and tried to kill the white guy. In the struggle to get free, the guy managed to grab the gun as Graham was firing. Instead of dieing he only got part of his ear blown off.

There were multiple other scenarios. To think this Graham was a saint caught in the wrong place at the wrong time during the killing of Bobby Lambert, is ridiculous. He was a rotten apple to the core.

3. Graham was very litigous behind bars and got something like 17 appeals. None of which showed enough evidence to warrant a new trial.

If you really wanted to frame a guy in this day, I think it would be easier to get the guy on some sort of life sentence rather than capital murder. There is just so much more press now than there was nearly 30 years ago. I dare say there's less bigotry as well.

Capital punishment abolishers are always trying to find cases to support their beliefs. I respect their efforts to search for injustice, but don't agree with their beliefs.

-Mr. Wigggles