Why does America coddle our KILLERS?

[FIFI]

Look into Americas famous killers... Son of Sam, Green River Killer, Dommer, John Wayne Gacey, Dayton LeeRoy Rogers. How about the ones we don't hear about, the ones who don't have books and movies to retell there horrible tales...
I did some research for my criminal psychology class, and I was horrified at how blatantly blind our is to the obvious signs and crimes of serial killers, before they were fully developed and prosecuted.
Dayton Rogers had over eight counts of knife assaults on women, but was always rereleased. He then proceeded to stab and torture eight (convicted of, but its estimated there may be as many as fourteen)
women in a two year period.

Why does America allow such killers back into society?
Do we not learn from past mistakes?
Look at the majority of serial killer cases, there were rumors of, and even convictions for, violence against animals and people. Over and over again, we let these creatures back into our society and they kill again and again. Why do we not open our eyes? Punish those who have been found harshly to show others what will happen, plus, it will open our jail cells :eek: Sorry, a little grim humor.
Ok, enough of my rambling, WHAT DO YOU THINK??

[bugsbunny04]

My thought: The death penalty is to merciful. The walking dead are seperated from the general population and then recieve a rather swift execution. Life in prison is a punishment of far greater severity. Lifers are subject to the hardships of regular prison life that walking dead are sheltered from.

[The Dunedan]

What Bugs said.
Plus, if someone is later found to be innocent ( as seems to be happening a lot these days ) they can be released; they can't be ressurected.

[Gorgo]

I think we should vote our murderers back into office.

[marco_funk]

I am against the death penalty. I think each murder situation needs to be dealt with seperately, according to its specific context. Attention should be given to the restoration and emotional health of the victim's family members, the psychological health of the murderer, and reintegrating criminals that 'changed their ways' back into society.
peace,
Marco Funk

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Lawyers need to be removed from the equation, that would hasten the execution process which would increase the likelihood of the deterrence aspect of the death sentence. Right now lawyers fiddle with crap for years and very few people actually get executed at all. In Singapore you get a trial, one appeal and then BAM!. No bull, cheap in comparison to life imprison and a greatly reduced violent crime rate because of the actuality of execution actually being carried out.

Always remember that an executed criminal will never reoffend. Some may say that execution is not a viable solution because if even one man is innocent it has gone to far. I say a little collateral damage is better for the over all public good. Criminals are not people, they gave up their rights when they took them from someone else. No more soft cuddly teddy bear solutions for criminals. Harsh, long and painful punishment is the answer.

[Waychel]

As much as I agree that we "coddle our killers", I believe that the appeals process is necessary to the judicial process. The issue of guilt or innocence is of the utmost importance. There were people convicted of murders back in the 70's that, due to the introduction of DNA testing to forensics in recent years, were later proven to be entirely innocent. IMO, a conviction is not what eliminates all doubt: the appeals process is. Our system is not perfect and the only thing that should be expedient about it is the right to a trial; not the execution of a death conviction.

[Pooeypants]

No one is beyond redemption, if death was the answer our problems then we might as well kill everyone now and get it over and with.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins Lawyers need to be removed from the equation, that would hasten the execution process which would increase the likelihood of the deterrence aspect of the death sentence. Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins It would also increase the (already high) probability of executing the innocent. In any case executions don't deter. Right now lawyers fiddle with crap for years and very few people actually get executed at all. In Singapore you get a trial, one appeal and then BAM!. No bull, cheap in comparison to life imprison and a greatly reduced violent crime rate because of the actuality of execution actually being carried out. Always remember that an executed criminal will never reoffend. Some may say that execution is not a viable solution because if even one man is innocent it has gone to far. I say a little collateral damage is better for the over all public good. Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins Which is great if you're not the collateral damage. In any case I've never seen any evidence for the public good being served by executions. Criminals are not people, they gave up their rights when they took them from someone else. No more soft cuddly teddy bear solutions for criminals. Harsh, long and painful punishment is the answer.

Yet that's been tried for years and found wanting. If you stopped harrasing pothead and dope fiends you'd have enough cash to catch more of the murderers and make deterence more credible.

[castille]

People are obssessed with criminals because of the "rebellion" notion.

You see, most people get bored of being good little citizens. But if they stopped being good citizens and murdered 50 people randomly, they would be put in jail. So they experience the thrill of breaking laws by playing Grand Theft Auto and worshipping criminals.

[caspian88]

A murder ends a life. You only get one life. If you kill someone, I don't want to pay so that you can get three meals a day, when you deserve to be killed. Either kill thm, or buy an island and dump them there. Let them appeal, and if they can't prove their innocence, kill them.

In order to facilitate the process, however, we need judicial reforms, such as the admission of any and all true evidence whatsoever, fewer of those bloody technicalities that get cases thrown out for no reason, and no more trials in the media. Normally, I'm for freedom of speech, but when the media messes up the whole legal process, they have no business being there.

[tinybear]

"Let them appeal, and if they can't prove their innocence, kill them? " Wow, what happened to the prosecution having to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

[caspian88]

They've already been proven guilty. Notice the use of the word "appeal." You don't appeal if you haven't been proven to be anything.

[Waychel]

Funny how a number of the same people who are against the death penalty are also the ones who go on and on about un-employment rates and defacit in this country. When a convicted murderer is sentenced to life in prison, we as tax payers go in for the long-haul to pay their future exorbitant medical expenses. Registered nurses and psychiatrists are on call for all of these prisoners. If a prisoner developes major physical problems, then nurses will actually be on-staff to care for them. We must also pay for all of the medication required by such prisoners. The fact of the matter is that our penitentiary system is both overcrowded and over budget. Why keep serial murderers and rapists alive to violate society even further?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Waychel Funny how a number of the same people who are against the death penalty are also the ones who go on and on about un-employment rates and defacit in this country. When a convicted murderer is sentenced to life in prison, we as tax payers go in for the long-haul to pay their future exorbitant medical expenses. Registered nurses and psychiatrists are on call for all of these prisoners. If a prisoner developes major physical problems, then nurses will actually be on-staff to care for them. We must also pay for all of the medication required by such prisoners. The fact of the matter is that our penitentiary system is both overcrowded and over budget. Why keep serial murderers and rapists alive to violate society even further?

Hmm, didn't expect a female to be so brutal...

I suppose we could execute all the murderers, but are rapists on the same level? What if we found that some people genetically disposed to crime, should they die for that too?

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: Waychel Funny how a number of the same people who are against the death penalty are also the ones who go on and on about un-employment rates and defacit in this country. When a convicted murderer is sentenced to life in prison, we as tax payers go in for the long-haul to pay their future exorbitant medical expenses. Registered nurses and psychiatrists are on call for all of these prisoners. If a prisoner developes major physical problems, then nurses will actually be on-staff to care for them. We must also pay for all of the medication required by such prisoners. The fact of the matter is that our penitentiary system is both overcrowded and over budget. Why keep serial murderers and rapists alive to violate society even further?

Can't believe such a hottie is such a hawk. Prisoners work for pennies and are many times contracted out for state projects. Prisoners can pay for themselves. You make it sound like club med and it most certainly is not.

[Waychel]

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, California alone currently holds 7000 elderly inmates over the age of 55 and that number is estimated to grow to 30,500 by 2020, which would lead to a $4 billion annual cost EXCLUSIVELY. My state isn't alone in the overbearing number of elderly inmates that must be accomodated for and the fact of the matter is that our penitentiary system is as over-stressed in budget as it is in capacity. This is why good behavior practically guarantees parole to elderly inmates. We are putting more child molesters and killers back on the streets just because of their age. Life in prison means NOTHING unless it is followed by the statement, "without eligability for parole."

Prisoners age just the same as we do and actually have a much higher predisposition towards health problems in old age (considering that most have a drug history). Inmates with more serious convictions of murder are just better off dead in my opinion rather than inconveniencing society even further. I believe our tax dollars would be better spent in the interest of furthering the educational system or promoting afterschool programs and social services so that such crimes can be stopped at the source. Dealing with the "leftovers" is not humane, but placing the care of societies failings as a priority over our future.

[tinybear]

Quote by: caspian88 They've already been proven guilty. Notice the use of the word "appeal." You don't appeal if you haven't been proven to be anything.

This is a circular argument. The whole point of the appeal is the accused was wrongly convicted. My understanding is that the accused is under no obligation to prove his innocence at any stage of the criminal justice process.

[Pooeypants]

How about we take all the prisoners are send them off to a remote island where they've got no chance to escape? It'll make for decent tele...

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: Waychel According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, California alone currently holds 7000 elderly inmates over the age of 55 and that number is estimated to grow to 30,500 by 2020, which would lead to a $4 billion annual cost EXCLUSIVELY. My state isn't alone in the overbearing number of elderly inmates that must be accomodated for and the fact of the matter is that our penitentiary system is as over-stressed in budget as it is in capacity. This is why good behavior practically guarantees parole to elderly inmates. We are putting more child molesters and killers back on the streets just because of their age. Life in prison means NOTHING unless it is followed by the statement, "without eligability for parole." Prisoners age just the same as we do and actually have a much higher predisposition towards health problems in old age (considering that most have a drug history). Inmates with more serious convictions of murder are just better off dead in my opinion rather than inconveniencing society even further. I believe our tax dollars would be better spent in the interest of furthering the educational system or promoting afterschool programs and social services so that such crimes can be stopped at the source. Dealing with the "leftovers" is not humane, but placing the care of societies failings as a priority over our future.

Do you work for Arnold Swartzenegger or something? Life in prison means a lot. There is nothing wrong with a parole system. I assume we are not merely "putting more child molesters and killers back on the streets just because of their age" (of course, I'm not too sure about California...bunch of wierdos) I'm assuming these people are serving their time before their release. Besides, take the non-violent drug offenders out of prison and it's solves this entire problem. Also, government has no right to take money to build reeductaion camps, so , no, the money wouldn't be better spent on Arnold's "furthering the educational system or promoting afterschool programs and social services so that such crimes can be stopped at the source." Public schools's are breeding grounds for crime. Children learn to be thugs in public schools. You merely turn one problem into another.