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]

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.

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.

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?