It's not revenge, nor deterrence. It's peace of mind.
Have you ever been involved in a physical assault of some sort, and had an insecure feeling every time you go out in public for months? Or even a car wreck -- you know how it takes weeks to get over a nervous feeling every time you drive? Recovery happens with time, but you have to keep reminding yourself that the chance of having it happen again are small.
Imagine having a stable, comfortable world; then having someone commit a brutal act on one member of this world. It's that same haunted feeling, only much worse; it's very uncomfortable and nervous. Telling yourself that it can't happen again when you know that person is still around and going to be free eventually.... it's hard.
Just a slightly difference perspective. I was firmly opposed to the death penalty until I saw it from this direction.
Having heard stories from my brother in law (a prosecutor in a rural OH) that detail quite nicely the depths of cruelty that one human can perpetrate on an another, I absolutely think that there are some people who deserve to die, and it's the state's duty to carry that out.
However, like most simple and elegant ideas that spring from the mind of humanity, it's the implementation that causes the problems...
1) clearly there are criminal acts that warrant the death penalty. How can we be certain that all such acts can be dealt with in the same manner? Jurys are human and loaded with prejudice and fear (for their own families, making mistakes). This noise can in some cases cause some to escape the gallows while others do not.
2) While there are certainly crimes that warrant the death penalty, is the accused guilty of the crime? Rarely are crimes committed where there is utter certainty in the identity of the perpetrator. Due to the 'absoluteness' of the death penalty, I think we should have the same level of certainty that those condemned are in fact guilty of what they are accused.
I would have a very hard time on a jury. unless the evidence is absolutely irrefutable (it was physically impossible for this person not to have committed a crime) then there's a chance the person could be falsely convicted. I think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is just not realistic for most people, or maybe I just find too many doubts reasonable.
then again, even though I like to think of myself even headed and eager to embrace diversity, I know I have my prejudices; and I honestly can't say whether I'd be able to set them aside and not be effected by them when the time came. I was called for jury duty once and I couldn't tell the judge honestly that I could be impartial.
There are some prospective jurors who have a real problem differentiating between the concepts of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond all possible doubt." That's very common.
how is the distinction important? I don't even know which is applicable in court. I suppose "all reasonable..." would be the one, but I'm not sure.
beyond a reasonable doubt... that would mean we are given only one doubt to decide over. that would make jury duty easier, but it wouldn't have much to do with justice.
beyond all reasonable doubt... would mean I can come up with my own doubts and determine whether doubts raised by others are reasonable. sounds better.
do I have that right?
My problem wouldn't have much to do with this. I think I might have too easy a time finding doubts that are in my opinion reasonable. Then again, if I don't like the person being tried, I cannot say how hard I would try to find doubts. It's terrible... I know. The case I might have been a juror for was this fella who had allegedly raped a little girl. The thought of it made me extremely angry and the look on the guy's face... I had decided he was guilty already. I wonder how many of the other prospective jurors felt the same way.
I don't get this argument. Where does the "peace of mind" come from? Why would killing someone bring "peace of mind"?
One possible answer that you mentioned is that the person will never be able to commit the same or any similar crime again. Well what are the chances, really, of that person doing it over again if they're spending a life sentence in prison? next to nill. what if my neighbor is a drunk and he runs down my brother one night? this guy, in my opinion is much more likely to kill again than someone who might kill my brother intentionally, because he's like a monkey with a gun, while the one who displays intent is at least under some control. This drunk though would at worst probably get 7 years for man slaughter, then be out on the street aiming for me. we don't kill him though, because his crime was born of negligence, stupidity, and irresponsibility.
It seems to me that removing the threat cannot really be the source of the peace of mind.
The only alternative source for peace of mind that I can think of is believing that justice has been served. (it's remarkable how similar serving justice is to exacting revenge). who is to say what punishment serves justice? legislators, unfortunately. middle aged or old, rich, white, Christian men. I do not trust this group to determine what is "the right thing" in almost any circumstance. they certainly are in authority though. In every aspect of our society, it is they who make the rules.
do some people deserve to die? that is a good question. probably they do, but who are we to say? I don't believe I or anyone else should have the authority to make that decision. I am of the opinion that any sane human will eventually regret any crime they commit and that's what punishment should really be about. regret will cause more pain than the fear of death will. If people are treated humanely, then regret comes faster. maybe they do deserve to die, but we should at least let them understand why that's true before we kill them.
Wednesday, Nov. 18, 1998 Death row two-timer McDuff executed Killer who was paroled 17 years after first death term commuted dies for '92 slaying By MICHAEL GRACZYK Associated Press
HUNTSVILLE -- Kenneth Allen McDuff, whose nearly three-decade history of ghastly murders earned him the tag of predator and monster, was put to death Tuesday evening for the abduction, rape and strangling of a pregnant mother of two. "I'm ready to be released; release me," McDuff, 52, said before dying. McDuff, whose first death sentence was commuted in the 1970s when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional, is believed to be the only condemned inmate in the nation ever paroled and then returned to death row for another murder. He was pronounced dead at 6:26 p.m., five minutes after the lethal dose began flowing. McDuff became the 17th Texas inmate put to death this year. He received lethal injection for the 1992 death of Melissa Ann Northrup. "I think my daughter will be at rest," said Brenda Solomon, the victim's mother, in contemplating McDuff's death. While McDuff asked for a final meal of two T-bone steaks, his attorneys were at the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a delay so additional tests could be conducted on hair samples that authorities said linked him to Northrup's slaying. Justices refused Tuesday night to stop the sentence from being carried out. Northrup, 22, was abducted March 1, 1992, from a Waco convenience store where she worked. Her body surfaced weeks later and dozens of miles away in a Dallas County gravel pit. Her hands were tied behind her and she had been strangled with a rope. McDuff also had a second death sentence for the 1991 abduction and slaying of 28-year-old Austin accountant Colleen Reed, and authorities say he may have killed as many as a dozen other people, primarily in Central Texas between Austin and Waco. McDuff, first imprisoned in 1965 for burglary, went to death row in 1968 for fatally shooting in the face two teen-age boys in Fort Worth and raping and strangling with a broomstick their 16-year-old female companion. But while he was awaiting execution, the Supreme Court in 1972 struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional and McDuff's sentence was commuted to life. He won parole about 17 years later when parole board members, facing severe crowding in Texas prisons, released him along with thousands of inmates so they could free space for newly convicted felons. Northrup and Reed were killed a short time later. The subject of a nationwide manhunt, McDuff was arrested without incident in 1992 in Kansas City, where under an assumed name he was working as a trash collector.
That is a horrible tragedy; and a failure of our justice system. Why in hell this man would be paroled is beyond me. Why his sentence would be commuted to life with the possibility of parole from the death penalty is also a mystery. Doesn't that defy logic?
I am not saying that tragedies don't happen. What kind of fool would I be? I do believe that this sort of tragedy is so unbelievably rare that it should not be considered in the decision of whether to maintain the death penalty.
People who intentionally take another's life (without consent from the other) don't deserve a second chance. some people will never realize that what they've done is wrong, but most do. None of them should be given a second chance. Anyone who commits a crime deemed serious enough to be killed over should never be given a second chance. they should die in prison.
In Washington there are laws on the books that enable the state to hold sex-offenders indefinitely, and they were just tested and found constitutional in court in the last several months. (I don't know very well what I'm talking about now, but at least the basic idea of what I just said is true.) This is a blow to civil liberty advocates, but I think it is justified. If the people in our prisons can't be trusted outside of prison, then they shouldn't be let free.
I suppose the over-crowding in the prisons was a result of drug peddlers and third strikers? Do you have a third strike law in Texas? These laws, in my humble opinion, are among the worst ever passed.
Most states have had habitual offender laws on the books for years, although not nearly as sensationalized as California. Here in Texas, if you commit certain felonies and have two prior felony convictions (not meaning probations, etc.--meaning that you have actually GONE to prison twice) then your punishment range is from 25-99 years. I think the problem with California's law (if I remember correctly) was that it calls for mandatory life, no? I also think that's unfair. There are some situations that just don't merit that. As for what causes the overcrowding, I don't know. What I can tell you though is that I usually see a drug defendant 8-12 times, 5-6 rehabs later before prison even becomes an option I'd consider. (I'm talking felony offenses, not little misdemeanor shit.) Very few make it to that point...they usually die (o.d. or drug-related violence) before they get there. Before 1994 the drug laws in Texas were, to say the least, draconian. It is different now, and there are plenty of other options available other than prison. That's not saying that if a person gets to a certain point in the system that they won't eventually go to prison--they will. But it happens far less frequently than before.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Have you ever been involved in a physical assault of some sort, and had an insecure feeling every time you go out in public for months? Or even a car wreck -- you know how it takes weeks to get over a nervous feeling every time you drive? Recovery happens with time, but you have to keep reminding yourself that the chance of having it happen again are small.
Imagine having a stable, comfortable world; then having someone commit a brutal act on one member of this world. It's that same haunted feeling, only much worse; it's very uncomfortable and nervous. Telling yourself that it can't happen again when you know that person is still around and going to be free eventually.... it's hard.
Just a slightly difference perspective. I was firmly opposed to the death penalty until I saw it from this direction.
From:
no subject
However, like most simple and elegant ideas that spring from the mind of humanity, it's the implementation that causes the problems...
1) clearly there are criminal acts that warrant the death penalty. How can we be certain that all such acts can be dealt with in the same manner? Jurys are human and loaded with prejudice and fear (for their own families, making mistakes). This noise can in some cases cause some to escape the gallows while others do not.
2) While there are certainly crimes that warrant the death penalty, is the accused guilty of the crime? Rarely are crimes committed where there is utter certainty in the identity of the perpetrator. Due to the 'absoluteness' of the death penalty, I think we should have the same level of certainty that those condemned are in fact guilty of what they are accused.
From:
no subject
then again, even though I like to think of myself even headed and eager to embrace diversity, I know I have my prejudices; and I honestly can't say whether I'd be able to set them aside and not be effected by them when the time came. I was called for jury duty once and I couldn't tell the judge honestly that I could be impartial.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
beyond a reasonable doubt... that would mean we are given only one doubt to decide over. that would make jury duty easier, but it wouldn't have much to do with justice.
beyond all reasonable doubt... would mean I can come up with my own doubts and determine whether doubts raised by others are reasonable. sounds better.
do I have that right?
My problem wouldn't have much to do with this. I think I might have too easy a time finding doubts that are in my opinion reasonable. Then again, if I don't like the person being tried, I cannot say how hard I would try to find doubts. It's terrible... I know. The case I might have been a juror for was this fella who had allegedly raped a little girl. The thought of it made me extremely angry and the look on the guy's face... I had decided he was guilty already. I wonder how many of the other prospective jurors felt the same way.
From:
no subject
One possible answer that you mentioned is that the person will never be able to commit the same or any similar crime again. Well what are the chances, really, of that person doing it over again if they're spending a life sentence in prison? next to nill. what if my neighbor is a drunk and he runs down my brother one night? this guy, in my opinion is much more likely to kill again than someone who might kill my brother intentionally, because he's like a monkey with a gun, while the one who displays intent is at least under some control. This drunk though would at worst probably get 7 years for man slaughter, then be out on the street aiming for me. we don't kill him though, because his crime was born of negligence, stupidity, and irresponsibility.
It seems to me that removing the threat cannot really be the source of the peace of mind.
The only alternative source for peace of mind that I can think of is believing that justice has been served. (it's remarkable how similar serving justice is to exacting revenge). who is to say what punishment serves justice? legislators, unfortunately. middle aged or old, rich, white, Christian men. I do not trust this group to determine what is "the right thing" in almost any circumstance. they certainly are in authority though. In every aspect of our society, it is they who make the rules.
do some people deserve to die? that is a good question. probably they do, but who are we to say? I don't believe I or anyone else should have the authority to make that decision. I am of the opinion that any sane human will eventually regret any crime they commit and that's what punishment should really be about. regret will cause more pain than the fear of death will. If people are treated humanely, then regret comes faster. maybe they do deserve to die, but we should at least let them understand why that's true before we kill them.
how do you like that rant?
From:
Food For Thought
Death row two-timer McDuff executed
Killer who was paroled 17 years after first death term commuted dies for '92 slaying
By MICHAEL GRACZYK
Associated Press
HUNTSVILLE -- Kenneth Allen McDuff, whose nearly three-decade history of ghastly murders earned him the tag of predator and monster, was put to death Tuesday evening for the abduction, rape and strangling of a pregnant mother of two.
"I'm ready to be released; release me," McDuff, 52, said before dying.
McDuff, whose first death sentence was commuted in the 1970s when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional, is believed to be the only condemned inmate in the nation ever paroled and then returned to death row for another murder.
He was pronounced dead at 6:26 p.m., five minutes after the lethal dose began flowing.
McDuff became the 17th Texas inmate put to death this year. He received lethal injection for the 1992 death of Melissa Ann Northrup.
"I think my daughter will be at rest," said Brenda Solomon, the victim's mother, in contemplating McDuff's death.
While McDuff asked for a final meal of two T-bone steaks, his attorneys were at the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a delay so additional tests could be conducted on hair samples that authorities said linked him to Northrup's slaying. Justices refused Tuesday night to stop the sentence from being carried out.
Northrup, 22, was abducted March 1, 1992, from a Waco convenience store where she worked. Her body surfaced weeks later and dozens of miles away in a Dallas County gravel pit. Her hands were tied behind her and she had been strangled with a rope.
McDuff also had a second death sentence for the 1991 abduction and slaying of 28-year-old Austin accountant Colleen Reed, and authorities say he may have killed as many as a dozen other people, primarily in Central Texas between Austin and Waco.
McDuff, first imprisoned in 1965 for burglary, went to death row in 1968 for fatally shooting in the face two teen-age boys in Fort Worth and raping and strangling with a broomstick their 16-year-old female companion.
But while he was awaiting execution, the Supreme Court in 1972 struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional and McDuff's sentence was commuted to life.
He won parole about 17 years later when parole board members, facing severe crowding in Texas prisons, released him along with thousands of inmates so they could free space for newly convicted felons. Northrup and Reed were killed a short time later.
The subject of a nationwide manhunt, McDuff was arrested without incident in 1992 in Kansas City, where under an assumed name he was working as a trash collector.
From:
Re: Food For Thought
I am not saying that tragedies don't happen. What kind of fool would I be? I do believe that this sort of tragedy is so unbelievably rare that it should not be considered in the decision of whether to maintain the death penalty.
People who intentionally take another's life (without consent from the other) don't deserve a second chance. some people will never realize that what they've done is wrong, but most do. None of them should be given a second chance. Anyone who commits a crime deemed serious enough to be killed over should never be given a second chance. they should die in prison.
In Washington there are laws on the books that enable the state to hold sex-offenders indefinitely, and they were just tested and found constitutional in court in the last several months. (I don't know very well what I'm talking about now, but at least the basic idea of what I just said is true.) This is a blow to civil liberty advocates, but I think it is justified. If the people in our prisons can't be trusted outside of prison, then they shouldn't be let free.
I suppose the over-crowding in the prisons was a result of drug peddlers and third strikers? Do you have a third strike law in Texas? These laws, in my humble opinion, are among the worst ever passed.
From:
Re: Food For Thought