It's depraved S.O.Bs like Jennifer Daugherty's murderers that make parents like me -- in particular, the parents of children with Asperger's or other developmental issues -- into overprotective, paranoid "helicopter parents." Having met my share of these kind of sadistic bullies, I'm guessing these murdering bastards wanted to feel powerful, and the best way they could make themselves feel powerful was to crush a poor vulnerable soul like Jennifer under their heels. Notice these creeps always have to form a mob to do their dirty work. But I have a related question: why did her stepfather let her go off with these people from the community center who became her killers? Did he bother to meet these people and find out more about them before letting poor Jennifer go off with them? And where's Jennifer's mom? There's info here we're not getting. Our daughter is very trusting, and we won't let her go off with anybody we don't know well, precisely because there are such rotten people like this in the world. At the risk of sounding like a nut, if that means our daughter will have fewer friends and a little less freedom, so be it -- better safe than dead or emotionally/physically scarred for life.

IIRC, they also made her ingest drugs and various household chemicals.

Folks,

Please rent the video, "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest".

First thing Christopher Columbus said when he landed, "OK, Men, it's a long, long, walk to the nearest ATM, and since I am Captain, I get to say,

One I ran into when I moved out to the country was my neighbors had dogs. I knew them all individually as friendly, nice dogs. I would see them run through the yard as not a problem.

Later on we had a neighbor move in that didn't control his dog. All of a sudden, we would have our trash cans ripped up and various animals terrorized.

It boiled down to the new dog was a pack leader and the rest followed along.

I despise people whom decide the best way to feel powerful is to pick on the powerless. It is that mindset that creates the casually sadistic.

Maybe those predators were born bad, unable to be anything but evil. More likely they were in some way shaped that way. Rare is the person that is not what they were taught to be in some way.

It is said, "The healthy man does not torture others, generally, it is the tortured, who torture."

Amy, this is the first item you've had that has ever made me cry. I've always worried about other people's cruelty to my middle daughter for her differences, but this is the stuff of nightmares.

I couldn't make it through the whole article. Some humans (if you can call them that) capacity for evil leaves me speechless.

This is beyond understanding, preying on the most weak and defenseless. As Feebie said, such capacity for evil leaves me speechless. sorry but I believe that these killers deserve no less than the death penalty.

Robert H. Butler writes: Maybe those predators were born bad...

Seems unlikely. What circumstances could conspire to bring six sociopaths together? I suspect some of them were evil, and others just weak-willed followers. Or any combination thereof.

It will be interesting to see what defenses these monsters will bring up. Likely blame it all on one person.

The only reservations I have about stories like these is the fact that they tend to make few and far between incidents seem more common than they are.

And that results into some pretty ridiculous policies. Such as British Airways' assumption that all men are sexual predators. Or the idea that men are abusers. Or that more men are abusers than women. In fact, none of these assertions are true, or even close to true. But because they've been circulated so much, they're assumed to be rules rather than exceptions.

Why should you rent "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" when you can watch it for free?

One flew east, one flew west,
And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

Argh! I only posted one link and it kicked me anyway.

Amy, could you grab the other link, too, please? The one I posted first wasn't in English.

And here, people, right here, is the ONLY argument you will ever need as to why we need to keep the death penalty. I don't care if we could imprison them and them never leave their cell and never hurt another person. For what they did, they deserve to die. Society demands and deserves no less.

Momof4: And here, people, right here, is the ONLY argument you will ever need as to why we need to keep the death penalty. I don't care if we could imprison them and them never leave their cell and never hurt another person. For what they did, they deserve to die. Society demands and deserves no less.

In no way is this an argument for the death penalty. Regardless of how appalling the crime is, that does not make a case for or against the death penalty. You're entitled to your opinion as to what they "deserve," but you don't decide the issue. The courts will do that. And you do not speak for society, what it demands or what it deserves.

There was a similar crime in New Milford, CT in 1997, only this was a 13-year-old, kidnapped, raped and murdered by at least 7 people, and she didn't have a mental disability, per se. She was just with the wrong people at the wrong time:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4702.html

In any case, ANYone who does something this horrible to ANYone else deserves no less than what they imposed.

Just sayin'.

I'd be in the camp that says all these people need to be put up against a wall and shot. 1 Trial, 1 appeal, and 4 bullets each.

"I'd be in the camp that says all these people need to be put up against a wall and shot. 1 Trial, 1 appeal, and 4 bullets each."

In cases involving torture of any kind, especially those involving children, seniors or the mentally disabled, there is no sound argument not impose it where available.

People who have the capacity to do this (see also the Newsome/Christensen murders in TN) have no business being on this earth. Game Over.

"In no way is this an argument for the death penalty. Regardless of how appalling the crime is, that does not make a case for or against the death penalty. You're entitled to your opinion as to what they "deserve," but you don't decide the issue. The courts will do that. And you do not speak for society, what it demands or what it deserves."

Except I do. I and everyone else in society, especially those of us with children, as we have more motivation than others to make sure society continues in a just way. The more appalling the crime, the more society needs to make a statement that some crimes remove your right to life. Coddling torturers and murderers in no way makes any statement that you're somehow refined and above them. It just says you coddle torturers and murderers. The courts don't decide the issue, either. We do. We in the jury, we who vote for those who make the laws. Never forget that absolutely everything the courts do is done "by" you. To pass it off to the courts is a cowardly way to remove your responsibility.

Flynne: In any case, ANYone who does something this horrible to ANYone else deserves no less than what they imposed.

What they imposed was kidnap, rape and murder, according to you. Who's going to impose all that on them? You volunteering to do the kidnap, raping and murdering?

Arguments like this crack me up. So, we should punish thieves by stealing from them, and find arsonists and burn their houses down. We should rape rapists, and loiter on the private property of those who criminally trespass. Susan Smith should be drowned in a lake. Lizzie Borden should have been hatchet-murdered, assuming she was acquitted in error. Jeffrey Dahmer should have been raped and eaten...and not necessarily in that order. And these evil sickos in the blog entry should be force fed toxins, tortured and stabbed.

Just sayin'...

Momof4: Except I do. I and everyone else in society, especially those of us with children, as we have more motivation than others to make sure society continues in a just way.

Aha! Now we're getting to it. It's the parental entitlement argument...again. So, because you reproduced, your position on the issue of what should happen to these people somehow carries more weight than the opinion of those who didn't reproduce. When does this parental entitlement end? You do not have more rights, more votes, more say, more influence, more anything than everyone else. Being a parent is about sacrifice, not entitlement.

But regardless of however many votes you think you're entitled to over those of us who didn't reproduce, in the end, you can only speak for yourself. You do not speak for all of society.

Patrick, your holier-than-thou routine is getting old. How wonderful for you that you have never experienced the horror of being the victim of any kind of heinous crime. The bottom line is, an innocent person lost her life to thoughtless, evil people. Those people should be punished to the fullest extent of the misery they imposed on their victim. Yes, I think they should lose their lives. Nothing less. Life in prison is a walk in the park to people like them. Three hots and a cot. You really think they should be kept alive and well fed on your dime? I don't.

Oh and just in case you missed this:

What possible reason could six people have for wanting to brutalize and kill a 30-year-old mentally disabled person?

There is NO reason. NOT ONE.

Flynne: Patrick, your holier-than-thou routine is getting old. How wonderful for you that you have never experienced the horror of being the victim of any kind of heinous crime.

Oh, waah, waah, and triple-waah. Anyone who doesn't agree with you, Your Royal Highness, is being "holier-than-thou."

Don't blame me because you made a stupid argument about criminals who "deserve no less than what they impose."

And you really have no idea what I've experienced in terms of heinous crime, unless your definition of "heinous crime" is limited to murder.

Flynne: Yes, I think they should lose their lives. Nothing less. Life in prison is a walk in the park to people like them. Three hots and a cot. You really think they should be kept alive and well fed on your dime? I don't.

Oh, yes. Life in prison? Why, it's like life in a resort! Makes you wonder why so many people work so hard to avoid it, doesn't it?

As for inmates being kept alive on our dime, if you knew anything about what you're talking about, you'd realize that the death penalty far more money than life without parole. It's the most expensive penalty in America.

Darlin', you're not doing well in this argument.

Oh, waah, waah, and triple-waah. Anyone who doesn't agree with you, Your Royal Highness, is being "holier-than-thou."

No, I don't think so. I'm not royal, by any stratch of the imagination. YOU'RE the princess, honey, not me.

Oh, yes. Life in prison? Why, it's like life in a resort! Makes you wonder why so many people work so hard to avoid it, doesn't it?

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Isn't that what's been said? Some people don't get that and they don't give a shit, either. Some people DO equate it to life at a resort, because it's better than what they had on the outside. Most normal people, agreed, avoid it. Murderers? Rapists? Thieves? Not so normal, really.

As for inmates being kept alive on our dime, if you knew anything about what you're talking about, you'd realize that the death penalty far more money than life without parole. It's the most expensive penalty in America.

Got proof? Let's see some, because I don't believe that. It's gotta be cheaper to shoot someone up rather than keep them alive on the taxpayer dime for the rest of their lives. Threes meals a day, a bed, and shelter for x amount of years is way more expensive than a 10 cent bullet or some $$ worth of chemicals.

I don't care if you think I'm not "doing well" in this argument. Bottom line is, someone gets killed by someone else. That someone else is scum and should be treated as such.

Flynne-who-has-never-heard-of-Google: Got proof? Let's see some, because I don't believe that. It's gotta be cheaper to shoot someone up rather than keep them alive on the taxpayer dime for the rest of their lives.

Your wish is my command.

Flynne: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Isn't that what's been said? Some people don't get that and they don't give a shit, either. Some people DO equate it to life at a resort, because it's better than what they had on the outside.

Ironic that you're the one who made the argument about criminals who "deserve no less than what they impose," because that is often exactly what they do get. Inmates do often end up getting tortured, raped and even murdered by each other. How strange that you seem to think that the death penalty is what they deserve when the poetic justice that you subscribe to is far more likely to be carried out with life without parole.

What they imposed was kidnap, rape and murder, according to you. Who's going to impose all that on them? You volunteering to do the kidnap, raping and murdering?

I know a few borderline scociopaths how would volenteer?

And patrick is right about the cost of executions - though its due to cort costs and nt the atual killing

The high costs for death row inmates is due to the endless rounds of appeals. What people here are suggesting is a speedy trial followed by a speedy execution if guilty. That wouldn't cost much at all. Of course it'll never happen.

The only downside to the death penalty is unethical prosecutors have convicted innocent men.

However, when you have an obvious open and shut case, I think you'd find plenty of volunteers to deliver the sentence.

Just like the Cheshire killings up here - there's no way they're gonna be able to get a fair trial with all the media coverage and the deliberate tainting of the jury pool by the accused (the younger one wrote a fucking book about it).

So, when they are walking out of the court room as free men, there's going to be two bangs, two thuds, and nobody's going to have seen or heard a thing.

kishke: The high costs for death row inmates is due to the endless rounds of appeals.

That is incorrect. Whether you're sentenced to death or life without parole, the appeals process can take years. You think death row inmates are the only ones who go through seemingly endless appeals? You thought wrong.

The cost of keeping someone on death row as opposed to maximum security is an additional 90,000 per year.

Also, the bulk of the cost is the initial trial...when trying death penalty cases, trial lawyers are pulling all the stops out. They need things like "expert witnesses." They don't work for free. Research also costs money. Jury selection for such cases is also much more involved and painstaking. You have to be sure you can find twelve people who are willing to put someone away.

Also, as enticing as it might be for some to think, "Well, all we have to do is give them one appeal, and that's that."

Wrong answer. We give them one appeal every time new evidence arises. Period. We're not interested in executing innocent people...which we have done in the past, by the way. It's just good business. If new evidence surfaces that would have exonerated the accused...too late, the heirs and assigns now sue the executing state for wrongful death. And as O.J. Simpson can tell you, wrongful death is expensive.

As lujlp points out, and like I tried to say earlier, maximum security prisons have the sociopaths on hand that will likely inflict the poetic justice that some of you seem to be craving.

I have been against the death penalty for as long as I've been aware that such barbarism existed in this country. And I've belonged and contributed to organizations that are working to eradicate the death penalty for the past twenty years. I am quite up on my information regarding this issue. If you're going to throw down with me on this issue, you better come prepared. I have never yet seen a valid argument for the death penalty. And quite frankly, I'm convinced that one doesn't exist.

The argument for the death penalty, so far as I am concerned, is that it is deserved.

And quite frankly, I'm convinced that one doesn't exist.

And you're wrong, as usual. Nice to see you're speaking in your usual over-the-top emotionally-loaded terms though.

The death penalty's single greatest value is in getting the dregs of society to plead out and save us the cost of a trial. Because, surprise, even cold-blooded murderers don't wanna die.

There's your reason. I take cash, beer, or whiskey.

I just don't care how much it costs to kill someone-although those costs could certainly be improved upon. If it needs to be done, it needs to be done. Cost be damned.

"You do not have more rights" Didn't say I did. I said parents have more REASON to care that society stays just and orderly. Read please.

The death penalty keeps THAT PERSON from every killing another. Not another inmate, not a guard, not another civilian if they ever get out. Very effective. Not to mention, it's been proven effective:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html

Yes, it's fox news reporting, but several studies were done by notably left-leaning institutions.

kishke: The argument for the death penalty, so far as I am concerned, is that it is deserved.

That's just a matter of opinion and doesn't need to be argued with, but I would point out that death, as far as we know, is merely a cessation of bodily functions, and the dead person feels no more. I might suggest that death is rather merciful, considering the suffering these monsters inflicted on the child-like girl before they killed her, to say nothing of the suffering this family must be going through. And six people dying for their daughter is not going to mitigate their loss. Their daughter is gone, and killing her killers won't bring them back.

Brian: And you're wrong, as usual. Nice to see you're speaking in your usual over-the-top emotionally-loaded terms though.

Actually, my response was rather analytical and I stuck to objective fact. Your perception that my post was peppered with "emotionally loaded terms" simply comes from your inability to handle dissent.

The death penalty isn't an emotional issue for me at all, and hasn't been for decades. Wrong is wrong, and I don't need to get emotional about it.

Brian: The death penalty's single greatest value is in getting the dregs of society to plead out and save us the cost of a trial. Because, surprise, even cold-blooded murderers don't wanna die.

I'm not even sure I understand what you're saying. What do you mean "plead out and save us the cost of a trial"? Both convicts on death row and those sent to prison will appeal. And as for those who don't want to die, you'd be surprised over the number of people who would choose death over life in prison.

Momof4: "You do not have more rights" Didn't say I did. I said parents have more REASON to care that society stays just and orderly. Read please.

Oh, yes, you did.

I wrote: You're entitled to your opinion as to what they "deserve," but you don't decide the issue. The courts will do that. And you do not speak for society, what it demands or what it deserves.

And you replied: Except I do. I and everyone else in society, especially those of us with children, as we have more motivation than others to make sure society continues in a just way.

Based on your screen name and the points you raise, you obviously define yourself first and foremost as a mother. And that's fine. It's good to see someone who takes their role as a parent seriously, and we need more like you.

However, your status as a mother does not entitle you to deference over those of us who aren't parents. Nor does it mean your opinions carry more weight, nor are they more valid.

Momof4: I just don't care how much it costs to kill someone-although those costs could certainly be improved upon. If it needs to be done, it needs to be done. Cost be damned.

Fair enough. Opinion noted. You have a vote on the issue, but not the right to make an autonomous decision on society's behalf.

Momof4: The death penalty keeps THAT PERSON from every killing another. Not another inmate, not a guard, not another civilian if they ever get out.

And so it does. However, you could also argue that we need a more effective means of confinement. Those problems could be virtually eliminated by simply having better systems in place.

I might suggest that death is rather merciful, considering the suffering these monsters inflicted on the child-like girl before they killed her,

Oh, I have no objection to making these particular low-lifes suffer first, just so long as they're executed in the end. I was making a general point, that so far as I'm concerned, all the reason we'll ever need to execute murderers is that they deserve to be killed. And yes, of course it's my opinion, just as your statement that capital punishment is "wrong" is nothing more than your opinion.

And Patrick, parents do have a bigger stake in social order than you do.

After all, they're the ones actually ensuring that society continues. When you perish, assuming you have no children, your worries are done. Households with children have to worry generations further. So while they may not have more rights, they certainly have more worries.

------------------------

As far as the cost of the death penalty goes. It costs as much as it does because of the endless cycles through the system, taking 15-20 years or more.

The death penalty isn't a matter of cost, its a practical matter...we as a society have NO use, for those who take it upon themselves to become mere predators. A man who preys on his brother, his neighbor, their children...he's not a man anymore, he's a mad dog, and I say deal him the same fate.

---------------------------------------------

As far as the concern over innocent people, well quite frankly its getting harder and harder for that to be possible, now that DNA has become well established, I'll concede it is still possible. But to refrain from suitable punishment because of the increasingly low probability of error, would be to compound the crime already committed by failing to administer due justice.

---------------------------------------------

Frankly I'd have no objection to a great deal of suffering befalling some of the worst predators before we wipe them from the world like the filth they are. Gacy, Dahmer, Susan Smith, those come insantly to mind.

The problem of course comes in with whom should inflict it? So, rather than answer that difficult, and in the end unnecessary question, I say we simply be rid of the monsters in our midst, and move on with our hopefully safer lives.

Oh and by the way Patrick, I wanted to inquire:

In your cost analysis of the death penalty vs life imprisonment, it makes no mention of the cost savings by use of the threat of the death penalty to force a plea deal, thus saving the cost of a trial.

I wonder if you, in your lengthy period of time spent on the issue, could cite any relevant figures to compare that savings with the individual costs per death row inmate? Just cite the study, and I'd be happy to read it over.

What possible reason could six people have for wanting to brutalize and kill a 30-year-old mentally disabled person?
------------------------------------
Occultic sacrifice maybe?

Too bad most of the public opposes vigilante justice. The evil ones noted will most likely die of old age on death row. However, if the victim's family had reached the perps. first...........

Actually, my response was rather analytical and I stuck to objective fact. Your perception that my post was peppered with "emotionally loaded terms" simply comes from your inability to handle dissent.

I wasn't the one who used the word "barbarism".

That's all you, sunshine.

You're against the death penalty because it offends your delicate sensibilities about being better than "barbarians" who simply slaughter people.

I'm against the death penalty (in principle) because giving the government the power to kill people carries too many risks if that government ever turns against the people. But so long as the government remains somewhat sane, we don't have that worry.

What do you mean "plead out and save us the cost of a trial"? Both convicts on death row and those sent to prison will appeal.

And you're the one that accused me of being slow on account of drinking coffee in the morning?

When's the last time someone took a plea and appealed it after the fact that wasn't lied to, or had the prosecution renege? Because otherwise, one of the things you do when you deal, is you forfeit appeals and GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL.

So there's your reason to support the death penalty. Still think I'm a barbarian?

Brian: And you're the one that accused me of being slow on account of drinking coffee in the morning?

I don't think so. Was this a while ago? I don't remember suggesting such a thing.

Brian: I wasn't the one who used the word "barbarism".

Poor dear. I should have known better after all this time, you personalize everything. Can you please stifle the hyperactive sense of injury?

Brian: Still think I'm a barbarian?

I guess you can't. Again...I didn't call you anything.

Robert: And Patrick, parents do have a bigger stake in social order than you do.

After all, they're the ones actually ensuring that society continues. When you perish, assuming you have no children, your worries are done. Households with children have to worry generations further. So while they may not have more rights, they certainly have more worries.

How presumptuous to assume that because people don't have children, they simply don't care what happens to the world after they die off. One doesn't need to have their own children to care about the next generation. And furthermore, it's also presumptuous to assume that because a person does have children, they all care what goes on in the world after they die. You can still be selfish and be a parent, you know.

Robert, I did find one study that seems to address the issue you're asking about. It claims there's actually been very little work done on the subject, and I've only scanned some of it, but this appears to be what you're looking for.

Robert: As far as the cost of the death penalty goes. It costs as much as it does because of the endless cycles through the system, taking 15-20 years or more.

As I have already pointed out, that simply isn't true. See above.

Robert: The death penalty isn't a matter of cost, its a practical matter.

It's not a matter of cost, but it's a practical matter? I think you need to reread that sentence and tell me what's wrong with it.

Robert: As far as the concern over innocent people, well quite frankly its getting harder and harder for that to be possible, now that DNA has become well established, I'll concede it is still possible. But to refrain from suitable punishment because of the increasingly low probability of error, would be to compound the crime already committed by failing to administer due justice.

Oh? Got statistical evidence for that? I do not accept that on face value.

What a horrible, horrible story. Torturing a person to death - particularly someone as innocent as Ms. Daugherty - is evil, and those responsible should be punished harshly.

However, people who only hold this opinion when the victim is a sweet white girl have very little moral credibility. The people on this board calling for the legal process to be suspended/altered for Ms. Daugherty's killers are the same ones who enthusiastically support any kind of torture done by government agents. Or did I miss the outrage over what happened Mani Al-Utaybi, Salah Ahmed Al-Salami, and Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani? (More on the fate of these three unfortunate young men here: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368) And how about Baron Pikes? (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/02/louisiana.taser.death/)

While there is of course something particularly awful in the way the sickos responsible for Ms. Daugherty's death gained her trust and abused it, the government has our trust as well. (Well, when it comes to law enforcement/national security at least. It's amazing how people who are so quick to criticize our legal system, tax code, and politicians in general suddenly become mindless sheep bleating for "harsher punishment!" whenever someone gets charged with a crime - or in the case of the three men killed at Gitmo, NOT charged with any crime, but simply captured by or sold to American operatives.

Apologies for the defective links.

Here is the story about the "suicides" at Gitmo:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368

And the one about the man tortured to death with a taser by Louisiana police:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/02/louisiana.taser.death/

Patrick, you have entirely too high an opinion of yourself.

First off, I didn't take your statement of capital punishment == "barbarism" personally. But it's NOT a moral judgment, it's an emotional one.

In the past, however, you HAVE called me a barbarian, in addition to your continued insistence that I take everything you say personally. I don't. You just aren't that important to me.

And if you like, I can go back and find the thread where you described my morning elixir as "that vile concoction". I believe I had just as thoroughly deconstructed another of your bullshit positions and was bragging that it was done without the benefit of coffee.

As far as your opinion carrying less weight than a parent's vis-a-vis crime? They're right, you're wrong. You don't have skin in the game. Once you assume room temperature, your genetic line ends. You can say you care about the future, you may even believe it. But it doesn't mean shit till you've got something to lose if the future doesn't come.

And you don't have it.

Ain't evolution a bitch?

CB - We do complain about it. But since the media wants to make political hay out of how we're hypocrites that never have anything bad to say when government beats up a black man, they don't report it.

This way, it looks to all the people who read the state-run media that all we care about is helpless white girls.

Seriously. Go see how much coverage you can find in the official media about Ken Gladney. Now look in the alt media. Notice a difference?

Hint: one has an agenda that requires them to obscure the truth.

Brian, you are the thin-skinned one! I don't like coffee, and I do consider it a "vile concoction," and that is no way a judgment on you.

And I do consider capital punishment to be barbarism. And yes, that is a moral judgment. Capital punishment desensitizes society to the value of human life. And we don't need the help.

And yes, you do take everything personally. I criticize Rush Limbaugh for the serial liar that he is, and you take it personally.

Newsflash: Not everyone on this blog is going to like, believe in, or appreciate the same things you do, or as much as you do. There's no reason to take everything personally.

And RUSH LIMBAUGH SUCKS SHIT THROUGH A TUBE!

"Capital punishment desensitizes society to the value of human life."

No, capital punishment reinforces the value we put on a human life, such that if you take one (or more), you forfeit your right to life. Saying Well, nothing will bring your victim back, so we're just going to slap you with a few years and let you move on" is what devalues a human life.

And no, before you ask, I do not consider the life of someone going about their own business and getting murdered, and the life of someone who murders, to be of equal worth.

Momof4: No, capital punishment reinforces the value we put on a human life, such that if you take one (or more), you forfeit your right to life.

I can't believe you wrote that with a straight face. "I place so much value on human life, that if you take one, you must forfeit your own."

And no one said "we'll give you a few years and let you move on," but of course, that didn't stop you from claiming otherwise.

Okay. So, since executioners take peoples' lives, I guess someone has to execute them, who in turn have to be executed by someone else, and they will have to be executed by someone else. After all, they took someone's life.

Nice try Patrick. Anyone who claims they can't see the difference in society taking the life of someone who has-by their own actions-shown themselves incompatible with life, and in an otherwise normal innocent person getting brutally murdered (no 2 minute drug dose and you're gone there) is either so evil or so stupid there's no need for discussion.

I place value on innocent life. Not all life. All lives are not equal. They are made unequal by their own actions. Yes, sometimes the justice system makes mistakes. Shit happens, so to speak. And yes, I'd say that even as I weeped believing without a doubt that my brother or whoever was innocent as they pushed the plunger. Sometimes, an individual has to take one for the good of society as a whole.

And yes, even if it was me.

what happens to the world after they die off. One doesn't need to have their own children to care about the next generation. And furthermore, it's also presumptuous to assume that because a person does have children, they all care what goes on in the world after they die. You can still be selfish and be a parent"

Oh perhaps you care about the world after you're gone, perhaps you don't. But if you want presumption, look in the mirror, how can you presume to care about the state of the world after you're gone, in the same way that someone who has an immediate and obvious legacy in it? Remember, nobody who IS a parent, BEGAN as a parent. I wasn't a parent until I had children, and I didn't plan on children until I knew I was going to have them. Before I had them, I cared about how the world after me would be, make no mistake of that. But once I had children, it became a far less abstract, far more personal concern. Its a very different thing. Don't take my word for it, if you had decent parents, ask them about it for yourself.

Oh and yes you can be selfish and be a parent, but you can't be a good one, that is a whole seperate discussion.

----------------------------------

"It's not a matter of cost, but it's a practical matter? I think you need to reread that sentence and tell me what's wrong with it."

That is precisely my point, you're worried about finances. I'm worried about getting rid of rabid dogs, sadistic filth that has no place on my planet. I'd call my concern alot more important than your concern.

----------------------------------

"Oh? Got statistical evidence for that? I do not accept that on face value."

Just how would you measure such a statistic? If someone is not brought to trial because they are shown to be innocent while being investigated, then there is no statistic for a not guilty verdict relating to them. If they're found guilty, and DNA was involved, well unless the jury is polled on the tipping point of evidence that made them vote guilty, then who can say what exactly resulted in a guilty verdict.

You can't do a stastical analysis for everything under the sun. Stats are useful, but not universally so. You can't measure statistically speaking, the number of people NOT falsely imprisoned because of DNA evidence, since that would include virtually all of us.

I can tell you from my own experience that it is very useful in establishing innocence as much as guilt, but if you have any ability to reason, then it should be obvious to you beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The innocence project is an excellent example. People wrongly imprisoned before DNA, being freed by subsequent analysis now that it is common. Now that it is used in all major criminal cases, how likely is it that someone will be falsely imprisoned?

Ergo, LOGIC should tell you, that science has made and will continue to make it increasingly difficult to be found guilty unless of course, you are guilty.

----------------------------------------------------

And by the way, costs for lawyers, researchers, what have you, yeah, I'd count that in with court costs.

----------------------------------------------------

Thanks Patrick, for the study in question, it took some guts to post something that directly contradicts your moral stance, even if the contradiction wasn't related to your morals.
----------------------------------------------------

You're taking some of your position the the point of logical absurdity however.

Executing the executioner because the executioner takes a life? Come now, that is logical absurdity and you know it. I won't even entertain that silliness.

----------------------------------------------------

You suggest your stance is based upon a certain morality, specifically the value of human life.

As far as it goes, I can respect that. I'm not fond of sacrificing lives needlessly. However, your moral stance is far to black and white to be practical in the real world. Killing under any circumstances=bad / preserving life in all circumstances=good.

No. Much as you might like them to be, all human life is not of equal value, far from it, some people, whatever they began as, born bad, made bad, it doesn't matter, at the end of it all, some people have made their place in live one of predatory and needless cruelty. They rape, they torture, they kill, they put themselves above the law and are consumed by the most base and brutal parts of human nature, their one regret, these human devils, is that they are to weak to sin to the heights of their desire, to paraphrase Kipling.

Keeping such persons alive, is akin to keeping rabid animals alive out of a love for animal life, such persons, wholly dedicated beyond redemption to evil, and make no mistake, it IS evil, is not showing the reverence for life that you wish it was, instead, you show that cruelty, evil, sadism, and murder, deserve as much to exist in this world, as decency, order, justice, and gentleness. And I tell you, they do NOT.

We get rid of such vessels of evil in human form, we wipe them from the world with a final and absolute death, for many reasons, but paramount amongst them all is the final statement that such traits have no place in our society, no place in our towns, no place in our country, no place in our world.

When you preserve the lives of those vicious predators, you preserve their traits with them.

I'm fine with you being to soft and gentle a soul to do what needs to be done, that is the nature of prosperity, it makes for soft hearts.

Leave the tough stuff to the rest of us.

Sheep after all, need dogs with teeth to ward off the wolves.

Patrick, look at yourself. You're carrying on like an eight year old girl.

Of course given your Moral Outrage against capital punishment, I presume you hold the same level of disgust for abortion as well?

Neither your evaluation of coffee nor your judgment on capital punishment are logical or reasoned - they are emotional, and they are opinion.

"Now that it is used in all major criminal cases, how likely is it that someone will be falsely imprisoned?"

Neither half of this claim has any merit whatsoever - DNA is not used in anything close to "all major criminal cases," and we are still falsely imprisoning people at a scary, scary rate. Have a look at last year's Supreme Court's ruling in the Osborne case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Attorney%27s_Office_v._Osborne

It sounds too outrageous to be true, but the law of the land is that suspects have no right to have DNA evidence tested, even at their own expense. But how would a jury convict without DNA, you might ask? It happens all the time. Prosecutors ask in jury selection about crime shows ("Do you think evidence works the way it does on CSI?"), suggesting that all these fancy fingerprints and DNA samples and other physical evidence are only for dramatic effect, and that they don't need all of that to show someone's guilty. Eyewitness identification, despite being repeatedly demonstrated to be unreliable, is still the main (or only!) piece of evidence against many, many people.

So please, Robert, don't allow the work of the Innocence Project to lull you into a false sense of security about the guilt of the people we convict. One, they're not just over-turning old, pre-DNA testing cases, and two, the Osborne decision means that we won't even be able to do DNA testing for post-2009 cases. Our criminal justice system remains a highly inefficient, biased, and disgustingly overinclusive method of imprisoning millions of people a year (after all, the US imprisons more people than anyone else in the world, even China and Russia - and no, that's not just per capita, that's total numbers). This is a national emergency for both practical as well as moral reasons.

I love this website.

Every time the threads veer off topic, I expect to see the text on the screen fly violently to one side or the other like on the Enterprise for that second before the inertial dampers kick in.

That was always my biggest complaint about star trek.

The fucking dampeners.

First off according to the star trek universes warp theory the ship when traveling at warp speed isnt acctually moving. The warp field generats a bubble which cause the SPACE around the ship to move while the ship itself is staionary.

Meaning even the lowest speeds would create massive inertia within the ship.

So if the damn thing are always on they why does even the smallest phaser blast or tordepo impact on the sheilds which are not even in physical contact with the ship cause such problems for the dampeners? Can someone answer that?

Because even in the future nothing works?

And RUSH LIMBAUGH SUCKS SHIT THROUGH A TUBE!

Got proof?

(Way to discredit yourself, Patrick. You might want to calm down just a tad.)

Flynne -

Patrick's a liberal. The only thing that Liberals do is project their moral failings onto everyone else so they can use "but he does it too" as a defense. Even though those on the receiving end of such projection are almost always not guilty of the accusations, the fact that the accusation exists is enough to absolve the Liberal of any moral stain.

Patrick knows his argument is based solely on emotion, because Liberals don't think, they feel. And when confronted with logic, his feelings get hurt, so he must defend himself without making himself look like he's hurt.

Hence accusing me of taking his use of the word "barbarism" personally. I didn't, I simply followed his use of the word to its logical conclusion: if you call a practice or position "barbaric" then you are be extension calling all those who support or engage in such things "barbarians".

Words mean things. Except to Liberals.

I know, brian. Notice how he jumped all over me because I actually think that people who do vile things to someone ought to have vile things done to them. And I only think that way because I've seen time and again that the more you extend the forgiveness branch, the more people shit all over it, and you. People like those barbarians who killed that poor woman should be offed themselves, simply because they don't give a shit about anything or anyone. Punishing them via a prison sentence doesn't do a damn bit of good, because it's not enough of a deterrent.

Capital punishment desensitizes society to the value of human life.

I know mo4 said this already, but it bears repeating: To the contrary, capital punishment exists b/c we are sensitive to the value of human life. Murder is not just another crime.

"Punishing them via a prison sentence doesn't do a damn bit of good, because it's not enough of a deterrent."

The death penalty does not deter crime, particularly not murder. Some links (1 per post as per board standards):

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-deterrence_1202edi.ART.State.Edition1.36bbe2f.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n1_87/ai_n28679478/

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that the death penalty deters crime, Flynne?

not one executed crimial has EVER commited another crime

lujlp, your credulity regarding government action is truly breath-taking.

brian, I was referring to this particular community rather than any larger group, and would be very curious to see where I missed the outrage over torture committed by government agents. The general theme here seems to be anti-government as long as the issue is anything that affects the writer personally (taxes, healthcare, etc.), but unreservedly pro-government whenever it comes to the criminal justice system and torturing people with funny sounding names. Why not adopt the same attitude of healthy skepticism towards bureaucracy and its evils wherever it may be found?

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that the death penalty deters crime, Flynne?

I never said it did. Luj did:

not one executed crimial has EVER commited another crime

And actually, that's true. Because the criminal no longer walks amongst normal society. Savvy?

My take is that IF you commit a crime, you should get PUNISHED for it. Most people are decent and don't kidnap/rape/murder others. Those who do, the ones who get caught, anyway, SHOULD be punished. Don't you think? Or are you another bleeding heart Liberal who knows all the words to Kumbya?

Flynne, when you say that the death penalty is justified because a prison sentence isn't a sufficient deterrent, you are indeed making the claim that the death penalty is a deterrent. So let's be clear: do you believe the death penalty deters crime? If not, your previous statement made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It goes without saying that IF you commit a crime, you should get PUNISHED for it. But I also know that there is no possible way that the number of people in the United States under the supervision of the correctional system are all criminals deserving of punishment. Injustice is no longer the exception, it is the rule. If I recall correctly, you're one of those anti-tax/healthcare/social program. Why, then, are you so quick to believe that the government gets it right when they put people in prison?

Here you go CB, you all "it's not a deterent" types may be tecnically correct, but every execution does save lives. I shall link again, you can follow this to several studies:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html

I think we can all agree there are lots of people in jail who don't belong there. Murderers aren't among them. Hookers, drug users, yes. Murderers? No.

Robert: Oh perhaps you care about the world after you're gone, perhaps you don't. But if you want presumption, look in the mirror, how can you presume to care about the state of the world after you're gone, in the same way that someone who has an immediate and obvious legacy in it?

Sorry, been busy. No, Robert, the presumption is you. I don't have children, true, but to say that I don't have a stake in the future is not only to presume attitudes about me, but it's to have your head up your ass as to not understand basic family dynamics.

Ever hear of nieces and nephews? I got lots and lots and lots of them. How about great-nieces and nephews? I gots those, too.

For that matter, I have friends with children of their own...and I only mention this because you can't you can't seem to wrap your brain around the idea that a person doesn't have to have children to care about what happens after they're gone. Truth of the matter is, even if I had none of those things, I'd still care about what happens after I'm gone. I don't need to know them personally to know that there's an upcoming generation with some decent people who deserve a decent world to live in.

But of course, only people with children can possibly care about the future generation...never mind that there are parents in the world who are counting the seconds until the kid turns eighteen so they can throw them out and never see them again.

Presumption is the idea that just because a person is a parent, they have to care more or have a greater stake in the future than those of us who aren't. And the sense of parental entitlement just keeps on going and going and going and going...

Brian, I am not a liberal. I'm an independent. It's only because of your supposed conservative stance that prevents you from seeing anyone to the left of you as anything other than a liberal. Truth be told, neither you nor Limbaugh is a conservative. Limbaugh is a capitalist who is keenly aware of who butters his bread. And you're a lemming.

Your ridiculous assertion that Limbaugh never lies is proof positive of your brainwashed stance.

Flynne, you're bawling your eyes out on Brian's shoulder because I proved you wrong about your insistence that executing our criminals saves money. Poppycock. Moreover, that has been common knowledge for decades: pursuing capital punishment costs more than life in prison. You're embarrassed you didn't know that, and well you should be.

But don't feel too bad. Most people on this board assumed it's because of the appeals process that capital punishment costs more than pursuing life without parole. That is also wrong, as I've already shown.

Momof4, not every execution saves lives. To assume otherwise is to assume that every convicted murderer kills someone else, whether it's another inmate, a prison guard, etc. That of course, is patently absurd.

"Momof4, not every execution saves lives. To assume otherwise is to assume that every convicted murderer kills someone else, whether it's another inmate, a prison guard, etc. That of course, is patently absurd."

YOu didn't read the link, did you? The saving of lives had nothing to do with who that particular executed person might have killed. It's aggregate. When a liberal researcher admits he really didn't want his study to prove that, but it did, then people ought to listen. Although personally, I don't care if they'd never kill again, or even get a parking ticket. They deserve to die for what they've already done. No mulligans when you murder. And someone alive, even if supposedly in jail for life, always has the chance of getting out.

Oh, I read the link. I just know bullshit when I hear it. And since it's from Fox, I've come to expect no less. Do you really think that you can actually count the number of people who have been deterred from killing someone by thinking, "Oh, they might execute me"? That's terribly, even painfully, naive of you.

I think we can all agree there are lots of people in jail who don't belong there. Murderers aren't among them. Hookers, drug users, yes. Murderers? No.

So, the government gets it wrong when prosecuting hookers and drug users, but suddenly gets it right when prosecuting murderers?

Presumption is the idea that just because a person is a parent, they have to care more or have a greater stake in the future than those of us who aren't. And the sense of parental entitlement just keeps on going and going and going and going...

Preach on Patrick!

-Julie

Yes, momof4, we read your link. It does not, as you claimed, link to any studies; this is probably because the only studies mentioned have been thoroughly discredited as using faulty assumptions and methodology. (More on the Mocan study here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf - this article is just a summary, so look for the studies by Berk and Fagan) But of course, you admit that it is "technically correct" that the death penalty doesn't deter crime. So why are you trying to claim otherwise?

The funny thing is that I'm actually a death penalty supporter - in theory only at this point, since in practice it's proven impossible to administer in a fair, unbiased manner. But I don't think there's any moral problem with depriving a person of life when that person has done the same to someone else; the issue is just that our criminal justice system isn't remotely capable of doing this in a just fashion. If we can't accurately determine guilt and avoid serious race and gender biases in application of the death penalty, the better practice is not to impose it at all.

But what really burns my butter is people who say they support the death penalty for idiotic reasons like "it saves money!" or "it deters crime!" It doesn't. This has been proven over and over, to the point where I'm actually shocked that people are still making those claims. So do us all a favor - when you have an opinion on a subject, particularly one of this importance, take the time to figure out whether what you're saying is true before you say it. Brian was railing against "Liberals" who allegedly feel rather than think, but the biggest offenders against the idea of rational, evidence-based discussion have been the self-proclaimed conservatives. Murder makes them sad and mad, so they lash out in blind support of the harshest punishment they can think of, paying no mind to issues like fairness in administration or, y'know, actual facts.

Brian was railing against "Liberals" who allegedly feel rather than think, but the biggest offenders against the idea of rational, evidence-based discussion have been the self-proclaimed conservatives.

Well, I've been rational the entire time.

Murder makes them sad and mad, so they lash out in blind support of the harshest punishment they can think of, paying no mind to issues like fairness in administration or, y'know, actual facts.

See, it just looks that way. To some people, it's a matter of "eye for an eye", which is nothing more than a call for proportionate punishment. You take a life, you forfeit yours. To others, it's more pragmatic. Some acts are so depraved that the perpetrator simply does not deserve to live.

I think you'll find much less emotion on the pro side than the anti.

Personally, I think it ought to be up to the families of the victim. When it gets personal like that, you'll see a lot less "die now" and a lot more "sit in a little tiny room until you die."

It's easier to let the state do the killing for you than to have to put a bullet between the eyes of the condemned yourself.

@CB -

Also, the deterrence value is vastly overstated. What's the deterrence value of prison? Not much, I'd argue, since there's so damn many people in them.

But you certainly can't make a sane argument for abolishing them on those grounds.

The costs of incarceration are something that society bears in an attempt to deal with those who do not accept the unstated compact.

The death penalty is simply a way of guaranteeing the "without possibility of parole" part.