Death Penalty

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:55 pm

RedGlitter wrote: I was just thinking...is a show of remorse the thing that tips the scales?

If this guy was sorry should we let him live? There have been others in history who have claimed remorse but were "mentally ill" and did it again! I personally think you'd have to be ill to carry this off but I don't think putting them in a mental house is the answer.

I am reminded of a man named Albert Fish back in the 1930s, who befriended a family and asked to take their young daughter for ice cream one day. He killed her, dismembered her and cooked her as a roast, complete with potatoes and carrots. She was only *one* of his victims. He even sent a letter to the parents detailing what he did and stating *how delicious and tender* the girl was. I'm getting ill just writing this.

I think society has an obligation to annihilate a ghoul like that.

I do too...

What I was getting at, is one doesn't know that someone isn't capable of committing murder again after already being convicted of murder, therefore capitol punishment can be justified in my eyes based on the simple fact that they we're capable of such a heinous crime to begin with, and that merely because someone has murdered in the past and doesn't in the future is purely coincidence. (My veiw)

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:02 pm

Lulu2 wrote: I agree, R'G, but I also know there are people who would argue the man was obviously a NUTTER and deserved therapy, not execution.

My entire argument is that you can't rehabilitate a murderer...so why try? The sooner people understand that the sooner they won't put the public at risk...I'm sorry but I will show no sympathy for a murderer...they deserve to be locked up for the rest of their life, and upon any question for the safety of people within their control should be put to death. God can forgive them...I won't.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:21 pm

K.Snyder wrote: My entire argument is that you can't rehabilitate a murderer...so why try? The sooner people understand that the sooner they won't put the public at risk...I'm sorry but I will show no sympathy for a murderer...they deserve to be locked up for the rest of their life, and upon any question for the safety of people within their control should be put to death. God can forgive them...I won't.

This is exactly how I feel about rapists. Not to change the subject, just saying.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:57 pm

K.Snyder wrote: My entire argument is that you can't rehabilitate a murderer...so why try?
Actually recidivism for murder is amongst the lowest of any crime. It's actually thieves that you can't rehabilitate.

Notice also that capital punishment lets murderers go more than locking them up because juries are reluctant to find people guilty of capital crimes. In Victoria the rate of acquittal of a murder charger on grounds of insanity approximately halved after the abolition of capital punishment.

The percentage of manslaughter verdicts also dropped.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:08 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: Actually recidivism for murder is amongst the lowest of any crime. It's actually thieves that you can't rehabilitate.

Notice also that capital punishment lets murderers go more than locking them up because juries are reluctant to find people guilty of capital crimes. In Victoria the rate of acquittal of a murder charger on grounds of insanity approximately halved after the abolition of capital punishment.

The percentage of manslaughter verdicts also dropped.

You have to prove that,..and as I said before(based on my own opinion of course)you cannot prove that someone who has murdered will not murder again, to add to the question, which is more acceptable and which proves more costly in society. We're talking about MURDER man....Capitol punishment for anything other than murder is just absolutely uncalled for, and for anyone to say otherwise is sadly unsophisticated...I hate the idea of the death penalty but by god if it means to save another life I wouldn't think twice if I had to do it myself. I would much rather be a victim of my car being stolen than to lose a loved one...and I simply will not live taking a chance of just the opposite.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:10 pm

Diuretic wrote:

2. Murderers can't be rehabilitated.

Yes they can. There are plenty of examples of persons who murdered being released and never committing murder again.

Purley circumstantial, and merely coincidence.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:14 pm

cherandbuster wrote: I'm all for the death penalty when there is irrefutable DNA evidence to prove guilt.

Fry this guy! :-5

Agreed.................

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:15 pm

Someone kills someone you love dearly, and they verbally threaten to kill someone else whom you love dearly. Do you feel comfortable in releasing that very same person after they claim to be rehabilitated upon psychiatric evaluation?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:19 pm

Diuretic wrote:

3. Murder is murder.

No it isn't. "Murder"is legally defined depending on jurisdiction. The common trait is "unlawful killing" (there are more but that'll do for now). Some States in the US have various degrees of murder and that has been suggested in my jurisdiction as well as in the UK but so far the common law still applies. There is merit in the idea but there are arguments against it as well. Any crime (rather than a regulatory type offence) is still constituted of a mental element and a physical element (mens rea and actus reus) but the circumstances of every murder are very different one from another. Other posters have indicated that an unlawful killing can vary in the nature of the circumstances but most defences to a charge of murder will still concentrate on negation of intent in order to either get the charge reduced to manslaughter (either by negotiation or by the finding of the jury) or exculpation on grounds of insanity (M'Naghten Rules).

Murder defined by the law of man, but murder is murder by the law of god.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:22 pm

Diuretic wrote: But the cases exist to show that some people who are convicted of murder can be released from prison and don't murder again. That being the case it defeats the absolutist statement that murderers can't/shouldn't be rehabilitated. Some can, so some should.

I've got no truck with criminals, I've dealt with plenty of them and prison is the best place for them. But murderers, strangely enough, aren't always criminals in the sense that I might use the word to describe a so-called "career" criminal. That was the point I was trying to make. I'm not suggesting society forgives a murderer. Anyone who murders should go to prison for a lengthy term because it's still the most serious crime we know and society needs to show its disapproval by ensuring someone is locked away for a serious period of time.

Some murderers should never be let out, agreed. Some can be let out though, some can go back into society and never commit a crime again. But as I say, they must still face length imprisonment for good policy reasons.

That's your opinion, and all that is left is for me to say that I simply disagree. I have no forgiveness for a murderer, and I would never let them see the light of day. In my opinion, it's merely coincidence that they don't murder again, and upon any question I wouldn't take that risk. Upon murder they cease to be a human being in my eyes.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:32 pm

Hmm....more interesting ideas to ponder!

While a killer may be able to be rehabbed (depending on the instance in which he killed- ie: self defense ok; Jeffery Dahmer no way) I don't know how it could be proven that a *nutball* could be or has been rehabbed. Suggestions??

How do we decide who is mentally sick and who is just a cretin??

Just wanted to say, K, that I would definitely put rape up there with crimes suitable for death not just murder, in my opinion. I don't mean cases of statutory between two consenting people even if it is a kid, but I do mean actual forcible rape.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:35 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Murder defined by the law of man, but murder is murder by the law of god.
Meaning capital punishment is murder in the law of God?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:39 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: Meaning capital punishment is murder in the law of God?

Depends on your God.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:40 pm

RedGlitter wrote: Just wanted to say, K, that I would definitely put rape up there with crimes suitable for death not just murder, in my opinion. I don't mean cases of statutory between two consenting people even if it is a kid, but I do mean actual forcible rape.
One of the expected consequence of that policy would be you'd see a lot more murders of rape victims by the rapist. After all a dead person makes a worse witness, and the penalty is the same.

Are you okay with that?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:43 pm

Am I okay with it? Not sure I even agree with it. Are you saying you don't feel rape should be punishable by death?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:46 pm

I saw a lot of diatribe here.................

How do I feel on the death penalty??

If the DNA says it is true...................convict them

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:53 pm

RedGlitter wrote: Depends on your God. One of those Abrahamic Religions that feature the ten commandments including "Thou Shalt not Kill".

One of Judaic, Islamic, Christian or Baha'i Gods.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:55 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: One of the expected consequence of that policy would be you'd see a lot more murders of rape victims by the rapist. After all a dead person makes a worse witness, and the penalty is the same.

Are you okay with that?

In that case, they're dead either way so what difference would it make? One less scumbag either way you look at it.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:59 pm

RedGlitter wrote: Am I okay with it? Not sure I even agree with it. Are you saying you don't feel rape should be punishable by death?
I'm saying two things.

1) But I'm also saying there should be no capital punishment for sociological reasons, and for ethical reasons.

Which implies there should be no capital punishment for rape.

2) The punishment for murder should be greater than the punishment for rape.

Which doesn't imply there should be no capital punishment for rape only if you have various degrees of capital punishments. Perhaps: Hanging for rape. Drawn and quartered for murder.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:01 pm

RedGlitter wrote: In that case, they're dead either way so what difference would it make? One less scumbag either way you look at it. Yes but one way you also have a dead rape victim.

The question is should we try to avoid that when we codify our laws, or is the only objective of a legal system to satisfy the vengence and bloodlust of the community?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:08 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: I'm saying two things.

1) But I'm also saying there should be no capital punishment for sociological reasons, and for ethical reasons.

Which implies there should be no capital punishment for rape.

2) The punishment for murder should be greater than the punishment for rape.

Which doesn't imply there should be no capital punishment for rape only if you have various degrees of capital punishments. Perhaps: Hanging for rape. Drawn and quartered for murder.

Hmm. Interesting, Wombat....

The ethical reasons I could figure out, but what would be your sociological reasons?

I could take that a step farther and say that certain murders, such as Dahmer's actions would get drawing and quartering, while setting your spouse on fire in their bed would get you a mere electrocution. I think comparing the atrocity level of crimes to this degree could prove to be rather frightening in our society...

I am trying to consider rape vs. murder neutrally but I am unable to. I would even go so far as to say where murder devoids one of their life essence, being violated sexually can devoid one of their personal soul. Not everyone will agree however, but I see rapists as the filth of the earth.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:13 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: Yes but one way you also have a dead rape victim.

The question is should we try to avoid that when we codify our laws, or is the only objective of a legal system to satisfy the vengence and bloodlust of the community?

We shouldn't mollycoddle a rapist because we don't want a dead victim. If he's set on on killing her, he will regardless, IMO.

How about satisfying the honor of the victim? This is where simple Mountain Justice would come in.

I don't see anything at all wrong with vengeance, or rather avenging. Not at all. I don't understand why anyone would, maybe you could explain why you would?

I think society has a right to sufficiently punish those who break the laws of human decency.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:17 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: Meaning capital punishment is murder in the law of God?

As I said before, I don't condone Capitol punishment in cases other than fearing for the safety of another human being. I disagree with the death penalty merely as a means of punishment, and I would like to clarify that once again. I also believe anyone convicted of murder, and by my definition of murder I simply mean anyone whom kills other than a means of self defense as well as a case of unfortunate accidents. Obviously you have to have a judicial system that is not prone to incompetence as well as corruption, but for that it's simply out of anyone's control(otherwise it wouldn't exist right?...morally speaking.).

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:19 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: One of those Abrahamic Religions that feature the ten commandments including "Thou Shalt not Kill".

One of Judaic, Islamic, Christian or Baha'i Gods.

So then you're saying that you would let someone kill you because you wouldn't feel obligated to kill them because it would be deemed murder?

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:30 pm

RedGlitter wrote: The ethical reasons I could figure out, but what would be your sociological reasons?
The legal system doesn't only affect the victims and perpetrators of crimes but also defines our civil liberties and to a certain extent provides the environment for corruption and empowerment of personal bigotry, especially amongst the policing class.

Where the state has power (nominally) only over it's citizens freedoms the stakes are much lower than if punishments include taking a hand or stoning. It is certainly often recognised that the prison system involves a lot of rape and sexual abuse by other prisoners and by guards: but these kinds of things are worse and police brutality is worse and police corruption is worse in an environment where the physical body of the citizen is not held beyond the rights of the state to abuse.

This is the main reason that I am happy to live in a country without capital punishment.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:37 pm

RedGlitter wrote: We shouldn't mollycoddle a rapist because we don't want a dead victim. That's one view. It's kind of extreme. Many people would think that the thing to try to maximise in a legal system is the livability of the society as a whole, rather than catering to the sense of vengence alone.

I think that there is some space in between "mollycoddle" and "put to death". "Lock up" is somewhere in there, I believe.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:42 pm

I accept your viewpoint, Wombat. I don't agree, but want to make it clear that I'm not trying to argue with you. Sometimes I come off sounding like that. Prison in the US anyway, is no picnic for sure but it's also not the dungeon of punishment it should be and once was. So I don't feel locking one up is enough of a punishment. I believe in making the punishment fit the crime.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:42 pm

K.Snyder wrote: So then you're saying that you would let someone kill you because you wouldn't feel obligated to kill them because it would be deemed murder?
I should make it clear that I'm not religious.

I was merely surprised that you invoked the phrase "law of God" because it seems that you are advocating killing, which is strictly against the law of the common Gods around here.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:50 pm

RedGlitter wrote: So I don't feel locking one up is enough of a punishment. I believe in making the punishment fit the crime. You must have a lot of faith in the altruism of the state and the ethics of the police force.

For me the more important role of the legal system will always be to uphold the civil liberties of those people who are not murderers, because there are a far greater number of those in any society than the other.

You must really smart when someone gets off on a technicality?

Whereas I go: good the legal system still controlling the police as well as the citizens - and I'd much rather see a few guilty people go free than it become okay to obtain evidence by any means, or to deny rights during the interrogation process.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:56 pm

Bored_Wombat wrote: I should make it clear that I'm not religious.

I was merely surprised that you invoked the phrase "law of God" because it seems that you are advocating killing, which is strictly against the law of the common Gods around here.

Fine.

I apologize for incorperating my beleifs in this thread...

What I should say, is that there are certain morale beliefs(I'm assuming you hold morale virtues) that one can recognize in the simple fact that there are differences between killing and murder. Murder cannot be justified by the majority of human beings who are morally obligated to not kill other than a means of fearing for their own life, or for the life of people they love. People are either content on unjustifiably killing another human being or they're not. If they are, then it's called murder. I'm assuming you don't have to be religious to understand that murder is wrong.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:03 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: You must have a lot of faith in the altruism of the state and the ethics of the police force.

For me the more important role of the legal system will always be to uphold the civil liberties of those people who are not murderers, because there are a far greater number of those in any society than the other.

You must really smart when someone gets off on a technicality?

Whereas I go: good the legal system still controlling the police as well as the citizens - and I'd much rather see a few guilty people go free than it become okay to obtain evidence by any means, or to deny rights during the interrogation process.

Oh my, Wombat! :-6

You and I could have our own personal thread about about civil liberties and governmental authority and whatnot!

Actually, I do not have much faith in them at all. As long as we are still human, we will make mistakes and that will include killing innocent people and on that hand, I do appreciate where you're coming from. I can't take a side between one innocent person vs. ten guilty ones running free. To me they're equally as bad.

I would like to see laws returned back to how they were supposed to be in the American old west. Of course there was corruption etc then too but according to history, less tolerance of crime. I won't say less crime as how can we really know that? Anyway, no matter how you look at it there is room for errror: even allowing a rape victim to hunt down her defiler and kill him offers room for error but I would choose something like that over what we have now. If it were murder, I would permit the victim's next of kin to take care of the matter. I don't believe in "turning the other cheek" at all when it comes to egregious violations of one's person like murder and rape.

I do believe in kharma and often think "they'll get theirs" such as OJ Simpson. Are you familiar with him? That right there is a clear case of power, celebrity and corruption of justice. But I do believe he will pay.

Am I rambling?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:17 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: You must have a lot of faith in the altruism of the state and the ethics of the police force.

For me the more important role of the legal system will always be to uphold the civil liberties of those people who are not murderers, because there are a far greater number of those in any society than the other.

You must really smart when someone gets off on a technicality?

Whereas I go: good the legal system still controlling the police as well as the citizens - and I'd much rather see a few guilty people go free than it become okay to obtain evidence by any means, or to deny rights during the interrogation process.

You seem to be saying that the judicial system dictates the behavior of criminals as opposed to criminalistic behavior being the result of ones own irrationality. Is that correct?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:19 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: I should make it clear that I'm not religious.

I was merely surprised that you invoked the phrase "law of God" because it seems that you are advocating killing, which is strictly against the law of the common Gods around here.

Do you have an answer for the question or not?

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:30 am

K.Snyder wrote: I'm assuming you don't have to be religious to understand that murder is wrong.
Nor even that killing is wrong.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:36 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: Nor even that killing is wrong.

I'm assuming that you don't beleive in killing as a means of self defense, and to that I say good luck with that. You can let people kill the people you love all you want, but as for me I won't allow it ok. That's all I have to say.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:49 am

Diuretic wrote: I think the prohibition on humans killing other humans (at least in the immediate in-group) is older than religion and is probably about group survival and not about morality at all.

Then love has no relevance then?

So you're saying people don't care enough for anyone else to save their life as long as their own life isn't in jeopardy?

What a joke.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:55 am

RedGlitter wrote: even allowing a rape victim to hunt down her defiler and kill him offers room for error And escalation. Their family could then come and hunt his murderer down, I assume.

That's a clear vengeance/justice dichotomy case.

I would like to hunt down and kill my rapist, but I wouldn't like to live in the society that would let me.

RedGlitter wrote: If it were murder, I would permit the victim's next of kin to take care of the matter. And we have escalation again.

RedGlitter wrote: II don't believe in "turning the other cheek" at all when it comes to egregious violations of one's person like murder and rape. Alas. This is the cost of civilisation. The court system must handle it, and the victims must be somewhat dissatisfied. But that's best for society in general. A blood feud ends when the less well armed group are dead, which is too arbitrary to call "Justice" by most ethical systems. If might makes right, we are a poorly off as an Iraqi farmer, and who would wish that power imbalance on any human?

RedGlitter wrote: I do believe in kharma and often think "they'll get theirs" such as OJ Simpson. Are you familiar with him? That right there is a clear case of power, celebrity and corruption of justice. I was aware of it. I probably wasn't as saturated by it as you guys were. Still the "knock knock" joke went around when they were trying to find the jurors:

(Knock knock

Who's there

OJ

OJ who?

Right, you're on the Jury.)

A jury of twelve found that the prosecutions case had inconsistencies, which they agreed gave reasonable doubt on the grounds that the police might has set up the whole thing, and the American public disagreed, right?

My own feeling is that the 12 people who heard all the evidence probably made a better decision than I could have from my distance. You're pretty sure that they came to the wrong decision though?

RedGlitter wrote: But I do believe he will pay. He's certainly experienced some social alienation. And he hasn't had much work since then.

RedGlitter wrote: Am I rambling?

Not at all. Or at least not uninterestingly.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:59 am

K.Snyder wrote: You seem to be saying that the judicial system dictates the behavior of criminals as opposed to criminalistic behavior being the result of ones own irrationality. Is that correct? Dictates the behaviour of the police. Which can be criminal. But mostly they're just trying to do their job, which is impossible for them to see as serving the greater society, since they're involved on the ground in a case by case basis, and they would be poor police if they weren't personally invested in trying to catch and successfully prosecute individuals.

Which leads to the manufacturing of evidence and borderline interrogation practices.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:01 am

K.Snyder wrote: I'm assuming that you don't beleive in killing as a means of self defense, and to that I say good luck with that. You can let people kill the people you love all you want, but as for me I won't allow it ok. That's all I have to say. Capital punishment involves the state already holding the perpetrator in custody. There is no risk of him killing again unless he overpowers the bailiff in the courtroom.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:06 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: Capital punishment involves the state already holding the perpetrator in custody. There is no risk of him killing again unless he overpowers the bailiff in the courtroom.

Right so don't let the SOB go, and if he tries to harm anyone take his @** out and we're cool.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:09 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: Dictates the behaviour of the police. Which can be criminal. But mostly they're just trying to do their job, which is impossible for them to see as serving the greater society, since they're involved on the ground in a case by case basis, and they would be poor police if they weren't personally invested in trying to catch and successfully prosecute individuals.

Which leads to the manufacturing of evidence and borderline interrogation practices.

You're talking about incompetents within the judicial system. Hey I'm all for fixing that. Just tell me how I can help.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:09 am

Bored_Wombat wrote:

(Knock knock

Who's there

OJ

OJ who?

Right, you're on the Jury.)

:wah: !! I hadn't ever heard that.

A jury of twelve found that the prosecutions case had inconsistencies, which they agreed gave reasonable doubt on the grounds that the police might has set up the whole thing, and the American public disagreed, right?

Well as I recall, it was one juror that messed everything up and even he or she believed OJ was guilty but there was a technicality/snag in the process that person couldn't get past. Dang. I should look that up because I've forgotten now. I'm sorry. I got so sick of OJ I just shut it out after a while. Over here, that's all we could get. Ad nauseum.

Not everyone thought OJ was guilty or at least there were those who put up a good show, but the overwhelming majority of Americans thought he did it.

My own feeling is that the 12 people who heard all the evidence probably made a better decision than I could have from my distance. You're pretty sure that they came to the wrong decision though?

Based on what I got to watch of the trial and some circumstantial evidence, (actually his past history) yes, I am positive he did it. There is no doubt in my mind.

The OJ thing to many of us, is an embarrassment. A show of how our legal system can and often does fail the victim.

:o.......

Pythos · Post by **Pythos** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:30 am

I don't believe that every person who commits murder is incapable of being rehabilitated. It would depend on each individual case. It would be great if it was always so black and white. That once someone has killed they should be locked away forever or put to death. Certainly there are those who should be executed for their crimes, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy. But some guy who walks in on his wife with another man and shoots them in a moment of blind rage doesn't.

He can be rehabilitated and after paying his debt with a sufficient prison term be released. That is what the justice system and the various degrees of murder are for. Determining the degree of the crime and the price that should be paid.

The death penalty for serial rapists would be acceptable to me as well. Rape is such a violent devistating crime, that the victim is never the same. Plus rapists and sexual preditors have the highest rates of being repeat offenders. In my opinion these types of crimes are just as hienous as murder.

Also I disagree with the idea that the dead make the worst witnesses. Eyewitness testimony is highly unrelieable. While the dead can't speak. They don't breakdown or get confused under intense cross-examination. Most importantly the physical evidence they provide speaks volumes. Evidence that ties the victim directly to the perpetrator like DNA. In the case of Ted Bundy the most damning evidence against him was a bite mark left on Lisa Levy's body at the Chi Omega house.

From: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_kill ... dy/14.html

"While on the stand, Dr. Souviron described the bite mark injuries found on Lisa Levy's body. As he spoke, the jury was shown full-scale photographs of the bite marks that had been taken the night of the murder. The doctor pointed out the uniqueness of the indentations left behind on the victim and compared them with full-scale pictures of Ted's teeth. There was no question that Ted had made the bite marks on Lisa Levy's body. The photos would be the biggest piece of evidence the prosecution had linking Ted to the crime."

One could make case that the dead can be the best witnesses

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:43 am

Pythos wrote: I don't believe that every person who commits murder is incapable of being rehabilitated. It would depend on each individual case. It would be great if it was always so black and white. That once someone has killed they should be locked away forever or put to death. Certainly there are those who should be executed for their crimes, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy. But some guy who walks in on his wife with another man and shoots them in a moment of blind rage doesn't.

And we're making exceptions for different types of murders is that it? What about the families who've lost someone they dearly love because of it? These people who will never get to share a laugh, a smile, a kind gesture, a sense of presence that is as beautiful as anything imaginable, a cry for that matter,..this is excusable?

I dare hear what I'm seeing. My heart weeps like that of a child who misses their mother. My god.

I'm so utterly sad by what I'm seeing I can do nothing but just leave this thread.