Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

That is sound wisdom in a world that has fate and magic, but I don't believe that it is applicable to this world.

Terminating proven murderers could very well stabilize the future.

We don't know. We do know that keeping them around does no one any good.

DanaC and I were commenting on how the actions of a murderer affect his own family. Here's a quote from a book called "An Hour To Kill," a true story about Ken Register, an 18-year-old who abducted, raped, sodomized and stabbed to death one of his best friends, Crystal Todd. The following excerpt is a quote taken from his mother:

"You don't know what it's like to go to the store and have someone stare as if to say, 'That's Ken Register's mother.'"...Conversations ceased when she entered rooms. People sensed that small talk was no longer appropriate. Shirley felt in her heart that she needed to respond, that it was somehow important for her to speak up. But what was there to say? What words woul let others know what she and her family were going through?


And, contrary to popular belief, religion isn't the answer. Ken Register and his father were involved in the church; they helped to build the new church, Ken himself often accompanied the minister and did chores for some of the older church members. He attended church regularly. People took that as evidence of his moral upbringing and good character. He had, in fact, spent the morning of the day that Crystal was murdered scrubbing the floors of the new church that he and his father helped construct. He arrived early at church the next morning after visiting the mother of the murdered girl, and during the service, he played his guitar and led the music. He attended church services that day and later went to attend another church function with his girlfriend. He was a pallbearer at Crystal's funeral.

There's no way that anyone will be able to convince me that an 18-year-old boy who was raised in the church doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. He drove her out to a secluded area, raped and sodomized her, and then murdered her and threw her into a ditch.

There were 35 different cuts and stab wounds, seven bruises, and three abrasions. Some of the wounds were made before she died, some during, and some after. Her face had been cut on her left cheek, on her right eyebrow, below the right eye, and below the inside corner of her right eye, 11 stab wounds to the face and head in all. She had bruises on the left temple, upper and lower lip, right eyebrow, right upper eyelid, and in the right temporal area. There were 3 knife wounds to the neck, any of which would have been fatal. The slashes were so deep and made with such force that they sliced the bones on her spinal column, and the only thing holding her head on was her spinal column. There were six more stab wounds in her chest measuring more than a half inch long and two and a quarter inches deep. One of the wounds penetrated the right lung. One was made through the middle of the stomach and under the breastbone into the liver while Crystal was dying. Twice she had been stabbed in the back with such force that the knife stuck in the bone of the spinal column. Another 3-inch-deep wound was made between the ribs and penetrated the aorta. Most of the additional knife wounds made to her abdomen were made after she had died and penetrated the liver and small bowel. Two wounds had opened the abdominal wall, and her intestines protruded through the holes. The examination of the head showed three stab wounds on the left side that penetrated the skull and passed into her brain. One of the medical examiners said that he had never, in the 400+ autopsies he had performed, seen knife stabs so deeply penetrate the brain.



The medical examiners ruled the cause of death as exsanguination, and concluded that she was conscious during the several minutes that it took her to die and that she was cut and stabbed repeatedly as she was dying. The medical examiner said that she was conscious while she was being stabbed repeatedly in the head and face. A stab wound just above her left ear paralyzed the right side of her body, yet she continued to fight off the attacker with her left hand, which suffered multiple cuts. She was nearly decapitated, and a necklace was imbedded in the cuts. The sexual part of the forensic investigation indicated that a foriegn object was inserted into anus up to and after her death. The doctor explained that Crystal was anally raped while being stabbed, while bleeding to death, and after she died.

Medical examiners also discovered significant bruising around the vaginal and rectal areas from blunt force. Sperm was found in both the vaginal and anal areas.


He confessed to the murder when the DNA made it clear that he was guilty.

He destroyed a girl's life. He destroyed the lives of her family members. He destroyed his family's life.

And so, remind me again why he deserves to live?


Sidhe

edited to include the autopsy report...

Whether or not he deserves to live is besides the point. Whether or not it is right for *us* to kill him is the question

Why would it not be right?

Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

You might think that...I think they could be beneficial for research purposes.

Re: Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

What sort of research?

Because there is no way to be sure that everybody sentenced to die is guilty even if we can be totally sure of some......Because violence is cyclical and state violence against it's citizens ( even those who have committed terrible crimes) gives a message that violence and murder is alright in special circumstances ( beyond self defense) ....Because there are other ways to deal with murderers which allow for later appeals and changes in law....Because when the state has the right to kill it sets a dangerous precedent ( imo) which can then be used a as tool in class/race conflict.....Because it doesnt solve the problem it just removes one murderer from the world, trust me another will come along to take their place. ....Because it has no deterrant effect......Because two wrongs do not make a right......Because it is symptomatic of the dehumanising of criminals to the point where people on here can claim a murderer to be "not a person"
.......Because it is disproportinately carried out against the killers of white people despite the murders of black people being just a smuch of a problem. .....Because it disproportinately affects black people .....Because it disproportinately affects those too poor to acquire good advocates.....

Those are just a few of my reasons as I think we've already discussed.

So you'd rather create another problem than try to solve the real problem.

I dont see how not wanting to execute murderers is creating a new problem. I mean....if you guys were executing your killers and that had solved the problem well, then I could see how you might think that. But you kill your murderers and we dont yet we have a very similar level of crime.

Re: Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

If they would LET us use them in a lab, I'd be all for it.


To DanaC "Whether or not it is right for *us* to kill him is the question":

The State has the responsibility of ensuring the safety of its citizens. The penalties for infractions of the law are public, and therefore anyone who breaks the law is by definition subjecting himself to that punishment if caught. I get tired of hearing convicted murderers say "they tell me I was wrong to kill, and now they're going to kill me." They KNEW the penalty when they committed the act. No use whining, trying to get sympathy, now that they have to pay the price for their act. They should've thought about that before.

It is right for the state to execute those they deem too dangerous to live because that is how society is set up. The rules are there for everyone to see. Society has agreed upon them, and have thus empowered the State to execute.

I maintain that lawful execution is no more murder than lawful confiscation is stealing.



Sidhe

I would agree. Protecting it's citizens is something my own country takes as seriously as yours yet we dont kill for any crime. I do not think capital punishment has the effect of protecting citizens.

Re: Re: Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

Our thoughts on this issue are probably quite different.

The question is not race. That's a red herring. The question is, "did they do it?" We all know OJ did it, but he got away, even with overwhelming evidence. DNA doesn't lie. It can be altered to NOT look like who it is, but it cannot be altered to LOOK like who it ISN'T.

Are the poor folks guilty? Would you rather we give them a sleazy high-class lawyer like OJ's, so they can get away with murder?

Race and class aren't as much of a factor as people try to make them out to be, IMO. They seem to me to be just things brought in to cloud the issue.

I don't care WHAT color you are, I don't care how much money you have. If you're guilty, you should pay the penalty.

Sidhe

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so then killing the killer brings back the innocent?
 

Yup. I'd be willing to bet they are.