Do you feel you were given all the facts in the Gary Graham execution case? I'm not asking whether you think he should have been executed, but do you feel you were well informed?

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Answers

I live in Texas, so it's been all over the news down here, and I feel that the local stations have done a very good job of covering it.

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it. I am pro-death penalty. I think that with DNA evidence, it's damn near impossible to execute someone that wasn't guilty of a crime (unless their initials happen to be OJ).

Having said that, I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that there _was_ no physical evidence in Mr. Graham's case. The witness is adamant that she saw Mr. Graham in the parking lot that night, but it was dark, and I guess in my mind there will always be the question of if he really did do it. Certainly he was capable of it - the man had a record a mile long, but still, I feel sorry for that lady if new evidence comes out that shows Mr. Graham wasn't, in fact, the killer.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

We got quite a lot of coverage about it in the UK.

And I am so anti the death penalty that I won't continue here, because it will end in tears.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Hear hear! And just to show you how much I agree with you, here's a quote from an e-mail I sent to the website of the Bush campaign a short while ago:

"How can you speak out in favor of something as savage, barbaric, inhuman as the death penalty? How can you say that it's OK to kill people, even if these people are killers themselves? How can you say that and still be able to face yourself when you look in a mirror? Honestly, Mr. Bush, between crime and punishment, that country of yours scares the living daylights out of me."

I never got a reply, of course. But I'll get him back! If he ever visits my country, I'll flatly refuse to shake his hand. Hah, let's see how he likes that!

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Stijn - my feelings exactly.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Stijn & Jackie, you should go further. If Bush gets elected and then visits your countries, pretend not to know him. And then, and then, if he tells you he's President of the United States, give him a little smile and say, "Oh, really? How very nice for you." That'll drive him really nuts. Yeah.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

I too live in Texas - in Harris County - where Mr. Graham was sentenced from. Did you know that if Harris County were its own state, it would still have the largest number of persons on death row in the nation (US)???

I am against the death penalty - big time. I listened to my priest discuss it last night in class. He had an interesting take. Set aside the defendent and the victim. Think of the effect of putting someone to death on other's minds. He was telling us the story of the jury forewoman in Karla Faye Tucker's case - also from Harris County. Ms. Tucker, you'll remember, was convicted of a brutal, drug induced, pick axe murder in the mid-80's. She "found God," married a minister, and became a model prisoner. The week of her execution, the forewoman who'd read the recommended sentence ended up in a psyc ward in the hospital because of the guilt & questioning & stress of sentencing someone to death and having that carried out.

Also, in Arizona, after the death penalty was reinstituted there, the Head of the State Police, the Warden of the Prison, the clergyman (a Methodist Minister), and one other high ranking person all wrote the Governor of the state the day after the first and only execution. They said they didn't question his guilt - the man had readily admitted what he'd done. They didn't question the Governor's ability to sign a death warrant. What they did say was that they'd never allow the State to do that (carrying out the death penalty) to them again. They would all quit before doing it.

So, even taking away all the numerous arguements about the defendent's inncence/guilt, cruel and unusual punishment, ratio of minorities, and question of representation, there is still SIGNIFICANT impact for those involved. There are other ways to separate these people from society rather than kill them. We live in a civilized society where we have the means to contain a threat to our integrity.

Almost done - one last thing. Do you know it is against the UN Charter for basic human rights??? The US ends up on all kinds of human rights violating reports because of our use of the death penalty! Yet we stand in Congress every year and question China? Silliness.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

P.S. I've always been against the death penalty - I just happen to be taking Sacred Scriptures to fufill my core requirements at my Catholic University. The priest that teaches the class was asked by students to discuss the issue and the Church's viewpoint on capital punishment.

Did you know St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in strong favor of capital punishment?

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Stijn, just for the record both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore support the death penalty, so don't shake their hand either. I personally wouldn't shake the hand of Tony Blair because he took away the right to remain silent from British defendants.

Here in Austin the full facts of the Graham case have been available in the print media, although not well covered by TV. Mr. Graham was engaged in a carnival of violent crime that ended when he passed out in the home of a woman he had just raped. His lawyer didn't call the two alibi witness because that would have opened the door to his past, which would have made things worse for him. His case was reviewed by 34 judges in 21 separate appeals.

I do think there are people like Graham who "need kill'n", as we say here in Texas. But I also have a huge distrust of the government.

Under the system we have now the government can throw unlimited resources against an individual. In the heavily Republican county where I live we do hire really good lawyers for indigent defendants accused of serious felonies, but these lawyers have to beg for money to hire investigators and forensic testing. I think that if a defendant wants a full blown trial he should have a good lawyer, and access to independent investigators and forensic services. I don't think I'm alone here in thinking this and I expect that the next session of the Texas Legislature will act to improve this situation.

One problem we have in Texas is that our Court of Criminal Appeals has turned into a rubber stamp. (In our system the Texas Supreme Court handles only civil cases, while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals handles final appeals for criminal cases.) According to two friends of mine who are criminal lawyers, this court NEVER reverses a trail judge decision. Just like Japan, they consider that the goverment doesn't convict innocent people.

I've decided to do something that runs against my grain. I'm going to vote 100% Democrat for the judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals, since historically the Democrat judges having been willing to reverse district court decisions. I just think we have to have a quality control function for felony cases, and we don't have that now. If only Democrats were skeptical of lawyers and goverment in other areas besides Texas capital crimes.

As a thinking person I will of course continue to vote 100% Republican for the Supreme Court judges, so as to keep our civil system from going Californian.

I am confused about one other thing. It seems like most of the anti- death penalty people are the same ones who most favor breaking up Microsoft. How is that we don't trust the government to know which individuals should get the death penalty, but we do trust it to decide which businesses get the death penalty?

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Jim says "But I also have a huge distrust of the government."

So do I, which is why I don't think they should be deciding who lives and dies.

And Tom? I'll go one step further and egg his car!

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Totally opposed to the death penalty here, in part because I don't believe that justice is equally carried out when it comes to rich and poor or racial discrimination. And if the State of Texas is wrong, a man paid with his life! You don't get to take that back.

Jim wrote "As a thinking person I will of course continue to vote 100% Republican for the Supreme Court judges, so as to keep our civil system from going Californian."

Yeah, 'cuz you know we wacky Californians! We screw in hot tubs, not in death chambers! Please.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

As another Texan who is pro-death penalty (are you seeing a trend there?), the only thing that really bothers me about this case is the way it was turned into a such a political 3 ring cicus to help Bush's campaign. God help me, I don't want that man to be president.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Ooops, sorry, Grace, didn't mean to lump you in with myself and the other two.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Angie, are you sure you intended to write "a political 3 ring cicus to help Bush's campaign"? Shouldn't it really be "a political 3 ring cicus to help Gore's campaign?

For example, only one of the 3 major broadcast network news shows mentioned in their report that Governer Bush did NOT have the power to delay or commute Graham's death sentance once the Board of Pardons and Paroles declined to recommendation changing the decision to proceed with the death sentance.

Jesse Jackson and the Hollywood bleeding hearts didn't go to Huntsville to help Bush.

And where is Gore on this issue, and why didn't anyone ask him about it? He's said in the past that he supports the death penality. I guess he hadn't heard of it, just as he didn't know he may get a special counsel to look into his shady fund raising practices.

I do think the overall episode helped Bush, because he didn't go wobbly under presure. This contrasts very favorably with Gore, who bungled the whole Elan thing by trying to pander to everyone involved. Poor Owl just made everyone on all sides mad at him.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Didn't Al Gore *INVENT* the death penalty???

:-) Come on, someone had to say it.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Regarding Mr. Howard's comments, isn't it a little extreme to compare the separation of a corporation to the death penalty?

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Well, I don't really agree with his conviction with no physical evidence, though, quite frankly its not always possible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt someone's guilt.

Then I saw that he had raped someone at gunpoint and I was ready to do some serious damage to his person. Rape is something I have zero tolerance for. Ask me about it sometime and I'll let you in on my personal experiences. I'm rather torn about this whole thing. I don't agree with murder for any reason on a rational level, but my visceral reaction to rape seems to bring up some serious emotion toward the offender.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

couldnt leave the TV last evening. i was sitting home, watching CNN and xing my fingers, waiting for something to happen and save this man's life. i couldnt help not thinking how every minute that goes by brings him closer to his death. what was he thinking about all that time? i come from a troubled country, which has its own share of violence and ignoring humen rights - but we dont have a death penalty! for me this was a first time of following an execution story from close. it was something i will never forget. since im new here, everything is still very confusing- how can it be that in the USA, the worlds greatest democracy, a place where humen rights are so highly valued - can a thing like this go on. please excuse the spelling, english is not my native language.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

I believe the death penalty is immoral so I'm against it whatever the circumstances. But for those who think it moral, I think you'll be very disturbed to read the new Chicago Tribune article about the way the death penalty has been handled in Dubya's Texas. By the end of it you'll not only be convinced of his lack of fitness for the presidency, you might also think of him (as I do) as guilty of mass murder. "State of execution," it's called, and if you're naive and want to stay that way, don't read it.

http://chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ws/0,1246,45186,00.html

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

I think the death penalty can be appropriate in some instances, but that we ought to be sure without a shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty.

I didn't grieve for John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy when they were executed.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

My reaction to Gary Graham is --

I don't feel pity for any person who committed the atrocities he admitted committing, who was totally responsible for the fact that he ended up jail in the first place, and who THEN went to his death spouting rabble-rousing racist shit, urging people to take up weapons, as if he were some kind of political prisoner.

The man was scum and I see no indication that he changed.

Should he have been put to death? I have no idea. But to see him treated like a martyr in some righteous cause sickens me.

If you want to cry for somebody, cry for his victims, of whom there are many.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

A close friend of mine was murdered. I would give everything I own to be the one to pull the switch to execute the scumbag who did it. (No, he didn't get the death penalty.) I cannot begin to express how vehemently I am in favor of the death penalty. I don't believe premeditated murderers have any "rights" -- I don't want them to enjoy so much as a bowl of breakfast cereal while the victims are lying cold and dead in the ground.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

Assuming Gary Graham had the worst trial on record, he still had 19 years for someone in the justice system with an ounce of sense and decency to give him a new trial or overturn his conviction based on his appeals...unless of course decent people with common sense kept coming to the same conclusions. Could that be possible, or is it more likely a man who doesn't dispute going on an armed crime spree is innocent of a murder?

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

By the way -- re: the death penalty.

I would prefer life without parole. I'm not sure I trust that. They'd eventually decide they needed the room and surely the poor murdering bastard was too old to do any harm, now....

But according to former Texas Governer Ann Richards, it's far more expensive to execute a prisoner than to keep them jailed for life, because of all the legal expenses involved with all the court challenges re: the execution.

So, yes, I'm against the death penalty, not for any humanitarian reasons, but because it costs too much, so what's the point?

-- Anonymous, June 25, 2000

I understand being angered-deeply- but one thing is not being looked at in this debate and thats our mentality,our perspective concerning the type of laws that we want governing us.I personally dont believe in sanctioning the killing of someone because they had killed someone else. The long term logic doesnt follow. And i definitly do not want my government killing someone without my voice being heard on the matter(though,i know this is unrealistic with the size of this nation now but with the interenet and all...?) I play a little bit of -the innocent- but I like the simple idea of -in god we trust- you know, that guy 'Jesus Christ'..giving the other cheek...yadda, yadda, yadda. Its simple, hoaky, and a little too simple minded for our day and age I know,but perhaps we've allowed vengefulness and complexity to cloud our vision for too long.? oops, sorry forgot brevity..

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. I'm a firm supporter of the death penalty. Why should a murderer be able to wake up every morning, eat 3 meals a day, have a bed to sleep in, a roof over his head, etc, when his victim's corpse lies rotting in the cold ground?

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

The lovely Ann Coulter has an excellent article on this subject today:
The last guys proved innocent

In case I messed it up again, the url is:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac000626.shtml

Sorry.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

It never ceases to amaze me how many people there are out there who are vociferously against the death penalty. Maybe it just seems that way to me because I live in Maryland, which is a very liberal state. I was always a very strong supporter of capital punishment until I took a seminar on the death penalty and discovered how flawed the system really is. Now I'm not so sure I like it very much anymore - not for all the "Oh, my god, they're taking away a human life!" reasons (as if the person being executed didn't do something even more heinous!!) but because it's much more expensive than locking someone away for life without parole, and because it just takes too damn long. Maybe someone could explain to me or give me a valid reason why someone sentenced to death should have to wait a minimum of 7-10 years for his execution. Now *there* is a good example of cruel and unusual punishment!

BTW, I highly recommend David Von Drehle's book Among the Lowest of the Dead. It's written with quite a pronounced anti-death penalty slant, but if you can get past that - or if you are against the death penalty to begin with :) - I think you'll like it. I thought he did an especially good job of presenting the legal issues and governing caselaw in an easily accessible way (i.e. you do not have to be a lawyer to understand it).

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

Suzy -

The biblical reference which you made, "an eye for an eye...", when you exegete the meaning of the passage is really meant to keep people from going too far in their punishment of others. What do I mean? Like stoning someone to death for adultry, or stealing a loaf of bread.

The passage isn't meant to be a blanket approval for punishment.

The original text first appears in Exodus 21:24 - the footnotes say, "...by imposing punishment equal to the damage caused, it aims at limiting excesses of vengeance, see Gen 4:23-24. The most obvious case is that of the execution of a murderer...."

Furthermore, this same quote appears in Matthew 5:38-42 where another famous & of quoted out of context passage apprears: "You ahve heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well; if someone wishes to to to law with you to get your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone requires you to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks you, and if anyone wants to boorow, do not turn away."

Americans have all these cute little maxims we use all the time that we don't necessarily know the meaning to... Worse, we don't challenge the meaning of. Things like "eye for an eye" and "everything happens for a reason" and "God won't give you anything you can't handle." This is one of my long rants, so I'll get off my soap box for now - I could be there for DAYS if given the chance.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

Paul: Remember Civics class, "representative government", etc? Prosecutors represent the citizenry and prosecute crimes on behalf "of the people". Ditto juries. The system was never designed for everyone to vote on every court case.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

For those who have said Graham got his chance at a second trial, that the appeals process would have given him one if it had been fair to do so, I again urge you to read the Chicago Tribune story on the way the death penalty is administered in Dubya's Texas. You'll then understand that the appeals process is by no means a guarantee of anyone's fair chance at justice. It's more of a "I'm more right-wing and anti-crime than you are" contest.

http://chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ws/0,1246,45186,00.html

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

Jeff,

No matter how you and the liberal media twist the facts, Graham is not in anyway close to the poster boy you'd like him to be, nor is GW the monster you'd wish he were.

Where is Al Gore on this issue? Out drinking ice tea? Hiding from process servers? Pulling Bubba off of the new crop of interns? Reinventing goverment? Searching for a controlling legal authority?

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

JOY, thanx for the reminder,though I do remembr the concept of 'representative gov.' I just dont feel so comfortable about being represented by an elected body on this issue of capital punishment. Its one more thing,or a framework that we have created to remove us away as individuals from personal responsability or ownership on an issue. In the end though i will admit that my views on capital punishment and goverment sanctioned killing are very personal..and perhaps not quite grounded in practicality. the voice of our majority has spoken,and im left with the option of accepting an agreement where we must agree to disagree. ciao...

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

Jim,

If you can say that an entity owned by such behemoths as GE, Sony, Fox, Time-Warner and Viacom can possibly be remotely "liberal," you're capable of a longer leap of faith than I am.

And if you'd read the article, you'd see that "twisting of facts" consists of exactly quoting the conservative appelate judges you're so proud of.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, EVERY study of the three major broadcast networks, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post shows them to be highly biased to the left. It's an indisputable fact.

As far as the Gramham case goes, this article does a pretty good job of covering the facts that the major media have ignored: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JOHNLEO/jl000627.shtml

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

It's an indisputable fact. Sign of a bullshit reponse::::::how can any study determine this without determining what is "liberal" or "conservative". By whose standards?

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

Not to mention that there's no such thing as an indisputable fact! Unless you live in a dictatorship...

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

At an Ani DiFranco concert a few years ago, Ani told the story of a woman whose daughter was murdered and the man got away. The woman was, naturally, horribly grieved and angry. But time passed. One day, the man who murdered her daughter called her, to admit to it. The woman found herself asking him how he was doing - suddenly having an understanding of what it must be like for him to live with the knowledge of what he had done. Ani told the story much better. In any event, I believe this woman founded Murder Victims' Families for Reconcilliation. If these people can find it in themselves to forgive, then I think the rest of us have much to learn.

Here is the web site:

http://www.mvfr.org/

(For the record, I was strongly, vociferously pro-death penalty until I saw an episode of "21 Jump Street" in 1990 where a recurring bad guy was executed - and it opened my eyes to the complexities of the issue.)

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

Here is an indisputable fact:

"When candidate Bill Clinton took a break from the campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally deficient Arkansas man in 1992, the networks ran just two stories according to the Media Research Center. But since June 12, the networks have aired some 30 interviews and segments on Gary Graham. "

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/gahr1.asp

That ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, and Washington Post bias in favor of Democrats over Republicans is as plain on the nose on your face. The classic study counts how many times the phrase "right wing" is used with respect to Repubicans and compares it to how many times "left wing" is used wrt Democrats. The ratio is on the order of 1000 to one. I can point to you many studies on media bias if you are interested.

For a more subjective example, watch as much of the next CNN produced "Hillary Town Meeting" as you can before you gag. These "town meetings" are held before crowds carefully choosen by Mrs Clinton, and neither the crowd nor the single CNN reporter ask any hard questions.

Compare those to the "Rick Liazo Town Meeting" on CNN. Oh, wait you can't. CNN doesn't air town meetings for Republicans.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

Jim: Just off the top of my head, I can think of Robert Novak on CNN, Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd at the Times, and John Stossel at ABC--all who'd fall on the "conservative" side of the spectrum. You also forgot the Wall St Journal, which has been anit-Clinton from day one.

I givre comments about the "liberal" media the same credence I give to Hillary's "giant right wing conspiracy" assertion.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

Jim -

Excellent article - thanks for the link. I too am against the death penalty, but agree with this writer. If only race weren't an issue. The only thing that would have really put this thing on its ear is if Gary Graham had been white. Then no one would have questioned his guilt. No one.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

The most convincing argument I've heard in favor of Graham's innocence had nothing to do with race, Grace.

A couple of weeks ago, I was watching a morning news program which featured an interview with a police sketch artist--the woman who drew the famous police sketches of the Unibomber and Richard Davis, the man who killed Polly Klaas. She described how contaminated the identification process had been in the Graham case--the eyewitness was shown photos of potential suspects (including Graham) before picking him out of a lineup, which is apparently not good police procedure.

I'm certainly no expert on criminology, but this woman is, and she sounded mighty convincing. She also demonstrated an apparent lack of pro-Graham and anti-death-penalty bias in her concluding remarks when she stated that Graham was a "very bad man" and deserved to die for the things he had done, but that he didn't commit the crime for which he would be executed.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

For a ton of documentation concerning media Bias go to: http://www.mediaresearch.org/ .

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

"The biblical reference which you made, "an eye for an eye...", when you exegete the meaning of the passage is really meant to keep people from going too far in their punishment of others. What do I mean? Like stoning someone to death for adultry, or stealing a loaf of bread."

Didn't mean to upset you. The only reason I used that phrase is because that is how *I* feel. I believe if you kill, you deserve to die. Plain and simple. A murderer should not have the right to continue breathing.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

So, if killing is wrong, does that mean soldiers shouldn't be killing?

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000

Suzie said, "I believe if you kill, you deserve to die. Plain and simple. A murderer should not have the right to continue breathing."

Okay, taking the side of the Devil's Advocate here, I can't be the only one who sees the irony of this statement with regard to the death penalty. If we, the people, elect our officials, and our officials, speaking as the voice of the people, mete out death as a punishment, then what does that event say with respect to the above comment? Do we destroy society or our officials? How can death be the solution for killing? Lock 'em up and throw away the key, sure...but state sanctioned murder? How many innocents need to be fried for it to all work out in the end?

"I condemn, for all climes and for all times, secret murders and unfair methods even for a fair cause. " Mahatma Ghandi

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000

The death is punishment, not "solution".

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000

My fundamental belief is that life is sacred, and that nobody should kill anybody else. Whether the killing is illegal or state- sanctioned makes no difference.

And Suzie, what about the people who have been wrongfully convicted?

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Even though my only problem with capitol punishment is that it has become unwieldy and expensive (since with DNA and other modern evidence, wrongful convictions will probably be less likely than in the past) --

I thought I'd mention a bit of heresay. Sorry I can't be more specific, but a friend of mine read a book that profiled serial killers. Ten or twelve case studies -- what they had in common, etc.

She said that the last one in the book -- one who fit the profile in every way -- was the man responsible for implementing the death penalty in one of the death-penalty states. The "executioner," for lack of a better term. The author either stated or implied that this guy had managed to find a way to fulfill his, er, desires... legally.

Not sure what that adds to the discussion in either direction, but it creeped ME out.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Trish: are you referring to the guy who actually "pulls the switch"? I heard that in Texas, a group of police officers depress the plungers on the syringes that contain the "lethal injection". A modern version of the firing squad.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

I think Pooks' story raises an excellent point - whether the story itself is heresay or not! It seems to me that if you believe that the death penalty is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable response to certain crimes (let's assume that the crimes actually ARE proved beyond the shadow of a doubt), then you have to accept that becoming an executioner is a perfectly reasonable (if somewhat specialized) career choice, fundamentally no different from deciding to become, say, a plumber.

Is this really how people think?

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

Jennifer - What I was saying is that race, here in TX was the reason many were using to prove he was not guilty. They were using it as an excuse rather than presenting *any* sort of facts about why this man may be innocent. The NAACP and Jesse Jackson with their "black martyr" crap - the muck everything thing up by playing a race card rather than presenting true facts - which, in my opinion, clearly poin to the fact that this man was, in fact, guilty. And I don't believe in the death penalty.

Suzy - You didn't offend me. I just felt that if "an eye for an eye" is going to be used as an arguement based upon the moral authority of the Bible, you should probably know what the passage means.... There are SOOOOOO many other really good arguements as an extention of or excluding the passage - the literal interp of that verse just isn't one of them.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

I remember a LOOOOOT of coverage of Clinton going back to Arkansas to oversee the killing of Ricky Lee Rector. It still wasn't enough, though. Clinton--who is NOT a liberal, Jim--won.

Also, Jim, I can list dozens of books that refute every single one of the studies (but you didn't really name any did you?) that claim the media is "liberal." Try a book called Manufacturing Consent, which proves (it doesnt suggest it, it PROVES it) that certain questions about American foreign interventions simply are not asked.

We can look at the events of the past year. During the Kosovo bombings, the debate in the media was not, Should we be bombing them or shouldn't we? It was Should we send ground troops, or should we just keep bombing? I saw no one featured on Nightline or the three networks who opposed the entire venture.

And consider the decision that the Congress has made (at the president's instigation) to send money and arms to Colombia. We're hearing that the money is to fight the drug war. But the truth is, there's a leftist uprising that's viable and that's spreading. That would not bode well for Western nations' hopes of exploiting Colombian's labor and oil. So we (along with many other Western countries) ship arms there and say it's to fight drugs. Have you ever seen a report on this on 20/20 or Dateline NBC? No. They're too busy covering Elian or Monica.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2000

Jeff says, "But the truth is..."

Just curious, what is the source reading for your truth?

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2000

" How can death be the solution for killing? Lock 'em up and throw away the key, sure...but state sanctioned murder?"

Locking them up isn't enough. Quick glimpse into the prisons around here. They eat better than we do, they have an air conditioned environment. Television (cable), weight rooms, etc. We pick up the tab for it.

All this while their victim's corpse rots. How is that right? How can we allow murderer's to continue to exist?

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

"And Suzie, what about the people who have been wrongfully convicted?"

With the average time on death row being above a decade, massive appeals, and the evidence we are capable of today, how many are innocent on death row?

If you ask them, sure many will say they are innocent, but so will the child molestors and rapists.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

"She said that the last one in the book -- one who fit the profile in every way -- was the man responsible for implementing the death penalty in one of the death-penalty states. The "executioner," for lack of a better term. The author either stated or implied that this guy had managed to find a way to fulfill his, er, desires... legally."

Creepy, yes. I'd rather have him being a state sanctioned executioner than out on the streets preying on innocent people, wouldn't you?

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

Jim Howard, thank you so much for standing up and speaking the truth. The media 'is' biased toward a liberal standpoint.(Talk about BS!) I watched the CBS Nightly News and cringed in horror as Dan Rather played clips of so-called witnesses to the murder of Bobby Lambert in which they stated infatically that Gary Graham was NOT the trigger man. What they failed to tell the public on this nationally broadcast program was that these people were liars. That in 1981 they said they didn't see the man's face who killed Mr. Lambert.

Again, thanks Jim Howard for doing the research and putting the links on this forum showing the true story of the Bobby Lambert murder.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2000

needed to correct the word infatically to emphatically. Duh!

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2000

I have no problem with the eyewitness not being able to pick Gary Graham out of a picture. I've seen pictures of myself that didn't look like me! However, she 'did' pick him out of a line-up in which he was physically there and that is how she saw him, physically.

Yes, I realize there have been cases of mistaken identity, but this wasn't one of them!

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2000

I have to take issue with the repeated statement that because of DNA evidence, wrongful convictions are likely to be reduced. Evidence isn't evidence until it is interpreted. It is in the investigation and interpretation process that institutional biases have their power.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2000

With the average time on death row being above a decade, massive appeals, and the evidence we are capable of today, how many are innocent on death row?

If you ask them, sure many will say they are innocent, but so will the child molestors and rapists.

Suzy, do you give no thought to the people who might actually be wrongfully convicted? There have been so many cases of people imprisoned for decades and then released when previously supressed evidence has come to light - the Guildford Four being a prime example. A legal system which will execute these people and then perhaps find they were innocent all along is disgraceful.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2000

I don't believe that all life is sacred. Particularly the lives of those who do heinous things to other living things.

I basically agree with Suzy here. While I am in favor of the death penalty, I think they tend to botch things up a lot. ('Course, I expect that from the government and doubt it'll ever improve or change.) In the case of Graham, though, whether or not he was guilty in this case I don't even care. He may not have killed others before that, but not for lack of trying! He was a rapist, committed other crimes...I am not at all sorry he's gone.

I have two basic areas I think the death penalty is needed for.

1. Those who committed serial crimes against others and have been determined (I know you can't be 100% sure, but to get as close as you can) to be beyond redemption- i.e. if they ever got out, they'd immediately start killing again. I don't want people like this to ever have a chance of getting out (even if it's a remote chance) and doing it again. I know they won't get that chance if they're dead. If they're dead, we are all guaranteed to be safe from that guy (or girl) forever. Rather like putting down a rabid dog.

I tend to feel the same way about serial rapists, who are more likely to be released into society to do it again and again. I want them to be beyond harming others yet again. I believe in castrating rapists (or otherwise severely impairing their ability to have sex ever again) before releasing them. I wouldn't give a killer a gun before release...and I wouldn't let a rapist take his "gun" along to continue.

However, short of chopping off their hands, we can't separate the killer from killing in the way that we can separate the rapist from his ability to have sex.

2. Even for cases beyond this...like Suzy, I'm "eye for an eye" (not meant in Biblical sense at all, though). I don't want killers to be having a fairly cushy life behind bars while their victims rot. I don't believe in preserving their lives when they've taken other lives--that isn't fair to their victims who didn't get a choice in the matter. I want them to learn what it was like for their victims to die. (Optimally, for this you'd kill the murderer similarly to how they killed their victims, but that wouldn't happen!)

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2000

Suzy sez, "Locking them up isn't enough. Quick glimpse into the prisons around here. Theyeat better than we do, they have an air conditioned environment. Television (cable), weight rooms, etc. We pick up the tab for it."

Yes, we do pick up the tab...and I, for one, am not entirely opposed to picking up the tab for a little Constitutional right called DUE PROCESS. Everyone is entitled to a trial with a jury of their peers; they have the right to appeal the jury's decision, etc. We also have a doctrine that talks about cruel and unusual punishment. Are we supposed to pitch the Constitution?

As far as prisoners eating better than I do, access to weight facilities, cable, etc... What do you suggest, bread and water? They've got to eat, fer Chrissakes! I somehow doubt that the food that's cooked in the industrial prison kitchens is better than what I cook in my kitchen. Yes, cable television might be a bit excessive. I'm personally not opposed to reinstituting hard time. The crux of the argument, tho, isn't about how "well" prisoners are treated. It's revenge, pure and simple. A victim is dead or raped or whatever, and therefore, "someone" should have to pay. Well, he's paying. He's in prison. In Louisiana, a sentence of life means LIFE. No good behavior, no parole. If you want to talk about changing the system, opt for reasonable changes instead of deciding that the ultimate penalty, guilty or innocent, is paid w/ one's life.

I seem to recall that Beth wrote a very good argument in opposition of the death penalty and the reasons behind her views. If anyone remembers it, or Beth, if you'd repost, that would be greatly appreciated.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2000

"If you want to talk about changing the system, opt for reasonable changes instead of deciding that the ultimate penalty, guilty or innocent, is paid w/ one's life."

well what is reasonable? as far as i'm concerned executing ALL murderers is reasonable. along with ALL rapists, ALL pedophiles.

now the problem with this of course is what happens if someone is innocent. well there should be no one innocent in prison. however i am sure there is at least one innocent person in prison. but to me this is not a reasonable excuse to remove death panelty laws, or to soften them in any way.

if you are sitting on death row you are guilty and should be put to death. everyone has the right to appeal. if the appeal process bears no fruit then you are guilty and deserve to die.

how any cases are there with hard facts that show a person has been executed and proven to be innocent?

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

Why should a murderer be able to wake up every morning, eat 3 meals a day, have a bed to sleep in, a roof over his head, etc, when his victim's corpse lies rotting in the cold ground?

Because we may have the wrong guy.

Because it's cheaper to keep him alive.

Because we are better than he is. Because we refuse to sink to his level. Because when an elected government kills one of its citizens, no matter the reason, we all participate in that murder.

Joanne

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

if you are sitting on death row you are guilty and should be put to death

Nut, that's the most simplistic argument I've ever heard. I can't imagine what it's like to view things as so black or white. It ranks up there with 'if you are a woman you must stay at home and have babies'.

Joanne - very well put, and thank you for avoiding the melodramatic 'cold hard ground' kind of statements.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

Nut wrote:

how any cases are there with hard facts that show a person has been executed and proven to be innocent?

I don't know of any cases where a person already executed has been exonerated with hard evidence, but I think that's probably because the effort hasn't been made, and probably also because evidence is destroyed, damaged or misplaced by the time a person is executed.

However, there have been many cases where people on Death Row have had their convictions overturned by physical evidence, as is detailed in this book review by George Will. (There are many other such articles on the web dealing with Barry Scheck's Innocence Project, but I chose to link to this one to avoid the predictable charge of "liberal bias.")

Since the U.S. reinstituted the death penalty, one out of every seven inmates on death row has later been exonerated by physical evidence! Under the circumstances, it seems that it would be a near statistical impossibility for all the remaining inmates to be guilty.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

Nut, check out this link. It lists more than 80 people who were found innocent and released from death row, with links to sources of more information. I found this after a three-minute internet search; I'm sure you could find more if you looked. I didn't find statistics for people who were found innocent after they were executed, but then, once they're dead that's sort of pointless, now isn't it?

Well said, Joanne.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

Per Nut, "executing ALL murderers is reasonable. along with ALL rapists, ALL pedophiles."

This is beyond overly simplistic; it's absurd. According to Deparment of Justice figures, "In 1996, 307,000 women were the victim of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. Between 1995 and 1996, more than 670,000 women were the victim of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault." The manpower necessary to apprehend; the space required in jails; the sheer numbers of people who would be required to get involved in order to prosecute and convict these individuals so we could "kill 'em all" would completely bankrupt the criminal justice system. This is reasonable?

Nut goes on, "well there should be no one innocent in prison. however i am sure there is at least one innocent person in prison. but to me this is not a reasonable excuse to remove death panelty laws, or to soften them in any way."

So, in other words, it's reasonable to execute a person who isn't guilty of the crime?

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

The death penalty process doesn't end when someone sits convicted on death row.

That's why an appeal process exists.

If you fault the system for wrongly putting someone on death row you're pretending that these people go instantly to a death chamber and not giving the system proper credit.

So, the important number still for me is, how many innocent people actually got executed?

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

"The death penalty process doesn't end when someone sits convicted on death row.That's why an appeal process exists."

Sure, if you can find/afford representation. Many of the people on death row can't. Beth posted something a while back about why death penalty cases take so long; it's because there's such a tremendous amount of material that needs to be reviewed. Capital cases aren't as well represented as, say, the Microsoft Anti-trust Suit...because there isn't any money in it (amongst many other reasons). Your client loses, he's dead.

"If you fault the system for wrongly putting someone on death row you're pretending that these people go instantly to a death chamber and not giving the system proper credit."

You're not seriously trying to say that "the system" never makes mistakes? And I don't think anyone advocating the abolishment of the death penalty assumes that someone who's convicted of a capital offense goes straight to the death chamber.

As far as how many innocents get convicted, here's a link that details at least three: http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/currentna/index.html This site (http://www.essential.org/dpic/innoc.html)says that "since 1973, over 80 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence". Also according to the second site, "researchers Radelet & Bedau found 23 cases since 1900 where innocent people were executed". And finally "The number of innocent defendants released from death row has been steadily increasing over recent years. Between 1973 and October, 1993, there was an average of 2.5 innocent defendants released.Since then, the average has increased to 4.6 released per year".

So, armed with that, the question remains, is it "reasonable" or "acceptable" to use execution as a means of punishment? There's no hope of rehabilitation as the criminal is dead. Deterrence isn't much of an issue, either. It's expensive; the system is unwieldly, and overall, it's not (IMHO) the best method of dealing with criminal behavior. It's a punitive action driven by revenge.

Trample on.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

Cory, thanks for a well put answer. The only place I really disagree with you is here: " the system only fails if you have actually killed them, not freeing them at some later point."

Sadly, yes...and for those who survive that person, that failure is huge. The system can't return time spent in prison, but at least walking out is a possibility.

A friend of a friend did something incredibly stupid a few years ago. His actions ended with three people dead and one horribly maimed. He's serving time now in San Quentin, and I don't disagree that he belongs there, not for a second. But I just don't see how executing him would have changed anything. It doesn't bring the victims back. It doesn't take the pain away, not for the victims or their families or himself. He'll spend most of his youth and a good part of his adulthood locked up. Punitive? Yup. Revenge? No. Punishment for not adhering to society's rules.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

did something incredibly stupid a few years ago. His actions ended with three people dead and one horribly maimed. He's serving time now in San Quentin, and I don't disagree that he belongs there, not for a second. But I just don't see how executing him would have changed anything.

"Incredibly stupid"...I'd file that under massive understatement.

I wish people would stop bringing up "it wouldn't change anything". That's a straw man.

The death penalty is punishment for crimes so heinous that the perpetrator has forfeited his/her right to continue to live.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

"The death penalty is punishment for crimes so heinous that the perpetrator has forfeited his/her right to continue to live. "

Oh? And who are you to make that decision?

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

Who are you to say that she (assuming she's on a jury of a death-penalty state) shouldn't have that right.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

Wake up Gena:::::

Juries make those decisions. I wasn't saying *i* did.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

I tend to agree with this Bible passage:

"These are to be legal requirements for you throughout the generations to come, wherever you live. Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." - Numbers 35:29 (NIV)

Note that in the Graham case, Graham himself was the required second witness.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

i live in Australia where there is no death penalty. the last man that was executed in australia was ronald ryan in 1967 for killing a prison guard during an escape attempt. the evidence at the time was circumspect but because of a close state election and political pressure he was hung.

in 1986 another prison guard there at the time of the escape attempt said he thought he was the one who shot and killed the guard in the scramble, but that he was worried he'd get in trouble. hardly the sort of situation where you want someone to be executed.

now having said this, i actually favour the death penalty under some circumstances, such as in the oklahoma city bombing or the port arthur massacre here in 1996.

however, i saw a survey recently (which i cannot find a link to so take this with a grain of salt if you like.. it was done in the US) which showed that support for the death penalty dropped considerably when an option of guaranteed life in prison was the sentence for all murders. i know i get outraged, and i know other people do when they see murderers set free after 15 years (or rapists after 7) when their victims are dead and they are free to live a life. this is when i want the death penalty. if we cannot guarantee these creatures will never see the light of day then they should be dead.

but a guaranteed stamp of never to be released....

prisons are "diabolical dens of torment, mischief and damnation," said mr george bernard shaw. sometimes i wonder if a prisoner deserves 50 years of damnation within a cell or a painless (but hopefully terrifying) lethal injection.

what are people's thoughts on this as an alternative to the death penalty? or should it still be used in horrific crimes, with never to be released stamped for everyone else?

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

How can any of you stand there and willingly, happily, anxiously call for the death of another human being - as if s/he has no rights, no claim to humanity, no past, no mother, no father, no goddamn freaking pets, for pete's sake? How can you stand there and deny the part we all play in creating a society where these things happen?

And for those overly fond of spouting Biblical verse, I refer you to 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

Gather round the lynchin' mob.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Gabby: Because it's bullshit to say we [society] "created" sociopaths. What did society do to Tim McVeigh or Ted Kazyncski to make them mass murderers?

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

"How can any of you stand there and willingly, happily, anxiously call for the death of another human being - as if s/he has no rights, no claim to humanity, no past, no mother, no father, no goddamn freaking pets, for pete's sake?"

Gabby, while Gary Graham was happy to rob, rape and kill, I know of no one else who is "happily, anxiously call[ing] for the death of another human being".

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Have to dispute you there, Jim. One of the more compelling reasons I have for beginning (I'm not there yet) to come around to disagreeing with the death penalty isn't the possibility for a mistake - its watching how there are always "execution parties" outside a prison when an execution is going to take place.

It just seems that execution does something as damaging to us as a people as the criminals do to us. We should be better than that.

If an execution is necessary, I think mourning - for the victims and the damage to society - is far more appropriate than beer busts and cheers.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Joy:

Ted K. and Timothy M. would be happy to tell you *exactly* what society did to make them mass murderers (terrorists.) It's odd that you would pick those two. One wrote a manifesto about why our society is doomed, and the other was military trained. (Why is it that being trained to kill on command is considered completely sane? I've never been able to get my mind around that one. Before all of the people who have military connections freak out, I am not implying that all soldiers are crazy. I'm just saying I can see how it might send some people around the bend.)

Yes, they were crazy; but there is plenty of convincing evidence that society contributes to the development of sociopaths. Doesn't mean we have to accept their crimes. Denying that there are other factors besides the will of the sociopath involved is not helpful in the long run though.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Sociopaths *always* have reasons why they did what they did. Usually it's bullshit justification for unjustifiable acts. I weep no tears for sociopaths.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

You're confusing excuses with reasons. They aren't the same thing.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

I dunno, Angie. I think you might be the one confusing excuses and reasons.

There are millions and millions of people in American society. Only one blew up a federal building, and only one became the Unabomber. Does the simple act of a killer writing a manifesto blaming society mean that society is compelled to accept that blame? Should society have discouraged technological innovation because failing to do so caused an individual to snap and become a terrorist? I find it hard to accept that society forced either of the two to resort to such awful, violent acts.

I have very complicated feelings on the death penalty, and think it's used far too often on cases where there's even a small chance that the accused is innocent. I would love to see it become, as I think it was truly intended to be, an extreme punishment used very, very, very sparingly. But I shed no tears for the serial killers, and I shed no tears for Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kazyncski.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

With apologies, Gabby, I'm going to spout a Bible verse...but one I think that cuts to the heart of the issue, at least for me. John 11:50.

"Nor do you consider it is expedient for us that one man--- should die for the people."

You never know.

My religion is based on someone wrongfully arrested, and executed, by authorities. It...inevitably...colors my thinking.

Nor do I think the Twentieth Century is that much better in that respect, considering the freedom of OJ, and the imprisonment of Hurricane Carter.

No, the idea of society setting out to kill anybody, though forbidding us to kill others, doesn't sit well with me. Seems like we should have a higher standard, you know?

Granted we have a right of self-defense, as a society, against people who prey on others, there might be a better solution.

I personally favor neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment for repeat offenders of henious crimes...murder, rape, etc. One makes society as bad as the killers, the other is a burden on society.

There is a third solution.

Heinlein to me made an eminently sensible suggestion, and made it into a story. He proposed a large area be cordoned off, in a wildnerness somewhere. (The world is smaller now, but there are still large tracts of land ---miles and miles are cordoned off for parks and military testing grounds, etc.)

Have a very large barbed fence---maybe an inner and an outer...patrolled by guards...

Then airdrop those convicted of serious violent crimes into there.

That's it. No food sent in. Whatever food they get, they forage, grow, or hunt for themselves. They get to take no tools or medicines with them.

Those who have violated society's rules would no longer be protected by society. If someone dies, it will be the fault of Nature or his fellow criminals.

I'm sure that mini-societies will grow within the area...perhaps a large tract of Alaska, for instance...small villages, gangs that act like tribes.

Their release date would be tatooed onto them, with special chemicals that glow under ultraviolet, perhaps...chemicals not easily duplicated without a laboratory....

If they survive till their release date, they can come to the inner fence and demand to be let inbetween the two fences and show the tattoo. One at a time. If they are indeed past their release date, they can be reinducted in society. Those who commit particularly henious crimes would get the equivelent of life imprisonment, and never get out.

Cruel and unusual punishment? No. Society has no obligation to support those who will not follow its rules, but needn't stoop to the same level as those who killed--by killing them. People on SURVIVOR are doing fine with the nearly the same handicaps. Yet the only way they will survive is by working together....

To crawl out of their sociopathy, and learn to work with people.

Yes, many will die. But there won't be people clamoring for executions, and bloodthirsty for a human being's death. It will be either be Nature or another criminal who kills, instead.

It might make us value society...as the privilege it is.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

First, who said anything about shedding tears? Not me. I admit to a certain fondness for the Unabomber, but I certainly don't approve of his actions.

Second, the importance of looking for societal contributions to sociopathic behavior is to prevent the behavior, not to punish it or pardon it. It's not about blame, it's about prevention. Blame isn't all that useful when looking for a solution. Responsibility, yes. Blame, no.

I didn't say that we had to adopt the particular solutions that a murderer/terrorist prescribes for us, either. Examinations of their thought processes and ravings could be helpful though. I don't know about you, but I've often found some truth in complaints about me, even by people who are far nuttier than me (really. they are.) The source doesn't negate the information, if it's legitimate.

Anyway, what I'm talking about is already practiced in the field of psychology. Unfortunately, all anyone seems to be interested in is familial development and not societal development. I'm just saying they're both important. It's not always the parents who create a sociopath.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Hey, Al, that sounds just like "Escape from New York!"

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Great post, Al!

But wouldn't it take a lot of resources to patrol the border? Doesn't seem like it would save us all that much in the end. Although, without food they might just resort to cannibalism and remove much of the threat of escape. ;)

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Two sets of high barbed wire fences would keep out most of the prisoners. The guards patrolling outside...I imagine we could easily use a TENTH of the number of guards we use in prisons to patrol that outside parameter.

As for ESCAPE TO NEW YORK...Carpenter had obviously read Heinlein (who wrote the original story in the forties)...although I wouldn't give the criminals prime real estate and enough already mined metal to make weapons easily. I picture something more like the desert parts of New Mexico, or the more barren parts of Alaska.

But at least it's someone (Heinlein, not me) thinking, and not accepting the death-or-lifetime-imprisonment box we've imprisoned our society in.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Maybe some sociopaths are born.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Al wrote:

Cruel and unusual punishment? No. Society has no obligation to support those who will not follow its rules, but needn't stoop to the same level as those who killed--by killing them. People on SURVIVOR are doing fine with the nearly the same handicaps. Yet the only way they will survive is by working together....

Well, the Survivor gang does have the slight advantage of not being trapped with convicted criminals, many of whom have serious psychiatric problems. They can also live securely in the knowledge that if they have a life-threatening problem, the producers at CBS will step in (don't want any wrongful-death lawsuits), and they know that if they do something wrong the cameras will catch them. None of these things would be the case in your proposed system, so I think you're way off- base in saying that the two situations constitute "nearly the same handicaps"

It sounds to me like being locked up this way is basically the same thing as a death sentence. Nobody is watching the prisoners, so they can do whatever they want...especially the ones who have life sentences--they've got nothing to lose.

And what about access to medical care, education, or counseling? It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that these prisoners could later be released back into society after being subjected to such brutal treatment.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Couple of points:

Certainly some sociopaths are born. Until someone can show us we have a convincing treatment for sociopaths, something on the level of lithium or other drugs for schizophrenics, can anyone seriously argue that society would be better off without the violent sociopaths? Right now we take them out of society: we segregate them off and support them at a huge cost, or kill them, at a larger cost in legal fees.

This would put the burden on them; to do without society's aid.

Jen: certainly there are DIFFERENCES between the Survivor system too. And certainly, for many, this would amount to a death sentence. I'm not disputing that.

We have MILLIONS locked up in prison, and the prison population is growing. With all due deference to the few exceptions, like Leopold and Loeb, most will never, ever, make a meaningful contribution to society.

Note I said in my original proposal repeat violent offenders, like rapists and murdererers. I'm not proposing we put, ohhh, embezzlers or the like in there. Yet those who constitute a clear and present danger to society?

Access to medical care, education, counseling? None. Unless one of their own number is a doctor (and many doctors have killed, like Dr. Pritchard). That's because the statistics show that for repeat violent offenders, such things have an incredibly slim chance of succeeding in reforming the criminal. Lack of medical care is simply because why should we risk a doctor in saving those who have forfeited society's protection?

If someone could show me a program where education, counseling, etc. made a difference in even as much as 25 per cent in the prison population, I would be all for it. Yet most prisons just brutalize the prisoners more, and lock them in their sociopathy.

This proposal isn't any better; it doesn't claim to cure them. It's just honest about it. The prison system DOESN'T WORK. It's just cages to look violent people away from us, at enormous costs.

And I would argue that those who DO survive their sentence can ONLY get there by at least channeling their sociopathy by making alliances. Some will be the equivelent of gang leaders, granted. But even a gang leader, by his very nature, must learn to get along with people.

Many will die. And it will be survival of the most social. But the deaths will not be directly caused by the State, and it's not a sure thing. That's more chance than Gary Graham got.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Why I should never post early in the morning: "Certainly some sociopaths are born. Until someone can show us we have a convincing treatment for sociopaths, something on the level of lithium or other drugs for schizophrenics, can anyone seriously argue that society would be better off without the violent sociopaths?" I meant, can anyone seriously argue that society WOULDN'T be better off, of course.

"It's just cages to look violent people away from us, at enormous costs."

Make that lock, not look.

Al, off to get some caffeine...

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Al-

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't see much of a difference on a moral level between your proposal and the death penalty as it now exists.

It's obvious that a lot of the violent criminals will die under the scenario that you envision (as you say), but I don't get that society as a whole would somehow be off the hook simply because it's other criminals doing the executing.

Society would be the instrument that placed these criminals in a position where a premature death was likely ... it would be awfully hypocritical to say that it's not society's responsibility any more if they die because instead of a government employee flipping the switch, it's another criminal doing the honors -- a criminal who was effectively given that power by the government. IMO, the blood is still on society's hands.

My perspective is that if one believes that exceptionally violent offenders deserve to die, it should be done in as humane a manner as possible, which to me does not mean being placed on a reservation with other homicidal maniacs in what would likely amount to a "Last Man Standing" scenario of 24-hour warfare. I think in practice that would be a far more barbaric solution that the one currently in place.

Also, there was another movie that illustrated a similar scenario -- I've successfully blocked out what it was called, but it starred Ray Liotta as a person exiled to a prison community like the one you envision.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Apparently there has been a misunderstanding. I am not arguing that sociopaths who commit crimes shouldn't be kept far away from everyone else. A crime is a crime, and those who commit crimes are a danger to the rest of us. Period. Some of the crimes are more offensive than others, but the end result is the same.

It does seem that sociopathic behavior is increasing. What about all of the school shootings? Don't we have an interest in figuring out what causes this to happen?

And sociopathic behavior is determined by what society deems acceptable. What happens if sociopathy becomes more prevalent than what we now consider social behavior? They have a direct relationship, and therefore it is not helpful to study one without studying the other.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

I was reading The Perfect Storm last night, and discovered that Heinlein was not, in fact, the first one to come up with the wilderness-as-prison concept:

"...in 1598, a French marquis named Troilus de Mesgouez pulled sixty convicts from French prisons and deposited them on a barren strip of sand called Sable Island, south of Nova Scotia. Left to shift for themselves, the men hunted wild cattle, constructed huts from shipwrecked vessels, rendered fish oil, and gradually killed one another off. By 1603, there were only eleven left alive..."

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

---

That's interesting, Jen. I wonder if it would have any more detterant (sp?) effect than the prison-system-as-it-stands? (Probably not. Studies have shown that the near-certainty of a death penalty for certain crimes does not deter the criminal.)

Although I'm half-seriously advocating the wilderness-instead-of- prison theory, it's more as a cry of despair. Prison doesn't work. Prisoners tend to become hardened and channelized into crime, to say nothing of being sexually abused, with all the psychic trauma that causes. (I think I read somewhere that the guy who dragged a black man by a chain from the back of his truck in Texas was actually fairly friendly to people of other races, till he served a jail term, and was raped therein, presumably by men of other races. After that, he became a rabid bigot.) Very few people get penitent in a penitentiary.

We need to think outside the box. Does anyone have a proposal for what to do with lawbreakers that WOULD make them better people? IS there anything worth trying as a cure for criminality?

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

---

The 19th ce penitentiary was designed as a place for inmates to be "penitent". It didn't work. As the decades passed, prisons became more punitive. That doesn't seem to work either.

Perhaps at least some of the answer lies in the sort of people who make up the inmate population. How many of them are "lost" by the time they reach the point of incarceration?

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

---

Actually, lots of criminologists have ideas for making penitentiaries more rehabilitative, but my impression is that society is not supportive of spending money towards this goal. People, in general, want prisons to be primarily punitive, and there's a lot of outcry against spending money on prison social programs (note all the posts in this thread which mention how cushy prison life is).

I agree with Al that the current prison system prepares inmates for nothing more than a life spent behind bars. But I don't think the solution is to treat prisoners more harshly. That's why I think prisoners should have access to high-quality education and job training, so that they have a worthwhile alternative career track to crime. Prisoners should also have access to extensive psychotherapy, which would enable some to work through the issues which led to their antisocial behavior in the first place. And I also think that there should be more prison guards, so that inmates can enjoy a reasonable level of security.

As I mentioned above, all of these things have been recommended by eminent criminologists for years, but are not supported by the general population.

Of course, I'm sure that even if these reforms were enacted, not all prisoners would be rehabilitatable. But even if 10% could be, wouldn't the benefit to society outweigh the cost?

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

---

I am not sure that even the obvious improvements to our prison system will ever be fiscally feasible. Certainly, there are worse alternatives.

The U.S. has fairly humane prisons, given that they are a system of punishing society's losers (even if the people who make their careers working in them choose to talk a lot about rehabilitation). There are regular meals, places to sleep (admittedly pretty wretched in some states) and some level of discipline. Solitary confinement is a miserable life, but persons at risk in our system can at least choose it to protect themselves from the other inmates and survive their terms.

Obviously, increasing the funding for rehabilitative programs like job training, psychiatric treatment, and drug addication counselling would make our prisons better. But in a state like New York, where the police carry their own toilet paper into the station and teachers often have to buy their own chalk late in the school year, where's the money going to come from? Even if the cops had adequate janitorial service and the state actually decided to use the lottery porceeds for education, there is still no affirmative consituency to fund the prisons, except maybe Beth's office colleagues.

I distrust most alternatives. Of course, non-violent drug offenders can be treated for less than the cost of incarceration (N.Y. recently decided to move in this direction), and white-collar criminals can live under house arrest with an ankle bracelet. But for the bigger world of repeat muggers and burglars, not to mention killers and rapists, prison is not the worst thing that could happen to them.

If you established Al's wilderness Devil's Island, within a few months the horror stories would come out of prisoners starved, frozen in the snow (or baked in the heat), or murdered by inmate gangs. It wouldn't really relieve society of the responsibility for those deaths, and the death penalty would merely be randomly applied by the whims of the inmates. Maybe in the end our prison system is sort of like democracy -- the worst possible system, except for all of the others.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

Tom-

I agree with you that significant prison reform is probably not currently fiscally feasable. As I stated earlier, there is little popular support for improving conditions in prisons.

However, it's also true that the prison population has been growing by 6.5% every year, due largely to long mandatory sentences for drug offenses. If that trend could be reversed, the money could be used to make prisons more beneficial to society.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

I would take issue with a few of the statements in the above posts. First, Tom suggests that prisoners can choose solitary confinement. They can? This is news to me. I don't think this is true in California prisons, at least not the majority of them.

Tom also seems to suggest that most people in prison are there for burglaries, robberies, and the like. Not true. Most people in prison are there for using drugs.

On the other hand, Jen brings up the oft-cited "long mandatory minimum terms for drug offenders" statistic. This is true in federal prisons and may also be true for some states. But in California (which I believe has by far the largest prison population in the nation) there are no lengthy mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders unless they have serious or violent felonies in their past, i.e., unless they fall under the three strikes law. Except for serious trafficking offenses, the minimum term for most drug felonies is either probation or either 16 months or 2 years in prison. In fact, most drug felonies top out at 3 years in prison.

I would agree that the mandatory minimum terms in the federal system are a travesty. But the vast majority of drug crimes are still prosecuted under state law. Our prisons are in fact full of nonviolent drug offenders, but most of them are serving relatively short terms.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

Beth, I was not saying muggers and burglars are in the majority of our prison population -- just that it's hard to imagine what else to do with that class of felon, along with the more glamorous murders and rapists who are the staple food of the evening news team, except to lock them up. I was contrasting them with white collar criminals and drug offenders, for whom there do seem to be alternatives. For example, the chief administrative judge in N.Y. just issued a policy statement last week or the week before, encouraging rehabilitation for nonviolent drug offenders, even if they are repeat offenders. In my quick read of the article, I understood that this treatment would be an alternative to jail time.

Is it true that prisoners in California can't choose protective confinement? I forget the term of art, but in New York, if a convict can show that he or she is at risk in the general population, he or she can qualify for some sort of isolation. The folks who seek this protection are usually homosexuals, police officers, or suspected informers. There are frequent articles and editorials in the NY Times, complaining that this is the equivalent of solitary confinement. My point was that, even if this is a bad thing, in my opinion it's better than getting killed.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

Sorry, Tom; I misunderstood your use of the phrase "the bigger world of repeat muggers and burglars."

I believe that inmates who can show they are in danger are sometimes entitled to some form of protective custody. I don't think it's anything close to automatic. I've represented a number of inmates who had reason to fear for their lives -- child molesters (including one who was quadriplegic), former police officers, gays and lesbians (I don't know that lesbians are in any specific danger in prison, though I could be wrong), former prison guards, informers -- and none of them were in protective custody, although some of the sex offenders are housed in areas where they are less at risk. I have to be very careful about what materials I send to these prisoners; for instance, sex offenders and informers generally cannot receive copies of briefs, transcripts, or other items that would identify the facts surrounding their offenses. Some of them are so terrified that they return all of my mail unopened. It is definitely my impression that protective custody is not something to which prisoners are entitled just because they request or need it.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

If we take the really, really Bad People (murderers, rapists, abusers of children) and put them in the barbed fence area that Al spoke of, we could sell the TV rights as a society and have 24 hours/7 days a week of televised carnage, or just the best outtakes during prime time or something. This money that would be generated from this would be large I suspect, and we could use those dollars to offset the cost of said Bad People (guards and fencing, mainly) and for rehab of those the bleeding hearts want to help.

In short, Bad People will die in large numbers, society saves big bucks, and we help those who commit lesser offenses.

And, we get good TV.

Any takers?

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

Jarvis, your idea sounds kind of like the Roman games. I have a sinking feeling that it may only be a matter of time.

And Beth, just for the record, I do not know whether the New York prison population actually has the RIGHT to seek protective solitary confinement, or if it's just some are lucky enough to be isolated from the general prison population. I only know that the Times periodically protests that the choice they have is solitary or death. I'm not even sure where to look for that info.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

Very funny, Jarvis. (Assuming and hoping that this was just a nice bout of sarcasm.)

But...nice TV???

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

Isn't there some Arnold Schwartzenegger movie along similar lines to what Jarvis said? They go through a maze or something..."Running Man?"

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

Yup, Jennifer, you are right on. However, in THAT movie, the winner was suppose to go free.

In this example, we would probably have an entire army unit outside the barbed wire fence with air support and underground tunneling detection equipment handy to kill anyone without Al's date of release tattoo thingy. Because you KNOW some of the guys in there have friends on the outside ...

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

Yup, Maria, that was sarcasm. However, that does not mean I think it is as terrible an idea as letting those Bad People in prison go would be.

BTW, I do think the show could be a rating bonaza.

I will weigh in on this issue for real to say that I find it sorta ironic that the nice people who are aginst capital punishment are giving these Bad People a LOT more respect than the Bad People would give them in a deserted parking deck at night ...

Maybe those folks against capital punishment AND life sentences should house a prisoner in their own home ... maybe they could even get some free babysitting for their kids outta the deal!

Personally, I feel no remorse for people getting the death penalty, but I am not sure I could vote for it either if I were on a jury. It would really, really depend. Although, I think I can go along with it in the right circumstance since it is the will of the people. I hate spending so much on these prisoners, but I am willing to do it for the really Bad People without much thought. Either way you slice it it is an expensive proposition to keep these inmates on the inside (unless we do the television thingy, of course).

However, I do not see a need to keep locking people up for minor drug charges (whatever those are). Dealing is worse than possession in my book, but dealing cocaine is worse than dealing pot too. Maybe we need to just let the users go and just really, really nail the folks who steal/rob/commit violence or otherwise not be able to control their habit in a civil manner. Now, there would be some people "setup to fail" by this because they choose to not exert control and not do a drug habit they can afford. I guess they will just not make it in my world. People who do Bad Things should not be free. People who do Really Bad Things should not even get a second chance. People who hurt children need to be on that TV show!

Oh well, i'll stop rambling ... call me Jack ...

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

---

Dropping criminals off into the middle of nowhere and making them look after themselves or kill each other off was common practice in Britain, at the very least, for quite some time. Penal colonies like say... Australia... were somewhat commonplace, I believe. Wish I was more awake so that I could say more than, "uh i think i heard something like maybe some other thing," I do. Sorry.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2000

---

Moderation questions? read the FAQ