A Simple Solution

Originally posted by no1marauder
Those studies have ludicrous flaws. See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf pp. 2-3

I read both the links posted here and two things strike me. The first is that I am amazed at the low quality of the reporting of the information CBS has obtained. The second is that I am sure that DSR wil not read your link because a) it is PDF and requires more than just clicking on a link and lightly skimming over it looking for sound bites and b) it is full of actual points, evidence and argument rather than mere statements supporting a belief.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you're so interested in murderers doing that, then you should be opposed to the DP.

The question was: What else should he have done on death row besides filing meaningless appeals to circumvent justice -- which in this case, would have been his rightful execution.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Show me diabolically evil and I'll show you American foreign policy.

What about Stalin, was he diabolically evil? Or Fidel Castro? Or Pol Pot? Or Ho Chi Minh? Were any of these communist dictators diabolically evil? They murdered millions of people and enslaved the rest -- does this qualify?

Originally posted by no1marauder
William Horton didn't kill anyone after he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

That's only because he didn't get the chance to finish his handiwork: On June 6, 1986, Willie Horton was released as part of a weekend furlough program but did not return. On April 3, 1987 in Oxon Hill, Maryland, Horton robbed a house and waited for the residents to return home. When the man of the household returned he was tied, beaten, blindfolded, and cut all over his body. He had a gun stabbed in both his eyes and mouth. Willie told him he would be hanged later. He was unable to warn his girlfriend when she returned home as he was gagged in the basement; he had to listen to the sound of Willie raping and torturing her. During the second rape of the woman, the man escaped. After running to four houses, bleeding with his clothes shredded, he was able to call for help. Willie then escaped and was captured after a high speed chase by police.

(From the Wiki entry on Willie Horton.)

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
That's only because he didn't get the chance to finish his handiwork: On June 6, 1986, Willie Horton was released as part of a weekend furlough program but did not return. On April 3, 1987 in Oxon Hill, Maryland, Horton robbed a house and waited for the residents to return home. When the man of the household returned he was tied, beaten, blindfol ...[text shortened]... nd was captured after a high speed chase by police.

(From the Wiki entry on Willie Horton.)

We know the story but it remains a fact that that is irrelevant to your original claim.

Originally posted by Scriabin
As an attorney, I have to weigh a great many variables in assessing whether to instigate litigation. When I learned that both the psychologist and the psychiatrist who had been treating my son for more than 8 years knew he had possession of a .38 revolver, intended to harm himself, but made a conscious professional judgment not to warn me or my wife, I thi ...[text shortened]... ability to repeat their offenses.

In short, we need a nationwide course in anger management.

I'm very sorry to hear about your son. I've had some training in clinical psychology and have worked in a prison doing suicide risk assessments, and I agree that your summary of the issues is correct. Disclosures made to a counselling professional are under conditions of confidentiality (sometimes privileged communication, depending on local laws), but either way, there's an exception in the case of risk of harm to self or others. These professionals should have warned you and your wife, and they should also have taken action to ensure that he wouldn't have easy access to guns. In this case, there'd be a duty to warn you due to the level of risk of harm involved. (For risk of harm to others, the Tarasoff case is worth looking up if you haven't already.)

I think it's commendable that you made the decision not to pursue litigation, and I wouldn't fault you for doing the reverse. I hope that they will think over their mistakes and how to ensure they provide safer and better professional services to future clients. I know that if I ever made a mistake that cost someone their life, I'd have to seriously consider the implications for my professional competence and whether I should take a different direction in my career.

I agree that incarceration is unnecessary for victimless crimes, and should be reserved for criminals who have been convicted of offences that indicate that they pose a threat to others.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
That's only because he didn't get the chance to finish his handiwork: On June 6, 1986, Willie Horton was released as part of a weekend furlough program but did not return. On April 3, 1987 in Oxon Hill, Maryland, Horton robbed a house and waited for the residents to return home. When the man of the household returned he was tied, beaten, blindfol ...[text shortened]... nd was captured after a high speed chase by police.

(From the Wiki entry on Willie Horton.)

Releasing him into the community was a bad idea. A better idea would have been life imprisonment under conditions of maximum security so he couldn't escape.

Originally posted by Nemesio
People prefer the sanitized capital punishment. It's easier on their conscience. If the action of killing
has the superficial appearance of being merciful, then the result (death) has a muted character.
We can function under the pretense of civility by making the execution painless, but it remains
no less a sport than the suggestions you made, though we ...[text shortened]... t's truly a shame that we, in essence, have not risen above this barbaric practice.

Nemesio

I think that it should be illegal to use drugs to stop the person's body from writheing around as a natural effect of the method of execution (e.g. lethal injection). The witnesses should be able to see the real effects of what's happening.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Well, there you go.
No death penalty = less murder.

It's ludricous to even imagine that committing a murder has any relationship with fear of punishment, if you ask me.

I'm quite surprised that there is a difference in figures. I would presume that if you're in a mind-frame that murder seems a reasonable option or if you're so angry it's your only option, then the punishment is not really an issue.

We can't draw firm conclusions from correlational data, but I can think of a number of reasons why regions that practice the death penalty have a higher murder rate. Cultural beliefs promoting revenge and getting even are likely to increase the murder rate, and the death penalty may have a cultural effect of devaluing human life. Also, there may be a general effect of right-wing beliefs; right-wing economic practices tend to increase poverty, which in turn increases the crime rate.

I suspect that the continuation of the death penalty may even be an intentional psy-op by the military-industrial complex, in order to make the US public more accepting of wars by devaluing human life. The psychological processes in wanting to see criminals dead and being willing to accept killing people in foreign countries are not too far removed from each other. (Of course, many other countries have the death penalty, often worse forms of it than the US does, and the same thing may be happening in many countries.)

The US was basically on track to abolish the death penalty within a similar timeframe to other Western countries, until it was reinstated in 1984. It's amazing how many backwards steps in the US coincide with Reagan's presidency -- neoconservative spending raising the national debt, and global warming denial. Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all took environmental concerns seriously as a nonpartisan scientific issue.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Isn't it interesting though? People say that the death penalty is not a deterrent, yet even the lowliest scum on the planet (like this fellow) contests his penalty all the way to the end.

Yes, but that's not what _deterrent_ means in this context. This fat guy was __NOT__ deterred from committing his crime, was he?