Actually you had 'something to debate' with my last post a page and a half ago. You just ignored it. Just as you ignored most of my post before that.

Firstly, you need to stop referring to society 'allowing monsters to live'. This has nothing to do with him being 'allowed to live'. people do not need permission or government saction to stay alive. You make it sound like the default is the tate executes EVERYONE except those few people it deems worthy of life, and those people it takes an active position 'allowing them to live'.

In fact, the state should, according to you, take the active decision to end somebody's life and to do so in as long and drawn out and excruiating a manner as possible, actively having professional torturers on the payroll to draw out the suffering of those the Government deems worthy of such a fate.


So far, people have raised against this silly suggestion the following points:
-Such a decree is absurd as long as wrongful conviction is even remotely possible.
-Such a decree places far too much power in the hands of the government.
-Such a decree is explicitly against the Constitution of the United states.
-Such a decree would alienate every single civilised nation on earth, leaving the US to be congratulated by those that think along similar lines: the Taliban, Syria, and other such outcast states.
-Such a decree would accomplish nothing in terms of judicial practice, you have even opebnly admitted there could be no deterrent factor by making the proceedings entirely secret.
-Such a decree would place the US on civilised par with the mongol hordes and the gestapo, with only the terms of use being any different from these latter.
-Such a decree would make torture an acceptable legal tool according to the US, who would have great difficulty in objecting when foreign nations started torturing US born criminals, soldiers, and so on.

To these points you have said nothing. Nothing. So, on the other side, what points have you raised about WHY this kind of sanction should be allowed?
-Some people are evil.

That is all. Nothing else, no explanation of why legalised torture is necessary, just an appeal to emotion about just how BAD some acts are. Well nobody disagrees, some acts are bad. So? As i said before, you seem to want to torture for the sake of torturing. Guess what... that is evil, by any definition. Your burning emotional desire to cause more pain than even this Zellmer fellow did pretty much places you on par. I remind you that murder statutes are murder statutes regardless of how nice or bad the victim was.



Really? Then you have a different reading of the law than everybody else. can you pleae point to the part of the constitution where it says cruel and unbusual punishment for criminals is in fact ENTIRELY allowed if they are sufficiently bad? Can you please demonstrate to me that horrible murders such as this Zellmer fello are entirely recent phenomenon, and didn't exist at all at the time that the Framers wrote that clause? Can you perhaps give us YOUR definition of 'inalienable' rights?


Society is what we make of it, and it reflects us. Thanks to a brave decision 70-odd years ago, chemical weapons are banned in modern warfare, and those who use it are universally condemned. Same with MIRV weapons, and torture, and dozens of other things deemed too horific for anyone to use in civilised society. You want to erase those progressive steps, and you have been able to provide no actual substantive reason why, except that in your emotional opinion this guy should suffer.

See you're just not reading what I write but I would like to thank you for, once again, trying to take this very specific case, and this very specific type of crime and trying to make a sweeping generalization of what I am talking about.

Now I've clearly made the case that Joel Zellmer is a monster (in my view). That Joel Zellmer and others that might kill and injure children for insurance money should be tortured to death. I'm being pretty specific. I've never once mentioned chemical warfare. Chemical warfare has nothing at all to do with this thread or this case. I've also never mentioned the US Constitution.

I've explained my view (MY VIEW, pay attention) on the Outlaw. I've explained why Joel Zellmer is an Outlaw and why he should be killed in an excruciatingly painful way. And once again, a death penalty is a penalty, not a deterrent. This is a punishment for becoming less than human. I'm not advocating putting heads on pikes here. I've even addressed empaths. I mean really, Vermillion I'm staying on topic pretty well.

So sticking to the topic on hand; why should Joel Zellmer, if convicted, be allowed to live?

The only thing your Outlaw theory articulates is an attempt to justify second-class legal status for convicted criminals that meet your personal criteria of Outlaw status. You completely ignore decades of jurisprudence that loathes enforcing laws based on special categories that fail to further a compelling state interest. And we're back to square one. Describe how torture furthers a compelling state interest and explain whether BA Outlaw status is restricted to wo/men who kill children to cash in on insurance policies or BA Outlaw status covers whichever criminal category BA wants. If you want to skip compelling and go for state interest you can start by looking up human rights organization websites comparing torture practiced by states, figure out how those societies are better served by it, and use the information to support your Outlaw theory.

As a bonus, please tell us how Zellmer should be tortured. To start you off on a creative exercise scroll to the middle of this website and download a stoning death video, Iran style. It's very efficient. You just need soft earth, a few shovels and a body shawl to wrap Zellmer in. You bury him up to his waist and let the stones fly. It's really nice because he'll definitely suffer before you execute him, but you don't have to spend a lot of time and resources torturing and killing him. Two birds with many stones. That's what I call a deal. Not to mention it's environmentally friendly.

Actually I am reading exactly what you write, though you appear not to be paying me the same courtesy. Yes, you have taken this specific case and this specific crime, and suggested something be done that is against the law and against the constitution. This is NOT a specific case as you are suggesting a complete altering of one of the more fundamental principles of the legal framework.

What you are doing is the equivalent of suggesting there is a bad man in a city, and you should drop a uke on it to kill him. Whenever someboy points out the mass deaths casualties and horrific effects, you reply "You are missing the point, I'm just talking about the death of this one guy, all else is off topic".


I am not making sweeping generalisations at ALL, I am rying to point out to you that you cannot do that as it violates federal law, violates the constitution and violates a half dozen international treaties signed by the US. These are NOT irrelevant to the isue no matter how insistantly you try and ignore them.



Firstly, that's not a case, that's an assetion, and you have done nothing to explain or justify your position beyond repeating again and again that this guy is bad. OK, we get it, he's bad. No, you have not mentioned chemical warfare: I did to give examples of actions defined as so heinous and uncivilised that they have been banned by international agreement. This is another. No you have not mentioned the US constitution, which is because you don't want to deal with the very specific clause in the US constitution which makes your assertion completely illegal. Your not addressing it does not make it go away.



No actually, you have ASSERTED that this guy should be outside the law, and what is your reasoning, your justification? because he is bad. However one of the basic principles of US jurisprudence is that nobody is outside the law, period. Again, your refusing to address the law and the constitution don't make them go away.

This is not a punishment for becoming less than human, unless you can find me a medical or anatomy expert that means he no longer fits the definition of human. It also does not mean he is outside the law, no matter how emotional your plea is. Your suggestion is illegal, immoral, unproductive, and has a host of negative effects on society, the power of government, and the US as a whole. You ignore those and repeat as your one positive argument that the man is 'bad'.




Remember that thing about me 'not reading your posts' you asserted? Go back to my last post and read the long section on the government 'allowing people to live', then feel free to respond. Also, feel free to respond to any of the arguments made in my two pevious posts.

Ok, BA, let’s assume three things:

1. Zellmer is guilty.
2. Zellmer deserves the death penalty.
3. Zellmer deserves to be tortured.

In addition to the 8th Amendment, I might point you to Article I, Section 8 of the The Constitution of the United States. It says:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.articlei.html

Even if we accept all of your postulates - and seemingly most of us don’t - and get passed the 8th Amendment, the state of Washington could not torture Zellmer, because there was no law authorizing torture at the time Zellmer committed the alleged crime.

Which is more important to you BA, the constitution or following your nose to whatever whim propells you toward an emotional outburst?

BTW: Just in case you don't want to provide a serious answer, you can quote this: "BoF wrote some stuff."

Hmm, I hadn't really considered stoning. It is awfully environmentally friendly and terribly inefficient which works in my stated context. However it completely removes fish hooks and ball peen hammers... I'll really need to look into this much deeper.

So basically you have a real need to be validated by me. I wish you could simply dismiss me as some sort of crackpot because reading your verbose posts is getting rather tiresome. I get it, you are against the death penalty. You cannot ever imagine a scenario wherein a person should be tortured by the State. This is not just because you're a innately moral person but because of your undying respect for the US Constitution. You're a paragon of all that is good and fair. You are vitally necessary in our world because there are people like me who are vengeful, emotional and ready to solve nearly any conflict with violence. Ying, Yang however you want it. In the case of Joel Zellmer I will always be the emotional, vengeful bastard who is more than willing throw away the rules, laws and mores of the land to exact the kind of revenge I would normally cite others on. In my view Joel Zellmer has forfeited his right to laws that protect me from the State. I don't know any other way to explain this to you- so as a consequence I'm not going to.

You said essentially what Vermillion said - we can't change the law for this one guy and ones like him. I say you can. I Say you should. I say Joel Zellmer has forfeited his right to laws that protect me from the State. Something like Anything Goes for Joel Zellmer and his ilk.

That's what I'm talking about!!! But when you do slay the monstrous Joel Zellmer by throwing out the law to exact revenge.... what kind of monster does that make you??

Are you a monster-slaying monster?? And be sure that the monster you killed meets what most of us would consider a ver hiigh threshold of monstrosity, but when you threw out the law... did that make you a low level monster?? What should we do with low level monsters?? I mean.. low level monsters can feed on innocccent people and become super duper satanic monsters if we let them. But would someone who killed and tortured some one be a low level monster???

Is it the act that is monstrous.. or who the act happens to??

I mean someone ties me up, butt rapes me and slits my thoat.... evil
someone ties up my wife butt rapes her and slits her throat.... super evil
someone ties up one of my kids... I can't even say it... "same as above".... OMG Super Duper "Where-the-hell-is-batman-when-you-need-him" EVIL!!

Some one ties up Osama Bin Laden, butt rapes him slits his throat.... Good to go!!!


So is it the act or the victim that determines one's level of monstrosity. because if it is the act, well we can measure that a little better. If it is the victim involved, well then... we're merely talking about perspective now, aren't we??

Wwe can just go ahead and adopt a "See a monster, slay a monster!!" campaign. I'm sure that will get more votes for the Republicans, than fliers with two men holding hands and the words "liberals" and "marriage"

I'm not picking on you NT but what is with this site and rape fantasies...

It's not "some one" who gets to perform the monstrous act it's the State, after a trial and successful conviction, that performs the act. When a group of people beats a man to death for being the passenger in a car that hit a two year old that's a crime. Everything you've written is a crime. However, should the US capture OBL torture and kill him (with no butt play) because the State (the US Gov) decides we're going to chuck the US Constitution and ignore the Geneva Conventions because OBL isn't protected by either and certainly would do the same to his enemies... I'm OK with that.

BA


NT??? Nighttimer??

I mean I heard "look", and even "sound", but you got it real bad when all Black people type alike to you...




Did you see what i highlighted out of your last paragraph. I'll throw in some underlining.





hmmm.... now you want the State... Which is the law to throw away the laws?? If the state is throwing out the law... that would make it lawless. That would make it... i don't know... a mob of people, right??

Wrong again BA. You are on quite a roll. Go read up on expost facto laws.

I say we can't and shouldn't. No one forfeits [Edited to make BA happy. Isn't that in our job description?] their right to due process.

If the state of Washington passed a law today passed the following method of execution:

1. Bring back the electric chair.
2. Start off on low voltage and increase gradually so that the electrocution takes several hours.
3. As jay Leno said, "put a tack in the seat of the chair,'" just for good measure.
4. Add another torture to be determined by BA of as described in the blank_________________________________________.

You still wouldn't be able to apply these laws to Zellmer, becaused they weren't part of the law when he "allegedly" committed it. Have you ever notice that when a judge sentenes someone to death he/she says to the defendant, "in the method prescribed by law."

Everyone in Texas who has been sentenced to death since 1976 hs been sentenced to death by leathal injection. In Tennessee, the method was electroucion. If a condmned person was sentenced to the chair, they are now given the choice of electrocution or leathal injection. It's nolt like Tennessee is offering a choice between cake and ice-cream; it's about avoiding expost facto scenarios.

Quite simply, no torture law could apply to Zellmer, because that punishment was not available when Zellmer "allegedly" committed the crime.

If Washington passed an execution by torture law for those who come after Zellmer, I think it would be declared illegal by the courts under the 8th Amendment.

This is the best "political science fiction" thread I have ever seen on the board.

And most of us say you’re wrong. It isn’t worth losing our individual or national soul for one “monster”. There have been many, many monsters, some even worse than Zellmer. In the pantheon of human monsters, there is none more heinous and horrifying (in my mind) than Ed Gein. And Gein spent the remainder of his worthless life in a mental hospital and died of cancer. Justice? Hardly. But at least one less monster was skulking among the normal folk.

You don’t change the established laws of the land for one case. And we should not. For some reason, you have fixated on Zellmer as a target for venting your anger at child abusers. When there are so many to choose from, why just him? Why not all child abusers? And why stop there? What about serial killers? Rapists? Essentially this moron was abusing children for an insurance scam, and, while not defensible by any means, how is that worse than a man who purchases an infant for sex? C'mon, there are so many horrifying cases of child abuse you could vent your spleen on, why Zellmer?

Vermillion summed it up nicely. There are so many reasons not to do what you so fervently desire, and only one reason to do it – it would make you feel better.

It's even WORSE than that. I was enumerating in my head the people who have brought up rape fantasies in the past (NT isn't even one of them) and that's what I typed as I noted them, then I deleted the letters and hit Send leaving NT. Type alike... that's awesome. have you ever read ""Blink"?


No. I want the State to recognize that there are people, cases, where laws that protect you and I do not apply. Where "anything goes" with regards to these people/monsters. Remember that nutjob that systematically killed her kids one by one a few years back? She would fall into my Outlaw idea. Yeah yeah emotionally challenged, husband was an SOB, Religion, post partum... don't care. When you drown children in age order ending with your seven year old who by the time you get to him has to know what's going on you deserve to be drawn and quartered... possibly stoned to death.


Sadly there's no Contest for that

I am not going to make it easy for you. The constitution is not a convenience, BA, it is the supreme law of the land. I don't compromise on the constitution. I don't "work with" people on that - be it you or Bush's domestic wiretapping agenda.

I was referring specifically to the thread at hand. I thought the bolding made that clear. I guess not. You and VERMILLION are saying the same thing despite your protestations that you aren't.

In any event I honestly think we've all said whatever there is to be said on the topic.

You and I (and others) disagree. You have decades of law on your side. I have a vengeance streak for people who kill children. Especially for money.

We'll never be on the same page. Ever. If I could I'd close the topic. We're just going to keep saying the same things.

Vermillion, others, and I made some overlapping points.



Perhaps you need to call or write the person, who represents you in Congress, asking that they start a movement to repeal the 8th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States and the "expost facto" provision of Article I, Section 8.

If that happened torture would then be legal, but don't hold your breath. I'll bet the people in the congresional office would laugh their heads off.

BA,

I completely understand your frustration. I feel the same outrage that you do and I know there are millions of other people in the world who also wish criminals of this nature were dealt with much more harshly. I would say the best solution that would still fit within the parameters of the law and the Consitution would be to implement the death penalty immediately after conviction. The problem I have is that the law protects the criminal much more than it should, especially in sexual crimes. Just look at all the men who go in and out of jail for sexual crimes against women and children and eventually they cross the line into what we just won't accept. In other words, it's okay to molest a child over and over. You'll do a little time but will get out. When you kill a child, then we'll lock you up for good, we hope. It's sickening and you have every right to feel the way you do.

The value of criminals who commit such crimes is LESS THAN ZERO. Yet they are afforded rights as if they are worthy, which in truth, they are not.

I almost have to laugh at the way people stand behind the Constitution as if it is GOD'S LAW. It was written in a different era and the men who constructed it didn't have the same issues that we have today. So, we must never look at it as though it is the end all.

Seems it is a century... You are correct though.


Not shockingly I think the Americans and Soviet lawyers erred and Simon was correct.

I am entirely correct. it's centuries not a century. The constitution is 230 years old and the ideas go back even further in English common law.




That is why courts interpret the constitution and the Founders provided a means of amendment.



If we executed people immediately after conviction, there is no doubt that an innocent person would be execute.

The Innocence Project has been able to exonerate about 200 people, some of them on death row inmates, through DNA evidence. Exonerate is not a technicality. Do you want to run the risk of executing innocent people by shortcutting the appeals process?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

It's Man's law, the best we could come up with. That's good enough for me.

You may not support torture but you have so much faith in our criminal justice system you think that's divine by refusing to believe we could get it wrong and suggesting hesitation is unnecessary. The guilty are clearly guilty and don't need appeals.

This thread has devolved into a Western cliché where life without parole never crossed anyone's mind.

I'm not sure if there's a hidden meaning in your statement, but taken at face value, it is unfair and untrue. Several have advocated LWOP, including Wertz and myself.


But, unfortunately, LWOP does not appease the bloodlust of some, like Baphomet's Advocate. I think those of us taking the position that bastardizing all the laws of civilized society for the crimes (no matter how heinous) of one man are more concerned with not becoming monsters ourselves when dealing with monsters. Is our justice system flawed? Yes, of course, anything manmade will be imperfect. But, it's what we have, and instead of tossing it out completely (I'm going to leave out the obvious analagy here ), those who are so passionate about its flaws ought to work to remedy them, NOT line up at the nearest dungeon for torture lessons.

That's inflammatory, IMO. There was no hidden meaning in my statement. I didn't have you, Wertz et al in mind (including myself) when I typed it. Just people who share a scary amount of faith in a criminal justice system. The same justice system that fails to keep habitual sex offenders behind bars* and is based on men's laws and is therefore subject to fallibility like men.

*Due to what; shortage of funds to run facilities and shortchanging areas of criminal law for the sake of the War on Drugs? Acceptance of adult sexual assault? Nah, must be the absense of torture. That'll really start reforms.

Indeed. I cannot help but wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of men such as the one we are discussing in this thread.



Well, BoF, the technology has become precise. It is possible to have accurate proof based on DNA evidence. So if a man is accused of sexually assaulting and then murdering a child, and then it is proven through various forms of evidence, why should he not be dealt with swiftly? That is justice at its pinnacle.

I appreciate your deep concern for the potential innocents out there. However, there are cases where the proof is ABSOLUTE. In such cases the punishment should be doled out quickly.





I wish people were as passionate about stopping these crimes as they are about protecting the perpetrators.



Indeed we should work to remedy them. And I do agree that torture is not the best solution based on what it does to the person who must inflict such a punishment. All the more reason to advocate the death penalty in a timely manner. It is the only sure way of preventing the perpetrator from inflicting further harm on society. IF, and it is a big if: life in prison occurred without any form of luxury, the guilty man lived in complete solitude with absolutely no contact with other human beings (including guards), his stale and moldy bread is inserted through a cement hole in his cell, he sleeps on cement and so forth, then I would be totally behind life in prison. But that isn't how it goes and so I support the death penalty in such cases.

I mean no offense to the cockroaches of this world, but the analogy is this, when you find a cockroach you don't put him in a little cage and give him nibbles of food and so forth, do you? You kill him quickly and forget about him. That is what needs to be done with men such as the one we are talking about in this thread.

It's important to remember that those of us who are against torturing convicted criminals also are sickened and enraged by the abuse and murder of innocents in our society, whether they are 4, 44, or 94 years old. The taking of innocent life is abhorrent. I agree with DaffyGrl when she says:

No, we are not deifying the Constitution as if it were God's laws. It is what the Founders and legislators have worked on for centuries to provide justice and equity insofar as it is humanly possible, and these laws are what judges (that is, Supreme Court justices) regularly revisit to determine their efficacy. That's the sticky part about being human: we are all fallible, even when we are working at being thoughtful and even-handed.

And as much as we want to divorce this man from the human race, we all know within ourselves that it is very human to commit evil acts against one another. While specific evil acts are uncommon, they are far less aberrant from the human condition than we are comfortable admitting to ourselves and each other. It is precisely for this reason that the laws are in place, and that those who enforce the law, whether as police officers or jailers, are forbidden to commit evil acts even on people they see as evil. It requires watchfulness on our part to not degenerate into vengeful creatures who use the excuse that we're punishing evil people to rationalize our own brutality.

BA


How does the state recognize what you are telling it to recognize. The State is only our laws. It is not a cognitive entity capable of deciphering when it should act this way and when it should set aside ethical qualms for the sake of satifying the anger of certain citizens. Would you agree??

Yes I remember the nutjob...
But talk to us BA, even if this nutjob deserves to be tortured, how does the State allow for it with out laws?? How does the State operate outside of the laws??

It is sooooo simple. Even though I explained it earlier I'll do it again.

You have the laws that protect you and I and the rest of society. When you get a Zellmer or an Andrea Yates after successful conviction you declare them Outlaws and then anything goes.

Doesn't the constitution protect "you and I"? How do you nullify portions of the very root of our legal system without nullifying the laws made under it?

It's not that we don't understand your position. With a few exceptions, we just don't agree with it.

BoF, would you agree that a person in Finland is not covered by the US Constitution?

When you get a Zellmer, or Yates you instantly revoke their citizenship and make them Finnish. Then go to town on them. I know, I know the Finnish will be up in arms. Make a Zellmer or a Yate Martian. There. Problem solved.

I don't see how it can be inflammatory when I'm practically quoting the person!! And I didn't mean to ruffle feathers; I merely wasn't sure if you were being tongue-in-cheek or literal. Excuse me for misunderstanding.

And I don't have much faith in the justice system, but it's what we got. And I'll be damned if I'll lower myself to the level of criminals to achieve some sort of "frontier justice".

Questions part 1. Who goes to town on them?? The police?? The Local Council men??? State Legislatures?? Just your average joe?? Who gets to bury them and throw stones?

Questions part 2. What is the threshold for the State to outlaw someone?? I mean is there a number someone has to reach?? Is it killing someone under a certain age?? Is it killing an immediate family member?? How would you define when someone should be an outlaw??

I think you got yourself a thread there Droop. In this very particular case killing a child for insurance money makes you an Outlaw. The State (meaning US Government) does the torturing.

I think you realized you were in a hole when you wrote this.



You, however, continue to dig your hole wider and deeper. Not that it matters, but Yates is not from Finland. She was born in Houston, Texas.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

If Zellmer is a citizen of Finland - or for that matter Mars - then please find something to support this statement.

If you are suggesting that we wave a magic wand and instantly transform Yates or Zellmer into Finns, (or Martians, I seem to keep fogetting that "option") then that's totally silly.

In fact, your arguments have become so silly, that they don’t deserve much of an answer. It's hard to answer this Finnish and Martian nonsense, without resorting to one liners, but I'll try.

Good grief I hope you're joking.

If you're serious your reading comprehension has taken a major hit and you should probably be checking your head for lumps. You've shown yourself to be far more intelligent than the tripe you wasted all of our time typing above.

I wrote:I have to assume you understand that sentence. Even my usual terseness isn't in question here. You're joking. I can feel it. You must be joking.

No BA, I thought you were joking. You were, wern't you? Yates, Zellmer - Finish, Martians? I must look out the window and check for flying saucers.

My understanding is they would think "hang him high."

What you say is curious on its face, because the sections of the Constitution that deal with criminal punishment have never been amended. The Founding Fathers as a group clearly did not buy the "no death penalty, ever" argument, otherwise they wouldn't have specifically authorized it for treason. The methods of execution at the time would have been either hanging or firing squad, yet I find it most curious that these two methods have since been deemed "cruel and unusual." This redefinition is fundamentally an extra-constitutional amendment to the Constitution.

Nor does the concept that they "didn't have the same issues that we have today" carry much weight in the context of this particular subject. People have been abusing and murdering children for money since the dawn of time. While the methods of abuse and murder have expanded, the practice itself has a long history.



the way I read it, BA would be fine with amending the Constitution to create a class of individuals who, after due process and conviction, are not covered by the protections it affords. Which, of course, would be a more effective way of putting paid to any Constitutional objections y'all may have.


To be clear, I do support the death penalty. I do not support torture as either a punishment or means of vengeance.

I mentioned the possibility of a constitutional amendment few posts back. I even suggest that BA contact his congress person and request that his ideas be put into an Amendment. Why hell, being from New York, he could contact Sen. Chuck Schumer or Sen. Hillary Clinton or both - that is, if enjoys hitting his head against a brick wall.



That said, what do you think the chances are that such an amendment(s) would pass?

Well, I am a long (1964) time opponent of the death penalty, and in Michigan at least, it is irrelevant.

PE was outlining the gist of this thread to me, and I was losing sleep because it brought back some old memories...

I am thinking that it must have been February 29, 1968 that my neighbor was "celebrating her 16th birthday." (She had been driving for 48 years.) I know that it was no later than 1968 that I last drove to Grand Rapids to visit my parents, because there house was stolen that summer. Somewhere in that time frame, I met the neighbors daughter, their two grandsons, and their son-in-law. The son-in-law, never the reliable type, went out for a pack of cigarettes. He found the brand he was looking for in California, and returned three months later.

My first wife woke me up one morning asking, "What's going on?" After much confusion, I learned that three fire engines and two police cars were parked next to my bedroom window, and I was assured that they all had arrived with lights and sirens on. I got dressed and went out to investigate. The neighbor's daughter and her husband were standing on the sidewalk watching the firefighters. I asked, "Where are your parents?" I was told they were out of town. "Where are your boys?" Unfortunately, by the time the police were interviewing me a few weeks later, I couldn't remember which of those idiots told me, "They're asleep, and we didn't want to disturb them." The nearest fireman agreed with me that they needed to be disturbed...

I offered to let them spend the night with us, but after the fire dept. left, they put the boys back to sleep while I lectured them on how fast a fire can kill. A fireman returned looking for his radio. I got questioned later because I had been sitting on the radio, and I could confirm that he had gone to the second floor to look for it.

The son-in-law thought maybe the fire had started when he plugged his coffee pot in, but instead of throwing it away, he stashed it in his car.

After the house caught fire a second time, I got everyone across the street to my house and we called the fire department from there. They decided to go home to their mobile home, which they felt was a safer place to spend the night.

I think that it was the following Sunday night, that following a visit to my parent's home, we came home to see a news report of their boys death.

A volunteer fireman that I was working with told me that by the time they arrived at that fire, the door handles and the hinges had melted off the mobile home. No effort had been made to get the boys out because they were asleep at the time.

Investigators determined that the parents had purchased life insurance policies in the previous few weeks. The neighbor told me, "I think they responded to a $1 for the first month offer."

The boys mother was charged with first degree murder, and her husband became the star witness. In the middle of the trial, he disappeared. Her parents, both retired when I met them, died within a few years. They had put a lifetime of savings, and the equity in their home up for her defense. When I last spoke to her, about 15 years ago, she still had an attorney on retainer and an appeal pending. Her husband had never again used his Social Security Number. She had never been convicted and never cleared. On her attorney's advice, she had never filed for divorce; he was arguing that the husband's testimony should never have been allowed. As per the appellate court's order, she could not leave town, had to report regularly to a parole officer, etc.

If premeditated murder was really involved, my money is still on the husband, but my memory is so bad that I have forgotten all the names involved at this point, and I am very uncertain on the dates...

I am not even certain that she was the guilty party, and I certainly would not want to have lived the past 4 decades under suspicion of murder. I had co-workers that felt she was evil, deserved the death penalty, etc. I wonder how many of them would even recall the case at this point.

The law is about justice, not revenge. A speaker at our church recently, with I believe an Amish type background, asked us: "How many more people would be alive today, and how much more respected would our country be, if George Bush and Rudy Giuliani had stood up on September 11, 2001 and said of the attackers, 'We forgive you!'?"

If there were a sure-fire and 100% reliable way to determine the guilty- I would probably be FOR that amendment.

LWOPP is a joke- simply doesn't happen, unless the criminal dies a bit younger than we expected- at some point, that criminal predator has a POSSIBILITY of being released- there is NO "truth in sentencing"- don't believe me- look at that despicible Paris Hilton case- sentenced to 45 days, gets out in 26.

Minor crime, I know, but no matter how many times someone says "they will never get out of jail"- it should be interpreted "I HOPE they never get out of jail".

It is as morally repugnent to me to feed, house, cloth and entertain and provide BETTER health care than 43 million poor American law- abiding citizens can get than any moral mouthing's about "becoming like them".

No, you don't become "monsters like them"- because you don't seek out innocent victims. You are killing an evildoer with no redeeming value to the planet except thier use as fertilizer.

I am not sure if anyone here has had repeated contact wtih MONSTERS like I have- and this idea that they are "human" like us is, well, disgusting to me. They are not like humans at all, they are vermin, and needed to be treated as such.

But- for me, it keeps going back to the "mistake" factor.

The only way we "lower" ourselves to thier level is by killing or torturing the innocent. And one innocent life is not worth the excrutiating death of 1 million pedophiles.

I would prefer, in the end, a consitutional amendment mandating and defining "life in prison without possibility of parole, in a state pen, with no protective custody- ever. The state does not owe you health care, entertainment, or even housing".

Add something to the effect that you have to be given tools to make your own shelter, and grow your own food, but after that, you are on your own.



Or, a constitutional amendment forcing hard, slave like labor for the rest of thier lives, and define the BEST care they can have is the "punishment loaf" meals, no healthcare whatsoever, and a 8x4 enclosure with no matress or pillow, a sink/toilet, and did I mention hard labor?

This idea that these guys/gals deserve any more than that really chaps my fanny.

But BA- the scenario you are coming up with is
1) unworkable
2) needs a constitutional amendment
3) Is rife with holes for bad politicians to use it against folks they don't like
4) Doesn't gauruntee only the guilty get the punishment.

I would like to cover Vermillions post a bit though:

So far, people have raised against this silly suggestion the following points:
-Such a decree is absurd as long as wrongful conviction is even remotely possible.
Agreed- that is the main argument IMHO

-Such a decree places far too much power in the hands of the government.

Yep, a serious flaw in the entire argument


-Such a decree is explicitly against the Constitution of the United states.

Yep, would definately need it's own amendment! At the very least- Bikerdad is right thought- our founding fathers were NEVER against the death penalty NOR did they think it as 'cruel and unusual"- I would submit that this is an example of a bad decision by the SCOTUS having negative impact on the entire judicial system.

-Such a decree would alienate every single civilised nation on earth, leaving the US to be congratulated by those that think along similar lines: the Taliban, Syria, and other such outcast states.

On this one- who cares? Really, don't give a rat's fanny about another country that allows judges to make decisions like this one:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007290126,00.html

Judge lets off rapist of girl, 10

June 25, 2007


A JUDGE spared a man who raped a girl of ten in a park — because she wore a “provocative” frilly bra and thong.

Window cleaner Keith Fenn, 25 — who could have got life in jail — will be free in just FOUR MONTHS after admitting twice having sex with the child.

Judge Julian Hall decided to be lenient because the girl “didn’t look 10”.

He caused fury earlier this year by freeing another paedophile, telling him to buy his six-year-old victim a new bicycle.

I mean really- thier moralizing to the US about "uncivilized behavior of the judicial system" is like the Catholic church commenting on morality as they have a history of torturing non-believers and allowing pedophiles to go unpunished- I mean, where do they get off thinking they have some kind of moral upper hand?


-Such a decree would accomplish nothing in terms of judicial practice, you have even opebnly admitted there could be no deterrent factor by making the proceedings entirely secret.

IF you had 100% chance of only killing the guilty- it would have the desired effect of stopping repeat offenders- so in this, you are wrong. Even if not 100% - you will keep recidivism to 0.


-Such a decree would place the US on civilised par with the mongol hordes and the gestapo, with only the terms of use being any different from these latter.

no it wouldn't- only if we decide to clear out whole cities, or whole ethnic groups- we are talking evil doers only- let's not let hyperbole rule the day here.


-Such a decree would make torture an acceptable legal tool according to the US, who would have great difficulty in objecting when foreign nations started torturing US born criminals, soldiers, and so on.

Agreed- we definately lose the edge and ability to protect our citizens, or decry torture of citizens in other countries.

Pardon me, a little wake up for the LWOPP Crowd - aka "lock them up and throw the key away". Doing that will require amending not only the US Constitution, but also every (or almost every) state Constitution.

Don't worry, BD, we're awake. And there are people working on amendments for state governments to abolish the death penalty. But to my knowledge, there is no movement to legalize the infliction of torture on those who commit particularly heinous crimes. Perhaps it is altogether easy to post with anonymity "I am for torture" on an Internet debate forum, while it takes some guts to identify yourself in public with the notion that you are for torturing anyone under any circumstance. The desire to torture someone should be met with disapproval, and those who would promote its institution in our society should be made to feel ashamed, in much the same way that proponents of the death penalty try to make opponents of the death penalty feel ashamed for their position.

I personally do not feel ashamed for my position against the death penalty. It is not up to me to determine who should live and who should die in this society, regardless of whether someone has lived a worthy or unworthy life according to what I have been taught. And the same holy book that prescribed in Leviticus who will be put to death states elsewhere "You shall do no murder," and "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."

I challenge this uncorroborated statement.

At the end of the 2005 legislative session, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, signed a life without parole bill. It did not require a constitutional amendment, only an act of the state legislature.

http://www.texasdefenselaw.com/recent_news...out-parole.html

Remember “Ted the Unabomber“? He was sentenced to life without parole in a federal prison. That didn’t require a constitutional amendment either.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/22/unabomb.plea/

Score:"LWOPP Crowd" 2, Bikerdad Zip.

Kindly note that I did say "or almost every" state. Texas, which I had in mind when I wrote that escape clause, wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment. I didna call out the Lone Star state explicitly simply because I was too lazy to verify my dim memory.

Yup, he sure was. And he could be out walking the streets tomorrow, unless you're willing to amend the US Constitution.

Folks, upon reviewing the tapes, we reverse the calls. The Texas play was out of previously established boundaries, and Referee BoF miscalled the Unabomber Play.

Score: "LWOPP Crowd" 0, Bikerdad 1

hint: Corroboration is right there in my previous post.


Good for them, in the sense that they are using the Constituionally authorized means of abolishing the death penalty, amendment, rather than the extra-constitutional judicial fiat. I believe that they are mistaken in their goals, but bully for their method!

Eh? How; on appeal? By his Army of God buddies posting his taunting manifestos breaking into the federal penitentiary?

Corroboration?

You have an awkward method of score keeping.

According to The Death Penalty Information Center, 37 of the 38 states with capital punishment have LWOPP provisions. Eleven of twelve non-death penalty states have LWOPP options.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...555&scid=59

Upon further review we learn that the camera had no film. The play stands as called by BoF.

1 Point state LWOPP provisions
1 Point Federal LWOPP provisions, including Washington DC. The Unabomber leaves federal prison in a box or a urn.