Texas inmate wants to tell a joke at his execution

[Fandango 1,439]

Lisa, I think you're right that I'm being unclear. Let me clarify...tomorrow when I'm not drooling tired. Seriously, I just typed up a whole other post and it didn't make sense either.

Good. Cos I'm about to head to bed as I'm goosed!

[natty bumppo 293]

Lisa, I think you're right that I'm being unclear. Let me clarify...tomorrow when I'm not drooling tired. Seriously, I just typed up a whole other post and it didn't make sense either.

Good. Cos I'm about to head to bed as I'm goosed!

Later LisaD ... have a good night

[Fandango 1,439]

Thx Nat...see ya tomorrow!

And I just caught your other response...yep, parents are on juries. But they're not sentencing their children. There's a big difference. A big call of 'justice' is that the criminal is getting his/her 'deserved punishment'. I think that is really based in vengeance. Look at this thread...even those who are against capital punishment have expressed a desire to see the criminal suffer. It's not about 'getting rehab' or 'keeping the prisoner away from society for our safety' it's all about the amt of suffering we can heap on someone who has broken the law.

Actually I just looked up the literal definition of vengeance. Check the first definition out:

ven·geance(vnjns)

n.

Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vengeance

If that's not the justice system, well then balls.

btw, I'm not sat here wanting ppl to boohoo for the criminals, but let's all call it what it is

nighty night peeps!

[natty bumppo 293]

Thx Nat...see ya tomorrow!

And I just caught your other response...yep, parents are on juries. But they're not sentencing their children. There's a big difference. A big call of 'justice' is that the criminal is getting his/her 'deserved punishment'. I think that is really based in vengeance. Look at this thread...even those who are against capital punishment have expressed a desire to see the criminal suffer. It's not about 'getting rehab' or 'keeping the prisoner away from society for our safety' it's all about the amt of suffering we can heap on someone who has broken the law.

Actually I just looked up the literal definition of vengeance. Check the first definition out:

ven·geance(vnjns)

n.

Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vengeance

If that's not the justice system, well then balls.

btw, I'm not sat here wanting ppl to boohoo for the criminals, but let's all call it what it is

nighty night peeps!

LisaD ... I can't resist ...

The family unit is the primary reference and authority in a child’s life for proper behavior and is a microcosm of our society. When the family fails, then the state is supposed to act and disciplines the person in order to rehabilitate (hopefully).

This concept is about action and consequence. Be this within the family unit or society.

So, by disciplining a child for wrong doing, the parent is seeking vengeance on the child (see definition above) like society seeks vengeance on lawbreakers.

A child who committed a wrong (stayed out past curfew, didn’t take out the trash, untruthful comments, skipped school, etc) will be sentenced. Usually by the time honored …. grounding for 1 week, no TV/internet for 5 days, extra chores, etc. (punishment/ rehabilitation).

I’m not trying to be pedantic … just having some fun and putting a different spin on some earlier words while illustrating how early in life family/society starts the vengeance process.

ALL punishment is vengeance....don't kid yourself

See where I went off on the tangent ?

Now a person who commits murder … simple ... remove them from of society.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thx Nat...see ya tomorrow!

And I just caught your other response...yep, parents are on juries. But they're not sentencing their children. There's a big difference. A big call of 'justice' is that the criminal is getting his/her 'deserved punishment'. I think that is really based in vengeance. Look at this thread...even those who are against capital punishment have expressed a desire to see the criminal suffer. It's not about 'getting rehab' or 'keeping the prisoner away from society for our safety' it's all about the amt of suffering we can heap on someone who has broken the law.

Actually I just looked up the literal definition of vengeance. Check the first definition out:

ven·geance(vnjns)

n.

Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vengeance

If that's not the justice system, well then balls.

btw, I'm not sat here wanting ppl to boohoo for the criminals, but let's all call it what it is

nighty night peeps!

That’s kind of simplistic isn’t it? I mean - strictly speaking vengeance requires some sort of personal gratification IMO. Isn't that the reasoning behind juries? – why we have complete strangers adjudicate on a particular case, rather than the families of the people involved – to ensure as far as possible that they look at the unvarnished facts rather than making judgments based solely on their emotions and what they think a person “deserves”?

I saw Alex’s point merely as relativistic comment – punishment in jail is more severe a punishment than execution (in a lot of cases). Tied to that of course there should be some attempt at rehabilitation (everyone deserves at least 1 shot at changing their ways IMO).

Now if we’re talking about vengeance - here's the thing I don’t understand (actually I do understand it – I just don’t subscribe to the mentality). Whenever capital crimes come up on here (and I’m including the various child SO discussions)- there's always a small number of people demanding that the perpetrator be strung up by the nuts, or wishing the worst medieval punishments on a person – even before the case has gone to trial or the person been convicted of any crime whatsoever.

That is sadism IMO – and again if we’re talking about vengeance, it seems to me that a heck of a lot of this sort of thing goes on from people who don’t know the facts of the case, don’t know the people involved and assume guilt purely on the basis of the fact that “a man is helping police with their inquiries”. In some cases I get the distinct impression that there are people who "want" to flip the switch on someone - which for someone with no emotional investment in the case (i.e. if you weren't the victim) to want to do that seems to me to be emotional transferance of the worst kind...

If you don’t believe me – take a look back at the numerous threads over the Jon-Benet case, where the guy who made the confession turned out not to have had anything to do with the case at all.

Edited June 4, 2007 by erekose

[homesick_american 1]

People who murder, don't deserve to enjoy life.

Exactly. Isn't that why we have prisons?

There are much worse fates than death (and believe it or not, they're cheaper for the US taxpayer to carry out, although that, to me, is hardly as important as the principle).

In the main I am opposed to the death penalty, but not because I think those murderers' lives should be spared. It's because the death penalty costs too much and is much much too open to serious errors. To me, even one innocent executed is one too many. Just imagine the horror of being executed for something you didn't do. I'm not willing to accept that.

People who murder, don't deserve to enjoy life.

Exactly. Isn't that why we have prisons?

Being alive unto itself is enjoyment. Haven't you heard? inmates can read books, watch television and appreciate the outdoors.

Can the murdered people? Not from 6 feet under.

As far as I know, TVs are not allowed on Texas's death row.

[homesick_american 1]

so is the perpetual time with lawyers prolonging the inevitable

It isn't inevitable though. A large percentage of death sentences are thrown out on appeal or commuted to life. Those appeals exist to make damn sure that the person they are executing A.) did the crime and B.) deserves to be executed for it. Unfortunately the current appeals system is so flawed that they often will not accept evidence of innocence, including DNA test results, without massive legal brawls. Since the inmate does not have the right to free counsel after their mandated appeals have been exhausted, they have to file these appeals themselves and since they're so imperfect (in legal terms), they're dismissed without a proper look at the MERITS of the appeal.

[Fandango 1,439]

That’s kind of simplistic isn’t it? I mean - strictly speaking vengeance requires some sort of personal gratification IMO. Isn't that the reasoning behind juries? – why we have complete strangers adjudicate on a particular case, rather than the families of the people involved – to ensure as far as possible that they look at the unvarnished facts rather than making judgments based solely on their emotions and what they think a person “deserves”?

I saw Alex’s point merely as relativistic comment – punishment in jail is more severe a punishment than execution (in a lot of cases). Tied to that of course there should be some attempt at rehabilitation (everyone deserves at least 1 shot at changing their ways IMO).

Now if we’re talking about vengeance - here's the thing I don’t understand (actually I do understand it – I just don’t subscribe to the mentality). Whenever capital crimes come up on here (and I’m including the various child SO discussions)- there's always a small number of people demanding that the perpetrator be strung up by the nuts, or wishing the worst medieval punishments on a person – even before the case has gone to trial or the person been convicted of any crime whatsoever.

That is sadism IMO – and again if we’re talking about vengeance, it seems to me that a heck of a lot of this sort of thing goes on from people who don’t know the facts of the case, don’t know the people involved and assume guilt purely on the basis of the fact that “a man is helping police with their inquiries”. In some cases I get the distinct impression that there are people who "want" to flip the switch on someone - which for someone with no emotional investment in the case (i.e. if you weren't the victim) to want to do that seems to me to be emotional transferance of the worst kind...

If you don’t believe me – take a look back at the numerous threads over the Jon-Benet case, where the guy who made the confession turned out not to have had anything to do with the case at all.

Of course it was simplistic

It's my contention that even with juries with no one related to the victim, the jurors (if finding a defendant guilty) will have an emotional stake in the case. It takes on a life of its own...i.e. 'look at the crime this person has committed to society'. Let alone the empathy that one would feel.

It's also the reason victim's families speak before sentencing criminals...we call it 'justice' yet here they are asking for the worst possible punishment allowable. Why? so the prisoner can get 'rehabilitation'? Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but at the end of the day as I said before, what chances of rehabilitation do you think a murderer has? I'm not talking 'oh it was self defense'...I'm talking keeping heads in the fridge.

Sadistic? Perhaps. But again, look back at this thread. Even those who are against the death penalty have expressed vengeful and sadistic statements re: 'I want to see him suffer.' Might not be right, but it is what it is. It's human nature, and I personally feel that's something that people can't change. We can pretend we're all civilized and forgiving, but at the end of the day, someone does something heinous to you, most people (IMO) are going to want some kind of suffering as payback.

[homesick_american 1]

It's also the reason victim's families speak before sentencing criminals...we call it 'justice' yet here they are asking for the worst possible punishment allowable. Why? so the prisoner can get 'rehabilitation'? Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but at the end of the day as I said before, what chances of rehabilitation do you think a murderer has? I'm not talking 'oh it was self defense'...I'm talking keeping heads in the fridge.

Sex offenders have the highest recidivism rate of all violent criminals, yet they're not subjected to the harshest punishment we have, i.e. death. Murder has one of the lowest recidivism rates of all violent crimes (we're talking below 10%) yet they're the ones with the longest prison sentences and/or harshest punishments.

If this was more about protecting society and less about 'justice' and 'vengeance' they'd be releasing murderers after a long sentence but executing sex offenders.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That’s kind of simplistic isn’t it? I mean - strictly speaking vengeance requires some sort of personal gratification IMO. Isn't that the reasoning behind juries? – why we have complete strangers adjudicate on a particular case, rather than the families of the people involved – to ensure as far as possible that they look at the unvarnished facts rather than making judgments based solely on their emotions and what they think a person “deserves”?

I saw Alex’s point merely as relativistic comment – punishment in jail is more severe a punishment than execution (in a lot of cases). Tied to that of course there should be some attempt at rehabilitation (everyone deserves at least 1 shot at changing their ways IMO).

Now if we’re talking about vengeance - here's the thing I don’t understand (actually I do understand it – I just don’t subscribe to the mentality). Whenever capital crimes come up on here (and I’m including the various child SO discussions)- there's always a small number of people demanding that the perpetrator be strung up by the nuts, or wishing the worst medieval punishments on a person – even before the case has gone to trial or the person been convicted of any crime whatsoever.

That is sadism IMO – and again if we’re talking about vengeance, it seems to me that a heck of a lot of this sort of thing goes on from people who don’t know the facts of the case, don’t know the people involved and assume guilt purely on the basis of the fact that “a man is helping police with their inquiries”. In some cases I get the distinct impression that there are people who "want" to flip the switch on someone - which for someone with no emotional investment in the case (i.e. if you weren't the victim) to want to do that seems to me to be emotional transferance of the worst kind...

If you don’t believe me – take a look back at the numerous threads over the Jon-Benet case, where the guy who made the confession turned out not to have had anything to do with the case at all.

Of course it was simplistic

It's my contention that even with juries with no one related to the victim, the jurors (if finding a defendant guilty) will have an emotional stake in the case. It takes on a life of its own...i.e. 'look at the crime this person has committed to society'. Let alone the empathy that one would feel.

It's also the reason victim's families speak before sentencing criminals...we call it 'justice' yet here they are asking for the worst possible punishment allowable. Why? so the prisoner can get 'rehabilitation'? Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but at the end of the day as I said before, what chances of rehabilitation do you think a murderer has? I'm not talking 'oh it was self defense'...I'm talking keeping heads in the fridge.

Sadistic? Perhaps. But again, look back at this thread. Even those who are against the death penalty have expressed vengeful and sadistic statements re: 'I want to see him suffer.' Might not be right, but it is what it is. It's human nature, and I personally feel that's something that people can't change. We can pretend we're all civilized and forgiving, but at the end of the day, someone does something heinous to you, most people (IMO) are going to want some kind of suffering as payback.

The point of the jury system is not to turn people into robots or have them shut off their emotions - but to reduce the element of bias (specifically emotional bias) creeping into their assessment of the evidence. Isn't that partly why jury selection in these big cases is so drawn out?

Of course you can't prevent your emotions from entering into the equation - but there's a far cry from basic empathy toward the victim or the victims family to sheer mob mentality bloodlust.

[PaulineA 1]

People are going on about the cost to execute these people. What about the cost to keep them in prison for 25 years or more? A life for a life is what I think, and the sooner the better. The whole world should have the death penalty, as I think even the threat of it would be a detterant for some criminals. JMO.

[homesick_american 1]

People are going on about the cost to execute these people. What about the cost to keep them in prison for 25 years or more? A life for a life is what I think, and the sooner the better. The whole world should have the death penalty, as I think even the threat of it would be a detterant for some criminals. JMO.

It isn't a deterrent. Just look at crime rates for the 38 states with the DP vs the 12 that do not. The states with it have, on average, more violent crime per capita than states without the DP. If it were REALLY a deterrent, that would not be the case.

Also, our justice system and our constitution DEMAND a high level of proof and a high quality defense,and capital defendants don't even get THAT. We are talking about taking away somebody's LIFE here. This is not something you can be flip about. You have to make damn sure that this is the guy...confessions don't mean sh!t, neither do eyewitness testimony, since it's the most unreliable evidence in any trial...and this process takes TIME. If it were you...wouldn't you want every opportunity to avoid the death penalty? What if it was your son on death row,or your husband? People forget that prisoners don't do time alone; their families do time too. What about them?

Prosecuting a capital case is necessarily expensive. It HAS to be. Remember, we're talking about somebody's life here. The appeals process is necessarily expensive. Again, someone's LIFE. You can't just execute them a month after the sentence is handed down; this isn't Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Wouldn't you want the USA to have a better human rights record than countries where honor killings are condoned and hands are still cut off for stealing?

Taking into account the average age of the death row inmate when sentenced and their life expectancy on death row (they die a lot younger than average, even if they're not executed) plus the difference in cost of prosecuting/defending a capital case vs first degree murder, it IS cheaper to incarcerate them for life. People way smarter than we are have already done the math.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People are going on about the cost to execute these people. What about the cost to keep them in prison for 25 years or more? A life for a life is what I think, and the sooner the better. The whole world should have the death penalty, as I think even the threat of it would be a detterant for some criminals. JMO.

Statistically its not a deterrant. Otherwise the US would have the lowest capital crime rate in the world...

[PaulineA 1]

People are going on about the cost to execute these people. What about the cost to keep them in prison for 25 years or more? A life for a life is what I think, and the sooner the better. The whole world should have the death penalty, as I think even the threat of it would be a detterant for some criminals. JMO.

It isn't a deterrent. Just look at crime rates for the 38 states with the DP vs the 12 that do not. The states with it have, on average, more violent crime per capita than states without the DP. If it were REALLY a deterrent, that would not be the case.

Also, our justice system and our constitution DEMAND a high level of proof and a high quality defense,and capital defendants don't even get THAT. We are talking about taking away somebody's LIFE here. This is not something you can be flip about. You have to make damn sure that this is the guy...confessions don't mean sh!t, neither do eyewitness testimony, since it's the most unreliable evidence in any trial...and this process takes TIME. If it were you...wouldn't you want every opportunity to avoid the death penalty? What if it was your son on death row,or your husband? People forget that prisoners don't do time alone; their families do time too. What about them?

Prosecuting a capital case is necessarily expensive. It HAS to be. Remember, we're talking about somebody's life here. The appeals process is necessarily expensive. Again, someone's LIFE. You can't just execute them a month after the sentence is handed down; this isn't Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Wouldn't you want the USA to have a better human rights record than countries where honor killings are condoned and hands are still cut off for stealing?

Taking into account the average age of the death row inmate when sentenced and their life expectancy on death row (they die a lot younger than average, even if they're not executed) plus the difference in cost of prosecuting/defending a capital case vs first degree murder, it IS cheaper to incarcerate them for life. People way smarter than we are have already done the math.

Well, I would have thought some people would think twice if they knew there own lives were at risk. But then again, murderers aren't right in the head, and I wouldn't expect them to think before murderering anyone. Yes its a LIFE we are talking about. The same as with the victims it's a LIFE we are talking about there too. Why do people sympathize with the criminal? If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty then they have to take whatever the justice system throws at them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People are going on about the cost to execute these people. What about the cost to keep them in prison for 25 years or more? A life for a life is what I think, and the sooner the better. The whole world should have the death penalty, as I think even the threat of it would be a detterant for some criminals. JMO.

It isn't a deterrent. Just look at crime rates for the 38 states with the DP vs the 12 that do not. The states with it have, on average, more violent crime per capita than states without the DP. If it were REALLY a deterrent, that would not be the case.

Also, our justice system and our constitution DEMAND a high level of proof and a high quality defense,and capital defendants don't even get THAT. We are talking about taking away somebody's LIFE here. This is not something you can be flip about. You have to make damn sure that this is the guy...confessions don't mean sh!t, neither do eyewitness testimony, since it's the most unreliable evidence in any trial...and this process takes TIME. If it were you...wouldn't you want every opportunity to avoid the death penalty? What if it was your son on death row,or your husband? People forget that prisoners don't do time alone; their families do time too. What about them?

Prosecuting a capital case is necessarily expensive. It HAS to be. Remember, we're talking about somebody's life here. The appeals process is necessarily expensive. Again, someone's LIFE. You can't just execute them a month after the sentence is handed down; this isn't Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Wouldn't you want the USA to have a better human rights record than countries where honor killings are condoned and hands are still cut off for stealing?

Taking into account the average age of the death row inmate when sentenced and their life expectancy on death row (they die a lot younger than average, even if they're not executed) plus the difference in cost of prosecuting/defending a capital case vs first degree murder, it IS cheaper to incarcerate them for life. People way smarter than we are have already done the math.

Well, I would have thought some people would think twice if they knew there own lives were at risk. But then again, murderers aren't right in the head, and I wouldn't expect them to think before murderering anyone. Yes its a LIFE we are talking about. The same as with the victims it's a LIFE we are talking about there too. Why do people sympathize with the criminal? If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty then they have to take whatever the justice system throws at them.

Well that opens up a whole can of worms on its own - whether its morally/ethically correct to execute the mentally disturbed. I'm still appalled at the District Attorney who tried to have a schizophrenic death row inmate medicated to make him sane enough to execute, because the laws at the time (in, I think - Florida) forbade execution of people who are deemed mentally incompetant.