"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would''

[Aeson]

Is that the sound of resounding silence I hear?

Or perhaps the sound of....having some difficulty coming up with a kinder, gentler way of dealing with *exactly* the kind of monster I've been talking about since my first post?

Figured you were better than that Vel.

Post a huge long story that, frankly, no one wants to read through (because of prohibitive length and/or content), and then use the lack of a response as validation on your point? Putrid.

All of the methodologies mentioned here by the anti-DP crowd were tried (and failed spectacularly) on Mr. Gaskins, and he's not even a pro!

The only 'failure' of solitary that I can see making a point for is that he faced death without fear. Lack of suffering is a failure?

I may have missed something though, that story didn't seem to want to keep to a timeline [middle last, first, middle, first last, last last?].

[Velociryx]

Well, the story is sick and twisted and gruesome (not to mention longish...but then, Gaskins was a busy little beaver), but riviting in its way....that one man could have such an....elemental cruelty bottled up inside him.

And given the thrust and leading post OF this thread, it's a reasonable assumption that folks would be at least marginally interested, else they'd not be posting here in the first.

The failing of solitary was that it didn't work, and it didn't work because nobody in the system lacked the wherewithal to keep him confined in his little rat-infested room for the rest of his life. He was allowed out. He was allowed contact, and it was not as Ramo described....that he, having killed once, would probably not do it again.

He did.

And did.

And....did.

Today, we're even more weak willed when it comes to such attrocities as keeping someone (no matter how dangerous) locked up in solitary for life. There are watchdog groups that would descend on the prision that tried it like a group of baying hyennas, and the officials in charge would relent, just as they relented in this story, only easier than ever.

This then, is not the superior solution, because we're not "there" yet.

Until we are, it's an unacceptable risk.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

What is this? Vel shows up out of the clear blue sky and to do what? Argue for the death penalty?

Will wonders never cease?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yep the leaner meaner Vel.

Complete with atrocities and gas chambers.

You go Vel.

[Velociryx]

keep 'em guessing, that's what I always say!

Hiyas to everyone on BOTH sides of the argument, btw....'tis good to be back!

-=Vel=-
PS to Og: I can't help it man, Pravin Lal repealed the UN Charter and since then....you know....

[Aeson]

Vel,

The DP was never a factor until after all the '30-100' (11 confirmed?) were dead. At that point he would have been in prison for the rest of his life, with much higher security than he escaped from previously. Again, he never escaped from solitary either.

He should have been in prison for life, high security, after the first killing (considering previous rape and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill). He escaped, was captured later (statuatory rape in the meantime), then released. "Stay out of our county for 2 years"... is this actually law at work or idiots playing around? I can't but help think that just applying the law in an effective manner would have negated the opportunity for the majority of his crimes.

You dismiss the factor that brutalization has on the psyche? While he definitely was 'off' early in life (No mention of his childhood? the only thing I got was he heard his full name for the first time when in court. Rather strange and indicates an abnormal childhood), it seems very clear that his experiences in prison pushed him over the edge completely. The attack on the girl wasn't premeditated, it wasn't until the prison that he got to that point. Maybe something else would have done it anyways, maybe not. It's conjecture.

It's an indictment of the prison system c. 1960-1980. Both for security and treatment of prisoners. In some ways we have improved, but there is definitely still room for more improvement. I don't agree that the DP gains any validity from our society's failure to properly implement law and confinement though.

[Velociryx]

Here's a bitter irony, and another bit of sad truth as to why the death penalty is needed, and in some cases, warranted.

There are folks here arguing for lifelong solitary confinement for our "truly dangerous" criminals.

Well and good.

Interesting to note, however, that we can't even keep war criminals and suspected terrorists in Guantanimo in VASTLY BETTER conditions than are being prescribed here without drawing international criticism and STRONG condemnation from a variety of groups.

If we can't stand up to that criticism, how then, could we ever HOPE to stand up to the criticism that would stem from doing exactly as the anti-DP crowd prescribes?

Simply put, we couldn't.

We'd cave.

We'd let them have privleges and contact.

And....well, read the Pee Wee story for a little taste of the possibilities that opens up.

I'll pass.

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Today, we're even more weak willed when it comes to such attrocities as keeping someone (no matter how dangerous) locked up in solitary for life. There are watchdog groups that would descend on the prision that tried it like a group of baying hyennas, and the officials in charge would relent, just as they relented in this story, only easier than ever.

This then, is not the superior solution, because we're not "there" yet.

The same people oppose the death penalty in most cases I would think. It seems to be implemented still though.

[Aeson]

Interesting to note, however, that we can't even keep war criminals and suspected terrorists in Guantanimo in VASTLY BETTER conditions than are being prescribed here without drawing international criticism and STRONG condemnation from a variety of groups.

Without a trial. Do I have to say more?

EDIT: not to mention that the pressure has not resulted in the release of anyone from Guantanimo

[Velociryx]

True again, Master Aeson. There are those who oppose each and every state-sanctioned execution.

They are forced to do it by way of picket outside the prison because there aren't enough of them to repeal the capitol punishment laws of those states.....or to put another way, they are the minority opinon on the matter in those states where the death penalty is used, because IN those states, it is recognized that sometimes, there really ARE boogeymen, and rather than run the risk of those boogeymen getting loose to inflict more harm and more death, there's a 100% surefire guaranteed way to see that they never can.

And they don't.

As to the Guantanimo prisoners....military justice works a bit different. Nope...no trial. That's pretty standard fare under the circumstances.

EDIT: and WORLDS better treatment than our own captured get....

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

I'm not disputing how military justice works.

"Without trial" is the argument against it which you are referencing. There is no logical incompatibility with supporting "solitary confinement after conviction" and opposing "confinement without a trial" as you implied.

[Velociryx]

Aeson....the prison system hasn't changed all that much since the 60's and 70's when the bulk of Gaskin's crimes were committed. Want a shorter and more recent example? Here ya go!

Shawcross
Arthur Shawcross recieved a second chance at life after being released back into the community for the murder of two small children. Moving from place to place he ended up in Rochester, New York. He married Rose Walley while in Rochester. He also met Clara Neal, who became his mistress. Working nights as a food wholesaler, and living near the center of town, he didn't even have a car. During the day he would be seen riding a brown Schwinn bicycle, a womans model, riding to fishing spots along the Genesee River. Not many people wanted Arthur for a neighbor.

In 1972 while in Watertown, New York, an upstate town Shawcross had murdered little ten year old Jack Blake, and eight year old Karen Hill He served 15 years of a 25 year sentence for these crimes. He was released on parole in April of 1987 for those murders. After moving from town to town, chased out by enraged citizens, he found his home in Rochester. People there found him to be friendly, and mild mannered. They didn't know of his dark past. In March of 1988 the body of a 27 year old prostitute was found floating in Salmon Creek. In September another body was found.

Over a year later in October of 1989, a third was found, and in early November, a fourth. Later that month a fifth. Police believed the murders were too similar to be the work of different people...a serial killer was loose in the community. Arthur followed the news of the murders closely. He warned his wife and Clara to be careful. He also hung out at the local Dunkin' Donuts to talk with the cops about the case. In late November another body was found by a guy walking his dog. Four days later another body was found. By the end of the year three more bodys were added to the death list. About this time, the Rochester police invited FBI serial killer specialists in to help. They made a profile of the killer: White male, thirties, mobile, trusted by the women who fearlessly got into his car.

On January 3, 1990 state troopers in a helicopter spotted a body in the icy Salmon Creek waters. On a bridge overlooking the creek a man leaned out of his car urinating into a pop bottle. The choper alerted some patrol cars and they surrounded the area. Shawcross had just finished a salad when he saw the copter. He climbed back into Clara Neal's Chevy and left toward the mursing home where she worked. As soon as he pulled in, a police car pulled in behind him and he was taken in for questioning. Shawcross didn't fit the profile to well, but when the checked his history their interests changed. They impounded the Chevy, and let Arthur go for lack of evidence. While inspecting the Chevy they found a pink earring that matched on of the earrings found on one of the victims. Shawcross was picked up the next morning. For hours he denied involvement in the crimes.

Eventually he confessed to the murders in detail. He had strangled one of his victims for calling him "no better than a faggot"...and saying that he was the Genesee River Killer. He smashed one's face into the car door for saying he was "hopeless", and killed one for claiming to be a virgin. By the time his October trial came he had refused to testify. His defence tried to get a insanity claim. Under hypnosis he spoke as an eleven year old arttie, and even as a reincarnated medieval English cannibal. A few of the prostitutes he killed had had their vaginas cut out, which Arthur had ate a few of. He was sentenced to 10 consecutive terms of 25 years at the Sullivan Correctional Facility.

He was convicted of 10 murders, but later admitted to an eleventh. He is still being held at Sullivan with no possibility of parole.

Curiously, in 1990, Art received ten write-in votes during New York's gubernatorial race.
***

Another case of "oh, he'll never do it again?"

Nope.

Once he had a taste for it, it was right back to the same ol' tricks.

Before we can do as you and other anti-DPers prescribe, a fundamental change has to take place, both in the court system AND the prison system.

If it doesn't, then the anti-DP methodologies espoused here will simply lead to more of the above, so until something HUGE and dramatic happens to change the current system (which, I predict will not be in my lifetime, and probably not in the lifetimes of my children, if I can convince my Lady to become Mrs. Hartpence in the near future .... ), then I view the anti-DP methodologies mentioned thus far in this thread to be both unrealistically optimistic and unworkable.

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

How many people did he murder while in prison?

You can say he's going to murder again based on what? He's not going to be released now, and that was how he continued killing.

You know what though? We can't guarantee you won't kill someone Vel. You need to be executed for the safety of the general public. So do I. So does everyone.

[Aeson]

As for the argument that a criminal will be released and then commit crimes, it's nonsensical to link to the DP. No criminal that would get the DP is going to be released. The DP is an attempt for absolute permanent removal from society. Why would any other sentance be different (ie. X consecutive life sentances).

The DP isn't saving lives in your examples when compared to similarly 'permanent' restrictions.

[Velociryx]

That sounds like Master Aeson getting tired. Almost two in the morning here, so I know the feeling, bud.

And you know that's not what I'm advocating. I'm for the death penalty, yes. For monsters. For folks with a proven track record for brutality that goes well beyond passion killings and the like.

For the kinds of....creatures we've spent the evening talking about.

Not for people who may, at some point in the future, do something bad, but for boogeymen who have already done something bad, and why? Why am I for something like that?

Because it has a finality to it. A certainty.

That's the thing that the anti-DP methodologies lack.

Finality.

Certainty.

And that's the telling difference, because I've pulled real life monsters into this thread as examples.

People who killed, were released (or escaped, or both) with the hope and expectation that they would not behave badly again.

And they did.

That's what the kinder, gentler methodology gets us.

Monsters who regain their freedom and behave like the monsters they are.

Contrast that to the finality of the death penalty....the certainty that those monsters will NEVER kill again under any circumstance.

That's comforting.

That's justice served and society protected.

-=Vel=-
(heading to bed!)

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
still against dp.

what would befit this crime? castration and permanent residence in a 2x3x2 cage.

why do all the pacifists want TORTURE over the death penalty?

talk about revenge fantasies.

[Aeson]

Goodnight then.

Only the "monster" that is us will continue killing and feeling justified in doing so. The finality you speak of is understandable. It's harder to be compassionate and risk being hurt than to kill and feel safe until the next one rears it's head sporting their own justification for killing. Easier doesn't mean better though. In this case I think it's futility as the underlying problem isn't addressed, allowing it to cycle in perpetuity.

My argument still is that we are all potential "monsters" as you put it, and that differentiating based on circumstance is sticking our head in the sand. The right drug combo administered with brutality and/or brainwashing and we all become very messed up. Some people just get this naturally through what they are born with and/or how they are treated in life.

[Aeson]

I don't want torture yavoon. :P

I would give the guy a choice. "We can't allow you back in society. Do you want to spend the rest of your life confined and restrained, probably medicated (by order of psychiatrist) or would you prefer to die a quick and painless death?"

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Aeson
I don't want torture yavoon. :P

I would give the guy a choice. "We can't allow you back in society. Do you want to spend the rest of your life confined and restrained, probably medicated (by order of psychiatrist) or would you prefer to die a quick and painless death?"

yes ur very humane, u give option. torture or death.

[Aeson]

Better than forcing one or the other though, and not really torture. No real nice options in the case... unless you know how to magically restrain someone without restraining them?

[Ramo]

Vel,

I'm not saying that no murderer will ever kill again. That's clearly an absurd claim. What I did say is that most murderers will never kill again, and that that many who are executed wouldn't have killed again.

Let's look at your examples.

There's no evidence that Gaskin would have killed again had he been kept in solitary (I skimmed all that, so I may have missed something).

As for Shawcross, there's no evidence that he would've killed again had he been in prison for life instead of 17 years.

If the methodologies we advocate were used, they wouldn't have killed again.

Now, it's fair to say that with these methodologies as basic guidelines, these people may given more lax a treatment than was warranted. That is, there were no problems in the application, these people just ended being extremely blood-thirsty. So your solution is, if we find a murderer, fry 'em, right? Because, you can never tell what a murder might do given the chance.

But doesn't that apply to everyone? You or I or Aeson very well might murder in the future. Isn't it better if we were all locked up since it'd be very hard for us to murder in prison? Let's lock up everyone, then we'll all be safe. If someone acts criminially, there's always the needle. Virtually no chance that a person is murdered, isn't that great?

My point is that sometimes people fall through the cracks of the system. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take any chances and kill them before they get another opportunity to kill. The first priority really ought to be fixing the system and ending violence in prisons which fosters this sort of behavior. As as I see it, the fundamental question is, how many Gaskins are in death row right now?

You mentioned Gitmo. People are criticizing it for damn good reason. Detaining people indefinitely without due process has no place in a free society. And characterizing them all as war criminals and terrorists is absurd. If these characterizations were true, none of them would have been released (some have been realeased, and there are plans to release many more). And if these characterizations were true, they ought to be proven in a trial. You know, Lord Protector Ashcroft has kept young adolescents in Gitmo (and regardless of guilt - which is pretty blatantly inevident as a few have been released so far - this is hardly the best place to put a 13 year old). Incidentally, some Brits detained in Gitmo have just been released, and there's an interesting interview just carried in the Guardian: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print...102285,00.html

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Aeson
Better than forcing one or the other though, and not really torture. No real nice options in the case... unless you know how to magically restrain someone without restraining them?

no, but my lacking could be solved easily by a gov't program looking into such things.

[Aeson]

So are you then a pacifist who desires torture yavoon? You seem to think killing or torturing people is wrong, so you must be a pacifist... and all pacifists desire to torture as you said.

[Guardian]

I'm with civman and Spiffor (and others) on this one: No, this does not qualify for the death sentence, and no, there is no case that would.

Hence, in a way, I do agree with the title of this thread.

[Velociryx]

Morning again:

The methodologies you advocate WERE used in the cases I brought up here. They were used, and used, and used some more.

They failed.

Not in their initial application (as has been pointed out and conceded to, none of the killers killed again while in solitary), but they failed in their overall application because those prisoners were not KEPT in solitary.

Stuff happens.

It's called life.

Prisions get shut down, prisoners get transferred, people get lax.

And when that happens....when the boogeymen get set free....here's a big surprise....they kill again.

Not so with the application of the death penalty.

It is successful through and through....both in its initial application, and long term.

You cannot say that a killer who has been sentenced to solitary confinement has never killed again. I have shown you an example of that very thing.

I however, can tell you absolutely that no killer who has ever been hit with an application of the death penalty has ever killed again.

And I am curious. How is lifelong (20+ years....a thing that has been advocated here) solitary confinement (which is torture, no matter how you slice it) "morally better" than death? Not only is it less certain to work (for the reasons mentioned above), but it carries with it the risk that the killer will get loose and do it again.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I however, can tell you absolutely that no killer who has ever been hit with an application of the death penalty has ever killed again.

Well in Exorcist XXXIX? there was that guy who in his last life was a serial killer who ended up possessing that little old lady that crawled on the ceiling and going on a killing spree.

Man that was a bad movie. How could George C. Scott fall so low?

By the by, point well made. Sometimes there are monsters that are/will be/can be such a danger to society that the best choice is to have them put down.

[Velociryx]

Thanks Og, and g'morning!

Too right about the Exorcist movie...."Shocker" too, for another example (serial killer gets zapped, and instead of dying, he goes into the city's electrical lines and still lives, able to zap himself all around town and continue his killing spree)

-=Vel=-

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I however, can tell you absolutely that no killer who has ever been hit with an application of the death penalty has ever killed again.

On the other hand, there have been cases where - after a decade or two - somebody discovers new evidence bringing a person's guilt into question, or even outright proving that the suspect could not possibly have commited the crime he was once sentenced for...

[Velociryx]

Yep, just like there are airline fatalities, fatal car crashes, and people killed by administering the wrong meds, mistakes ARE made. No denying that.

And until we reduce highway fatalities to zero (see my nerf-tank post a couple pages ago), I don't see that a compelling point can be made that this should get the lion's share of societal attention. The process is long and arduous (for a good reason), and as percentages go, not terribly many mistakes are made.

Is even one, one too many?

Of course.

Same with highway fatalities, especially in light of the technical possiblilty of building an absolutely safe vehicle.

Still happens tho.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Apples and Oranges, Vel, apples and oranges.

The criminal justice system cannot be compared to I-84.

-Arrian