Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

He should have been executed years ago. Instead he gets a chance at parole.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-ripper-crew-met-20170811-story.html

I know it is tradition for politicians to commute sentences at certain times. When I look at a guy like this, I know I would respect any politician that let "traditions" like that take a flying leap.

Yep. I would prefer he died than take the chance he can get out earlier. No reason to allow this in society.

 redleger wrote:
Yep. I would prefer he died than take the chance he can get out earlier. No reason to allow this in society.

Life means life.
he should do every single minute of his 70 year term.

be out by about 92.
good riddance, if you live that long, if not, im not fussed. do the crime, do the time.

He has done the time though.

If this was the sentence passed down in a court of law, it would be an injustice to change that because pf 'public opinion', trial by media/sentencing by media is a slippery slope, don't head down it.

Also 35 years is a long time, that the convicted maintained good behaviour. If the parole board lets him out, so be it. It's still parole so restrictions can be set.

This guy should have been taken to a ditch and shot. No chance for parole. The courts messed up big here, the same way they did with Manson and his followers.

Relapse wrote:
This guy should have been taken to a ditch and shot. No chance for parole. The courts messed up big here, the same way they did with Manson and his followers.

How did they mess up with Charles Manson?

Relapse wrote:
This guy should have been taken to a ditch and shot. No chance for parole. The courts messed up big here, the same way they did with Manson and his followers.

Exalted for truth. Some people are filth that the world would be far better off without. The guy in the OP's article definitely qualifies on that score.

I'd also add that I think that people who are actually sentenced to death get way too long to sit on death row. Meanwhile we pay (through our taxes) good money to keep these "dead men walking" alive. It should be five years maximum before the sentence is carried out. That gives plenty of time for the appeals process and stuff (unless said process is longer and more complicated than I realize), but reduces the expense of keeping condemned people alive for such a long time. Maybe there could be exceptions for certain cases, but otherwise if someone is sentenced to death they should just get it over with in a reasonable length of time.

 Orlanth wrote:
He has done the time though.

If this was the sentence passed down in a court of law, it would be an injustice to change that because pf 'public opinion', trial by media/sentencing by media is a slippery slope, don't head down it.

Also 35 years is a long time, that the convicted maintained good behaviour. If the parole board lets him out, so be it. It's still parole so restrictions can be set.

He was given 70

He does 70.
Not 35. He can have radio or TV for being good or something.

If th law stipulates 70 years with possibility of parole THAT IS THE SENTENCE. If the law then stipulates parole after half the sentence that is also part of the sentence.

We know less about this case than the court that convicted this man and he judge that presided over the case. The time to and date life without parole was THEN not NOW. There may well have been reasons and mitigations as to why the convicted did not receive life without parole. Let the real trial sentencing stand, and not the internet mob one

If parole can be lawfully deferred so be it. Manson has been up for and denied parole under California law several times. But it happens under law.

However if the state law relating to the conviction at hand stipulates release the law must be followed, and not handwaved away because people on the internets feel salty.

Is rehabilitation of an individual not possible? This guy is vile but does everyone not deserve another chance?

The law is the law and must be respected otherwise society is no better than the criminal, frankly I hope his parole is denied but people can change.

 Orlanth wrote:

If parole can be lawfully deferred so be it. Manson has been up for and denied parole under California law several times. But it happens under law.

However if the state law relating to the conviction at hand stipulates release the law must be followed, and not handwaved away because people on the internets feel salty.

This. If you really want your prison system to function then you need it to be fair on the prisoners. If you create a system whereby prisoners can meet all their requirements for parole but then you arbitrarily deny them such based on public perception then you create a prison system in which there is zero incentive for those incarcerated to obey the rules. Why serve your time peacefully, with good behaviour, if the courts are going to nullify the sentence conditions and deny you parole anyway?

Prisons operate based upon the understanding between prisoner and their wardens that if the prisoner follows the rules, makes the most of their opportunities and meets the conditions of their sentencing, they can be paroled and released. Removing that understanding poisons the relationship between the prisoners and their keepers and makes violence more likely.

Marxist artist wrote:
Is rehabilitation of an individual not possible? This guy is vile but does everyone not deserve another chance?

The law is the law and must be respected otherwise society is no better than the criminal, frankly I hope his parole is denied but people can change.

Someone can. Some cannot. That's up to the individual.

And some remain too dangerous to ever release and should be locked up until they die. UK done that a few times. Some people where given indefinite sentences basically or sent to secure hospitals and locked away for public safety for many decades.

Give him a one way flight to Afghanistan and wish him luck.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If parole can be lawfully deferred so be it. Manson has been up for and denied parole under California law several times. But it happens under law.

However if the state law relating to the conviction at hand stipulates release the law must be followed, and not handwaved away because people on the internets feel salty.

This. If you really want your prison system to function then you need it to be fair on the prisoners. If you create a system whereby prisoners can meet all their requirements for parole but then you arbitrarily deny them such based on public perception then you create a prison system in which there is zero incentive for those incarcerated to obey the rules. Why serve your time peacefully, with good behaviour, if the courts are going to nullify the sentence conditions and deny you parole anyway?

Prisons operate based upon the understanding between prisoner and their wardens that if the prisoner follows the rules, makes the most of their opportunities and meets the conditions of their sentencing, they can be paroled and released. Removing that understanding poisons the relationship between the prisoners and their keepers and makes violence more likely.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, and the point of prison is rehabilitation, not dehumanization.

We also need to take a hard look at our sentencing. This guy confessed to kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of an innocent woman, and hes being let out of prison after only 35 years? I can get 20 years for having some marijuana on me
I also think that we should also have the death penalty, and it be carried out in a timely manner. Bluntly put, while most prisoners should be able to rejoin society and not be worse off for their time in prison, not everyone deserves a second chance, and it it simply better to remove them entirely. These guys (except for the one who has 120 year sentence) all confessed that they committed the crimes. There's no appeals for that. They did it, they said they did it, slot them in a timely manner and be done with it.

EDIT:Added to my post, and spelling.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If parole can be lawfully deferred so be it. Manson has been up for and denied parole under California law several times. But it happens under law.

However if the state law relating to the conviction at hand stipulates release the law must be followed, and not handwaved away because people on the internets feel salty.

This. If you really want your prison system to function then you need it to be fair on the prisoners. If you create a system whereby prisoners can meet all their requirements for parole but then you arbitrarily deny them such based on public perception then you create a prison system in which there is zero incentive for those incarcerated to obey the rules. Why serve your time peacefully, with good behaviour, if the courts are going to nullify the sentence conditions and deny you parole anyway?

Prisons operate based upon the understanding between prisoner and their wardens that if the prisoner follows the rules, makes the most of their opportunities and meets the conditions of their sentencing, they can be paroled and released. Removing that understanding poisons the relationship between the prisoners and their keepers and makes violence more likely.

This times 1000. Also Malus' post times 1000.

Marxist artist wrote:
Is rehabilitation of an individual not possible? This guy is vile but does everyone not deserve another chance?

Some people cannot be rehabilitated. Thats why we have and need Life without Parole and Death sentences.

I personally think he should have gotten the Death penalty, but he didn't. The blame, if any, lies with the original judge. But he's up for parole and them's the rules. My guess is he's gonna get denied though based on the severity of his original crime.

I approach all questions of justice with two principals;

1) Nobody, and I do mean nobody, deserves to die. Not everyone can be rehabilitated, but everyone should be given that opportunity.

2) The jury that heard all of the evidence is better suited to judge guilt, the judge who could take all factors into account is better suited to pass sentence and the parole board who can actually interview the prisoner and others involved is far better qualified to decide if someone is still a danger to the public, than I or any other random on the internet can ever hope to be.

I understand that this is following due process, and the law is important. But simply saying 'this is what the law decided and so that's that because we need the law' is talking past the discussion. It is possible to look at legal decisions and penalties and wonder if sentences should be softened in some cases and hardened in others. Obviously this can't be done after the event, but where sentences appear too harsh or too lenient then it is reasonable to review and change sentencing laws.

In general I'm okay with more lenient sentences with longer parole periods that have extensive parole and monitoring elements. But in some cases I really do struggle to see the benefit to release, and this case certainly fits the bill. The man took part in repeated planned, sadistic killings, I just don't see the need to release. I don't agree with the death penalty, and I don't have any need to see the man miserable forever, so give him his tv and visitations, but have life mean life.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Marxist artist wrote:
Is rehabilitation of an individual not possible? This guy is vile but does everyone not deserve another chance?

Some people cannot be rehabilitated. Thats why we have and need Life without Parole and Death sentences.

I personally think he should have gotten the Death penalty, but he didn't. The blame, if any, lies with the original judge. But he's up for parole and them's the rules. My guess is he's gonna get denied though based on the severity of his original crime.

That's why we just need life without parole sentences, just put the period there.

The only function the death penalty serves is to fuel a sense of righteous revenge. The "we got that bad guy" feeling. It's been shown that the death penalty does not reduce crime, does not reduce recidivism (from other criminals obviously) and is not cheaper. It has no function or purpose aside from vengeance. Plus, given how unreliable the US justice system can be, the death penalty is the only type of sentence that you can't reel back in the event it was wrong. Bottom line is that the death penalty serves no practical function.

 curran12 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Marxist artist wrote:
Is rehabilitation of an individual not possible? This guy is vile but does everyone not deserve another chance?

Some people cannot be rehabilitated. Thats why we have and need Life without Parole and Death sentences.

I personally think he should have gotten the Death penalty, but he didn't. The blame, if any, lies with the original judge. But he's up for parole and them's the rules. My guess is he's gonna get denied though based on the severity of his original crime.

That's why we just need life without parole sentences, just put the period there.

The only function the death penalty serves is to fuel a sense of righteous revenge. The "we got that bad guy" feeling. It's been shown that the death penalty does not reduce crime, does not reduce recidivism (from other criminals obviously) and is not cheaper. It has no function or purpose aside from vengeance. Plus, given how unreliable the US justice system can be, the death penalty is the only type of sentence that you can't reel back in the event it was wrong. Bottom line is that the death penalty serves no practical function.

All your issues with the Death penalty are actually issues with the justice system around it. Fix the justice system's flaws and those go away.

Make appeals no longer push back the carrying out of the sentence and cost issues are reduced because you're no longer dealing with unlimited appeals and a prisoner who is practically on Death Row roughly the same time as a life sentence. Give them a reasonable amount of time, say 5-10 years, to try and prove their innocence, but there needs to be a hard cap on how long they get.

We should always strive to increase the accuracy of forensics and other evidence gathering, which would improve the accuracy of all criminal cases.

As for acting as a deterrent, no sentence really acts as a deterrent. The biggest deterrent is the chance of getting caught. Which again is increased by pushing the envelop on forensics and good detective work. Sentences of all kinds are meant to punish that particular individual in proportion to the crime. If you murder a bunch of people horrifically, you should be executed. Not get free room and board for the rest of your life. That to me is a gross injustice. I'd rather the occasional wrongful conviction then see a dozen mass murders get off lightly. In terms of proportionality of wrongdoing, its better to not let those who actually did commit a crime get away.

Plus, if you actually look at the portion of wrongful convictions, they're still pretty dang low. Within acceptable levels IMO. We can always strive for improvement, but there being a chance of a wrongful conviction is a bad reason for not having the death penalty(or indeed any penalty).

I have no idea how you can claim wrongful convictions is acceptable at any level. Especially if a persons life is on the line at the end of it. That's essentially condoning official murder. But "oops sorry, we got it wrong", but it's within acceptable levels, so it's all ok.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I have no idea how you can claim wrongful convictions is acceptable at any level. Especially if a persons life is on the line at the end of it. That's essentially condoning official murder. But "oops sorry, we got it wrong", but it's within acceptable levels, so it's all ok.

Given that the alleged number of these wrongful convictions are so minuscule, and there are way worse problems to deal with, you're overreacting a little bit. And again, you actually have a problem with the methodology, not the actual Death Penalty.

Saying we should get rid of the Death Penalty because we have a, very tiny, chance of wrongly convicting someone is similar to saying we should never ever let doctors perform surgeries because there is a small chance they might kill their patient due to an accident.

If wrongful convictions are an issue for you, advocate for things which reduce the number of wrongful convictions. Reform the methodology of the courts and evidence gathering.


Besides, if wrongful convictions are to be avoided at any cost, we should just throw out the entire justice system. Can't have any people getting wrongfully convicted for anything.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I have no idea how you can claim wrongful convictions is acceptable at any level. Especially if a persons life is on the line at the end of it. That's essentially condoning official murder. But "oops sorry, we got it wrong", but it's within acceptable levels, so it's all ok.

Saying we should get rid of the Death Penalty because we have a, very tiny, chance of wrongly convicting someone is similar to saying we should never ever let doctors perform surgeries because there is a small chance they might kill their patient due to an accident.

Bit of a false equivalence, seeing as the main reason for surgery isn't to murder the patient. The end result of the death penalty is pretty much a one way destination however.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I have no idea how you can claim wrongful convictions is acceptable at any level. Especially if a persons life is on the line at the end of it. That's essentially condoning official murder. But "oops sorry, we got it wrong", but it's within acceptable levels, so it's all ok.

Given that the alleged number of these wrongful convictions are so minuscule, and there are way worse problems to deal with, you're overreacting a little bit.

I am just going to go ahead and stop you right there. If they are minuscule, that means they exist. Which means we kill innocent people. Which means the state commits murder. Which means that the state is doing the one thing they are trying to prevent the population from doing in this case.

How is that not an issue?

 Grey Templar wrote:


Besides, if wrongful convictions are to be avoided at any cost, we should just throw out the entire justice system. Can't have any people getting wrongfully convicted for anything.

Funny how when you put someone to death by mistake, you can't make up for that but you can try to make up for putting the wrong person in prison. I don't care how 'minisquel' the numbers of people wrongly put to death is. One is too many. Full stop.

There are a whole slew of issues with the death penalty (And the justice system in general).

These are brought out more in death penalty cases because death is kind of permanent.

But you have issues with poor/less educated people being more likely to be convicted and receiving higher punishments than middle class people.

Same thing with minorities. Blacks are much more likely to be convicted of crimes than whites and receive a harsher penalty than whites when convicted of the same crime.

There is also the issue with public defenders not receiving any where near the funding as district attorneys.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I have no idea how you can claim wrongful convictions is acceptable at any level. Especially if a persons life is on the line at the end of it. That's essentially condoning official murder. But "oops sorry, we got it wrong", but it's within acceptable levels, so it's all ok.

Given that the alleged number of these wrongful convictions are so minuscule, and there are way worse problems to deal with, you're overreacting a little bit. And again, you actually have a problem with the methodology, not the actual Death Penalty.

Saying we should get rid of the Death Penalty because we have a, very tiny, chance of wrongly convicting someone is similar to saying we should never ever let doctors perform surgeries because there is a small chance they might kill their patient due to an accident.

If wrongful convictions are an issue for you, advocate for things which reduce the number of wrongful convictions. Reform the methodology of the courts and evidence gathering.


Besides, if wrongful convictions are to be avoided at any cost, we should just throw out the entire justice system. Can't have any people getting wrongfully convicted for anything.

Wrongful convictions can be overturned, falsly imprisoned individuals can be freed and approproately compensated.

These cant happen if the person is dead.

Dont get me wrong, there are people who deserve to die, there are people who's only value to society at this point is in dying to provide closure, and there are people who are just too dangerous to be around normal people. But the justice system has too many holes in it for innocent people to slip through, and we have multiple stories a year about innocent people freed from death row, how many never got that chance?

 Grey Templar wrote:

All your issues with the Death penalty are actually issues with the justice system around it. Fix the justice system's flaws and those go away.

Make appeals no longer push back the carrying out of the sentence and cost issues are reduced because you're no longer dealing with unlimited appeals and a prisoner who is practically on Death Row roughly the same time as a life sentence. Give them a reasonable amount of time, say 5-10 years, to try and prove their innocence, but there needs to be a hard cap on how long they get.

We should always strive to increase the accuracy of forensics and other evidence gathering, which would improve the accuracy of all criminal cases.

As for acting as a deterrent, no sentence really acts as a deterrent. The biggest deterrent is the chance of getting caught. Which again is increased by pushing the envelop on forensics and good detective work. Sentences of all kinds are meant to punish that particular individual in proportion to the crime. If you murder a bunch of people horrifically, you should be executed. Not get free room and board for the rest of your life. That to me is a gross injustice. I'd rather the occasional wrongful conviction then see a dozen mass murders get off lightly. In terms of proportionality of wrongdoing, its better to not let those who actually did commit a crime get away.

Plus, if you actually look at the portion of wrongful convictions, they're still pretty dang low. Within acceptable levels IMO. We can always strive for improvement, but there being a chance of a wrongful conviction is a bad reason for not having the death penalty(or indeed any penalty).

To an extent, you're right. I wholeheartedly agree that the first thing we need to do is dramatically increase the ability for the justice system before really even touching on this subject.

However, I disagree with you on three big points.

First, I'm going to echo what Inquisitor Gideon said. If we're going to have a death penalty, then there has to be an absolutely 0 chance of false conviction. And this applies to far more than just forensics, after all, it is well-documented that people under interrogation, if pushed too hard will eventually confess to crimes they did not commit. And I don't think either of us would argue that the American police system is...lacking these days. I would not feel comfortable until I know that this new justice system is, in effect, flawless. And since that is unrealistic in my eyes, we focus on life without parole.

Second, the issue of appeals and reasonable accommodations regarding those. Let's use your example, which actually isn't that far off from reality. On average, an inmate spends 15 years on death row before execution. If we are going to allow reasonable time for appeals and conditions, we should account for that because we aren't going to just manifest resources and lawyers to take all of these cases on in a timely and effective way.

Finally, and this is going to be the big one, but this still doesn't address my main complaint about the death penalty in that it has no practical function in our society. It still, at its core in my eyes, is about serving revenge with a coat of justice paint. My belief is that we as a society in 2017 should be better than revenge as a motivation for doing something. Yes, it feels good and yes I think there are some criminals who probably deserve it. However, that is not in service to the greater and practical good. If it doesn't reduce crime or recidivism, what purpose does a death penalty have other than revenge?

I feel that if you are willing to take the life of another, for any reason other than defending yourself or someone else, you need to be willing to give up your own. And criminals like him should get a timely death penalty or a life sentence without parole.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Wrongful convictions can be overturned, falsly imprisoned individuals can be freed and approproately compensated.

Disagree. You can overturn a conviction and pay them money, but you could never appropriately compensate someone for being imprisoned for a great length of time.

Wrongly imprisoning someone for decades is, IMO, as bad as wrongfully executing someone. You took something you can never give back. So really, its equivalent on the front of "we did a bad thing we can't take back".

So all that is left is to improve the justice system to make wrongful convictions as rare as possible. The answer isn't to throw your hands in the air and say "screw it, we should just give up".