While on the face of it permanent solitary confinement might sound like a solution, I'm not so sure just how practical it would be. There are any number of instances I can think of where it would be necessary to either enter the prisoner's cell, or move them out of the cell. For example what should be done in the event the prisoner gets sick? (dart 'em Danno ). In order to provide medical attention, somebody will need to enter his or her cell, if nothing else to restrain the prisoner in order to protect the medical personnel. And, as I have said before, I’m not so sure permanent solitary confinement wouldn’t be worse than death.



The sort of individual I think should continue to be subjected to the death penalty are the J.W. Gacey types. People who are, with out any doubt, murderous, homicidal sociopaths. They will kill again, and I would not want to offer myself up to martyrdom in the name of being humane to one of these animals.


Nope, it assures absolutely that a known and proven homicidal maniac will not ever get the opportunity to kill another human being again. You can not give me that same absolute assurance so long as this type of homo sapien is allowed to continue sharing our air.

Is there any job we can give killers and violent offenders that can be useful to society? Something that we can trust them with? no sharp objects, something that gives them some satisfaction - although this can be achieved by encouragement, gold stars...

I think drug offenders should do community service and pay a fine. Stop filling up our prisons.

What about "accidental" deaths? You are driving, you fall asleep at the wheel and you hit someone, they die, you go to jail. Can't we do something about this situation that's more positive? Instead of ruining someone's life for a mistake? I think community service to promote awareness of the crime to others or somehow fix the wrong.

Guards know the risk when they take the job. Its what they are paid and trained for. They are also given weapons to aid them against such a thing happening.


Its not war. I've grown up with cops, I've worked with cops, my family is cops, and they don't consider themselves soldiers. There are no armies, there is no organization. They arrest shoplifters, they arrest murderers, they arrest gangbangers and prostitutes. It is not war, it is a job in which they took. It is a choice they made, and unlike a soldier in a war, they can leave any time they want. As for the little boy, you're singing the same song to me that I was singing to you about innocent death row inmates. What is the difference?

So you're saying that being a soldier in a war is the same as being a cop??
Hell, they were hired for the job after all...
The only difference being that they signed a contract for a job.. And it's the only contract our government will attack with venim over trying to break.. Unlike the contract with your cell phone company..

OH, and the soldier DID make a choice to sign up...

*shrugs*

So knowing the risk negates responsibility?? Strange. Usually people take Correctional jobs because there is not much else in the way of good jobs that they are qualified for in thier area. They may know the risk but are you willing to field the responsibility when they get killed because you feel we should detain barbaric murderers forever??



No armies?? So when riot cops are called out in force because of a huge public display they are not an army?? I got stuck in a riot in downtown San Jose Ca. due to the stupidity of a huge group of skinheads back in 1987 and it seemed like I was in a war zone. In interviews the officers said it felt like a war against thier own citizens.
Gang warfare is a known problem in areas like LA and New York and the police fight them in order to stem them. That is war. Fighting criminal behaviour is a war. Perhaps not a traditional war but a war none the less. Those in jail are the ones captured and detained.
So the little boy and an innocent man on death row are the same?? I would think the barbaric murder of a little boy would far outwiegh a mistake on a police departments part. Plus you are the one advocating the life of a man capable of murdering children. Could you live with yourself were that man to escape((not unheard of)) and kill again--- or kill in jail??
I would not have to because I advocate taking that man out and having him shot like the rabid dog that he is. Perhaps if it was your child that was murdered you would sing a different tune.

You're just spinning the same shit over and over again. Yes, I would advocate that the killer be left in jail. I'm not personally responsible for the lives of corrections officers. In case you were unaware, its not a minimum wage job. You don't have highschool kids going into the state pen after work to get some extra money. Its a job with extensive training and extensive procedures to protect the guards, that and if the guard doesnt like the job he's free to leave any time he wants. I don't take responsibility for someone who voluntarily puts himself in a dangerous situation, he could flip burgers if he doesnt like it.

By the way, comparing a riot with a bunch of angry skinheads to a war zone, around which any corner there could be a crazed arab with a bomb strapped to his chest might be a little insulting to the soldiers who actually served in real war. I don't have the figures, but I'm willing to bet the guys in Baghdad take a few more casualties than the guys in San Jose. Perhaps you should save your comparisons until you've actually seen a real war.

Funny you should mention "accidental" death by motor vehicle. That brings up an example of the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to punishment for homicide. On August 16, 2003 the former Governor and then Representative to Congress from the State of South Dakota, Bill Janklow, “accidentally” ran a stop sign going 71 in a 55 in front of Randy Scott. Scott was unable to avoid slamming his motorcycle into the side of Janklow's caddy, and died in the resulting collision. Janklow got 100 days and three years probation for 2nd degree manslaughter.

Janklow had a reputation for ignoring traffic laws and had racked up a dozen speeding tickets between 1990 and 1994. In fact he had openly admitted speeding on a regular basis, saying he continued to speed because the cost of violating the law was so low. "But if someone told me I was going to jail for two days for speeding, my driving habits would change," then-Gov. Janklow said in a State of the State speech in 1999. "I can pay the ticket, but I don't want to go to jail."

This obviously arrogant scofflaw essentially got off with a slap on the wrist for a crime that by law could have gotten him 10 years in prison and a $10K fine. This is where the application of the law is fowled up, and in part, why applying the death penalty is so complicated. If you have money, influence, or connections you can weasel your way out of most anything. I seriously doubt Janklow is reformed as a result of his punishment. He certainly doesn’t seem to be remorseful, since he continues to fight the conviction in court, trying as hard as he can to get the conviction reversed. In my mind the question isn’t if the death penalty is applicable in some specific instances, but more to the point, how do you apply the law in a consistently fair and equitable fashion.

Yet advocates such as yourself who promote life sentencing over death penalty would be putting these Guards in direct danger and also be responsible being as YOU are the ones who wish it to be so. If you want them to be held for life you must also take responsibility for any actions they take and for those lives lost. It is simple logic. No I am not spinning the same "shit" over and over. I am making comparisons which are completely valid.

Angry skinheads. haha... I said they started it I never said they remained invilved once the Riot police showed up--- all 150 of them What began as a disturbance because of several skinheads flinging steel folding chairs into an audience became a full scale riot out on the streets. Nowhere as severe I grant you as what our soldiers see in Iraq but I was not making that comparison. Wars do not need casualties to exist and be validated fr0g. Though if that is what you want we can start listing police casualties in the line of duty and I can sit here and listen to you repudiate the validity of thier loss in the face of the war on crime. It is your choice if you wish to denounce the facts which surround us every day. Crime exists... read your local paper... and those who fight it every day put themselves at risk. It is a war. Regardless of its volume of loss or whatever other strange twists you wish to put over it to denounce it as such.

The truth is.... the Death Penalty exists in the United States.... and will continue to exist until a better solution is offered to keep cold blooded killers from killing again... whether it be an innocent man/woman they kill or an innocent prison guard just trying to feed his family.

Pontius Pilot washing his hands?

Okay, it is obvious you are not going to waver in your opposition to the death penalty, a commendable moral position to hold. However, don’t you think it irresponsible to stand on your principles without being able to at least offer suggestions as to how the people who must come in contact with the worst kind of criminal are to be protected from harm?

My problem, if you will, is I tend to be a pragmatist when it comes to things like this. Which is why I believe execution of known and convicted sociopathic murderers is currently the only realistic approach to providing a 100% guarantee that no other human will have to risk injury or death in order for this person to remain alive.

I agree that from a purely idealistic moral standpoint, capital punishment is wrong. If for no other reason, it sends a message that says under some circumstances homicide is justifiable. Thou shall not kill and all that. However, from a purely practical standpoint it is the responsibility of the society to protect itself from something that has a very high probability of causing future fatalities. Currently, the most practical way for a society to protect itself from something this dangerous is to eliminate the menace completely.

You, along with a rather significant segment of our society have stated unequivocally that no human being should ever be executed. Those of us who think otherwise are only asking that a practical methodology be offered by those on your side of the debate that will protect the rest of us from any harm, in particular those in the prison system who would come in contact with these people. Saying that corrections officers and their families should accept the officer getting killed by a known and convicted sociopathic murderer as part of their job isn’t doing anything to sway those of us on the opposite side of this issue. All we are asking is to be offered practical solutions that will always protect all of society from this threat to our health and well-being.

Short of complete lobotomy there really is no other alternative. Executing them assures us that they will no longer be a detriment to society. Noone should ever accept having thier family or friends killed in cold blood especially by someone who has done it before and has been released due to a liberal stance on the subject. It is absurd to expect that someone who kills without remorse will not duplicate thier crime.

So... what if the state does it? Its ok then?

Ok, brass tacks: Truly sociopathic homicidal murderers, the Jeffery Dahmers, John Wayne Gayceys, Hannibal Lecters, etc are rare. We are not currently facing an overcrowding problem because of too many serial killers. The point was made earlier, and I fully agree, that minor crimes often carry far too harsh of penalties. Marijuana offenses was one example and I agree that we could lighten the load on our penal system of we were to lessen the prison stays of these crimes. This means less time and man power required to guard the low risk inmates, and more that could be used for high risk inmates. I've already stated that I think the system should be more devoted to rehabilitation and reeducation rather than punishment. Yes, this would cost more to the taxpayers, but I think its money well spent. As for the insane killers, lock them away and study them (as was also already stated). Someone said that there is nothing to be learned from a homicidal maniac, but, I'm sorry, I'm not inclined to believe the words of some darkforum dink. Find me a psychologist or two that agrees with you and you might have a case. I think there is a lot to be learned from these people, what chemical imbalances cause the behaviour, how upbringing relates, etc. Serial killers come from all walks of life, but most of them fit a standard M.O., find out how to prevent future crimes.

As far as gauranteeing the safety of the prison guards, I'm sorry... thats not what I'm here to do. They choose to work there, they take the risks. Personally, I have a food allergy to nuts... You will not find me ever taking a job harvesting Almonds. I have the choice to not put myself at risk, and I choose not to. A prison guard killed by a high risk solitary confined inmate (something that is highly unlikely and rare in the first place) is a tragedy. But the guard knew the risks when he went to work that day. The innocent person executed for a crime he didn't commit never took a risk, never had a choice, and never had a chance.

Charles Manson has been in jail how many years now? Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't heard any news reports of him slaying guards in droves. The phantom risk that your argument relies on is so small its almost negligable, and its the ONLY portion of the argument as a whole that carries any weight at all.

With today's knowledge and technology, I couldn't agree with you more. But let's say for the sake of discussion that studying someone like Bundy would produce useful information that makes it possible to prevent this type of individual from carrying out their crimes. Would you then continue to advocate capital punishment?

Really? that's not what my crystal ball told me.

We can agree to disagree on your position that the safety of the guards is secondary to life at any cost. Until someone can offer up a clear cut methodology that will keep all of society safe from the Gaceys of the world, I'd rather sacrifice the criminals life in the name of safety, than protect the life of this type of criminal when even the slightest risk they could kill again exists.

If I recall correctly Charlie Manson didn't actually kill anyone himself. He persuaded others to do it for him. That being said, how does anyone know that Manson hasn't had someone else killed since he was imprisoned?

First paragraph-- correct!!

Good old Charlie never touched a hair on anyones head. He conspired to commit murder and persuaded others to do it for him. Bad form using him as an example.