Jurors Vote for Death in Conn.
 

From the NYT-

Full story here.

Anyone following this case? I have been and it always amazes me the awful things some people will do to others.

How do you feel about the death penalty in this case? Or in general?

Personally I'm not in favor of the death penalty. I think life in prison would be a much worse fate for must people, this case is no different.

Thoughts?

We're all laboring under a death penalty. I'm old testament enough to believe in an eye for an eye. If he could be killed three times...but, no. Time to think about his crimes is more cruel & more fitting.

I favor the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt the person is guilty, as in this case.

This story has been in the news regularly here.

This guy should be executed, soon. It's too bad the only option is a relatively painless lethal injection.

I'm against the death penalty.

I'm generally against all forms of violence, and state-sanctioned violence is no exception.

I don't believe there is such thing as a humane way to take a life or that there is such thing as "lawful murder."

At least the guy won't be hanged, drawn, and quartered in public.

I'm fine with the morality of a death penalty, not so fine with the ability of our justice system to apply it fairly and with 100% guilt accuracy.

I oppose it in general; but this seems to be the exception.

In reading the article that I saw on my yahoo home page it seems the man was asking for the death penalty ... "he had repeatedly tried to kill himself after the crime because he felt guilty and remorseful and feared isolation in prison the rest of his life."

So in this instance where there were children involved my maternal forces kick in and say hang him, do away with him! But in reading that he wants to die because he is fearful of prison I say no death penalty. Let him suffer, let him live out his days having to face every day what he did. Let the men in prison who hate child molesters take care of him.

After reading this article, and clicking on a link for a local news story regarding a child prostitution ring where dozens of children were rescued today. [I don't have enough posts to post the link]Dozens of children rescued in child prostitution sweeps | KING5.com | Seattle Area Local News[/url]

I'm left feeling very angry, and very emotional about how unfair and fucked up this world can be. And I'm wondering how do others process this? Do you turn off the news, stop reading the internet, engross yourself in some make believe? For myself I notice that I involve myself in things that would never allow me to see, bury my head in the sand in a sense. I play games on the computer, or I do some sort of craft that keeps me away from news and events. So, while I probably am not as up to date on current events am I keeping myself sane by avoiding them?

Probably two separate topics there, but that's where it lead me. Pardon my rant.

And what if he's just saying he wants to die because he doesn't? Basing your decision on what the prisoner says he wants just gives him power to manipulate the outcome.

I don't have a problem with executing someone when it's fairly applied. Cases like this one are the perfect justification for the death penalty.

I really don't care what the guy wants. But I'm with BG in that violence is wrong in my book, state sponsored doesn't make it right.

I also agree with Stan in that the system doesn't apply the penalty fairly or equally. Though in this case I'm not sure that's an issue.

Good point, and I would probably not get picked as a juror in a case like this because my emotional connection would shine through. I have a hard time separating and being rational when it comes to something that involves harming children.

I can't help but follow it; I'm in Connecticut and I get the daily newspaper.

This guy is a lifelong fuckup. Nonetheless, I don't believe in the death penalty. I really don't think it serves as a deterrent; I don't believe that people who murder others are thinking about the long-term consequences of their actions.

Additionally, the expense. Even if he wants the death penalty, there will be countless required appeals, and we'll just have to hear about these losers and their unforgivable actions over and over again. The last person to be put to death in Connecticut literally had to beg to be put to death. It is well proven that life in jail costs less than the death penalty.

My rational mind says no, I don't believe in the death penalty and so he should be imprisoned.

But my gut says that he is a broken vessel that needs to be removed from existence. I once heard a Buddist Nun say that in some cases the death penalty effectively stops the man from digging a deeper karmic hole for himself and is therefore desirable.

It's too overwhelming. I am thankful not to be directly involved in the case.

the gentleman in question deserves to be drawn and quartered, in my humble opinion...

I'm not going to waste time retyping this, or even rewording it. Stan seems to have summed up my opinion rather well.

I agree that this monster of a convict needs to die.

There seems to be no question that he did this to that unsuspecting family and there are no loop holes in the case.

Case closed.

Who's next?

I believe that the relatives of the victims should be given the choice of how the perpetrator should die, and they should be given the choice of participating if they wish.

Some have already mentioned the reasons I am against the death penalty: violence against others, especially state-sponsored, is wrong, and that one cannot rely on a conviction as proof of actual guilt--beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps, but should we really be taking the lives of others when they may be innocent?

Kind of like a Saudi America? Maybe there should have some kind of system set up for blood money as well, to really open up the options.

...

In principle I don't have a problem with the death penalty at all, I don't feel its really a deterrent to crime but well for lack of a better way to word it, some people just go to far and have to answer with their own lives. (Lay off I'm tired and that's as good as my explanation is getting right now)

Having said that I don't have a great deal of faith in our justice system and I feel if a persons life is at stake you better be damn well sure you've got the right person and I don't think our system (or any other countries system) has the ability to be that accurate...but I guess with the advancements in forensic science and all that the probability of not killing an innocent person is getting a little better.

I haven't really followed the case so I don't know how I feel about it in this instance.

I love violence.

I also like how the civilized crowd here is trying to shoehorn supposed civilization into an aspect of society that is the absolute worst combination of art and science: justice. The whole system and related professions are about percentages. How many crimes are committed that go completely undetected? Half? How many get let off so light they can moonwalk out of court? Most? How many are wrongfully accused? A small number. How many spend millions of tax dollars on appeals for no reason? Lots. How many spend millions because they were screwed? Few.

It's a tragedy if one innocent man is killed is the logic here, right? How about: it's a tragedy if we bog down our entire justice system so much that fuck-your-couch plea bargains are all that keep it from imploding.

And human life is so goddamn valuable. It's why we box it up for 25 years and tend it like an expensive Chia pet. That's the apex of civilization. We cry our eyes out over the few failures of the system and turn the hammer of justice into a brick of Nickelodeon Floam so the rest of society suffers. Awesome. We should start issuing judges Nerf bats instead of gavels.

I'm okay with the failures of the justice system as far as capital punishment. The level of professionalism of justice workers (cops, lawyers, judges), justice technology (investigation, forensics), and overall the expansion and awareness of civil rights are constantly improving. The percentage of fuck-ups will get smaller. Once the US figures out how to get potheads out of jail and stops beating on black males so hard, we'll be really on our way.

Nobody said it was going to be perfect.

/my third pointless rant on the death penalty

I wouldn't want to be on the short end of the stick when big daddy justice hands down a death sentence and I knew I was innocent, would you? Personally I have no problem with the death penalty but I'm not sure the whole kill 'em and let god sort 'em out approach is necessarily the right approach here. For better or worse human life does carry a lot of value in our society and people aren't going to be happy about giving up theirs so the justice system will function that much better for everyone else.

I do agree though that with technology advancing the way it is the above scenarios will become less and less likely.

Yeah, the justice system has to have a balance between the individual and society. It's easy to get stuck on the individual and forget society.

In cases of absolute and utter certainty (as in literal incontrovertible proof) I have no issues with the death penalty. I do however think we need to stop making a circus of it. We're killing someone because we consider them so abhorrent that we dont believe they should be allowed to continue living even in prison. Don't whitewash it, don't pretend to be humane about it, and don't enjoy it either.

Just take them into a metal box, strap them down, blow the top of their head off with a 12-gauge, and then hose the place down when you're done. It's a hell of a lot cleaner and more humane than spending hours trying to basically give them a fatal heart-attack via lethal injection.

I agree with that P9, it does get very easy to get hung up on individual cases and lose track of the big picture. I feel like if we're going to have a death penalty that in those cases there just needs to be as flawless a system as humanly possibly and I'm not sure the system we have now really meets that requirement, or at least hasn't historically.

I would think it would also make for quicker trials and the sentence being handed down much sooner saving us a lot of time and money in the process.

No, you'd probably get picked. Lawyers like folks that can be easily swayed. The prosecution sure wouldn't want to get rid of you if they're going to be able to show pictures of the victims and the defense would probably hope that they could appeal to your emotions to keep him alive by making him more human.

This is my opinion as well. I just don't see any good reason for it. "Revenge" isn't a good motivator for really anything.

I keep looking at all the problems that have been revealed in the last 10 years and wonder how it's possible to have a flawless system. There are obvious cases where folks were railroaded and, in some cases, put to death. If nothing else, we need a time out.

10 years? Check out how long the average inmate is on death row, man.

Nobody (intelligent) is asking for a flawless system. Just a better percentage.

The problems have been revealed in the last 10 years - how long the inmates have been there is irrelevant. A lot of those guys have gone free - and the state paid each of them millions in compensation.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is holding out for a perfect justice system. But how about this? Capital punishment isn't a requirement; it's an option. There just happens to be enough people in some areas of the world where they think putting someone to death is a legitimate punishment. However, it's not a requirement for a functional justice system.

I think it's a bit odd having this conversation. Nowhere in Canada do we have capital punishment. Many of you are American, where---though not necessarily in your particular state---capital punishment is an option. It's actually out there, and so when you consider these things, you think about whether it's deserving. I think a lot of that has to do with it being an actual option. In some parts, state-sanctioned killing has a long history of being legitimized. The destruction of prisoners is a reality. To Canadians, it's a chapter of our past.

I mean, we don't even have corporal punishment in schools anymore. It's my understanding that in many areas of the States it's still permissible for an adult to inflict pain upon a child as a form of punishment in the public school system.

You will have to forgive me if you will. I cannot condone your acceptance, and even encouragement, of such violence. Call me idealistic. I can take it. I might even agree with you. You could say such things about me with regard to some of my other positions, especially regarding my positions on humanism, liberalism, and social democracy. Just realize that much of what you consider idealistic in your world are actual realities in mine.

In about a month, it will be the 48th anniversary of the last person executed in Canada, right here in the fair city of Toronto.

Thank you, Baraka. Totally got at what I'd been looking for.

It's an option.

at the general level, it's kinda hard to imagine an equitable justice system in a social context that has extreme class stratification the way the united states does (thanks republicans!) and a shabby-to-disgraceful public defender system, despite the good intentions of people who populate it. many of them.

seen in class terms (which is the only way to see the death penalty as a social matter) the "justice" system is just another extension of class warfare.

that on it's own makes it impossible for me to support the death penalty. and this isn't to even start on questions of administration. or utilitarian justifications and whether they're coherent.

that said, there are from time to time situations that make me think "if i thought otherwise about the death penalty, it would make sense here."

but i don't.

Glad you're a man with convictions. Do think the world has bad people in it or does everybody need some type of hug?

Let's call a spade a spade, now.

so you have trouble avoiding cartoons when you play the argument game, plan 9?

how about this....try real hard to write like an adult and maybe i'll play with you.

Holy shit Roachboy. Have you EVER worked in a public defender office, much less sat through multiple court proceedings?

How about you lay down some basis for your bald assertion of "shabby-to-disgraceful" public defender system--Especially in light of how MANY other legal systems don't even guarantee the right to counsel?

Should we tend back towards CONNECTICUT?

actually, kir-stang, i have.
the system is overburdened, underfunded, understaffed and problematic.
there are lots of good people in it, there's no doubt, and it's by eating them alive that the system doesn't simply collapse.

but think about those fine places that are a little death penalty happy like texas and the number of convictions/sentencings that have resulted from incompetent legal representation on the part of public defenders.
which has to result from a collective attitude about public defender functions particular to places like texas.

that attitude of contempt (which is how it looks) makes the death penalty into something that's way too often a special form of punishment visited upon the poor.


for what it's worth--like i said--the folk who put themselves in the line of fire as public defenders as individuals are often good and the folk i've seen and know who have done it are often admirable smart people who do it for political reasons, one of which is opposition to the way in which the legal system reproduces the class system in disproportionately sentencing the poor. like i said, their efforts keep the system from collapsing.


hope that helps clarify.

I wonder if George W. Bush touches on this topic in his new memoir. After all, he had many "decision points" when he was governor of Texas.

i was thinking about reading bush's memoir next time i feel like reading crime fiction and am in a place where i can borrow the book.

Sheriffs, district and states attorneys all run for reelection. They are incented to get an arrest and conviction. They don't always get things right.

Texas makes a good example, from the Justice Project.org:

http://thejusticeproject.org/wp-cont...tion-facts.png

9 people released from death row based on evidence of innocence? What level of error is acceptable when we are talking about the death penalty? To my mind it is none.

I have no problem with this guy and the Chuck Mansons of the world being executed. It seems very clear cut.

I have no faith that we can write a set of laws and procedures that works 100%. Imprisoning all evil folks for life seems better than executing a single innocent person.

While the system is overburdened. I strongly disagree with you on many of these points. I've seen public defenders do damn good work, from ferreting out poor eye witness identifications, to impeaching unreliable witnesses, to arguing in appellate courts, the PD system is far from incompetent, and does a damn good job (contrary to shabby-to-disgraceful).

Furthermore, IIRC, the death penalty takes on average approximately 14 years from arrest to execution, and costs about $2.3 million per execution, versus, approximately (IIRC again) $800,000 for life incarceration. You would think all these procedural protections and resources remove it from the ambit of 'class warfare.'

^^^
Guess what, guys?

What you've just done is no less than what I've taken criticism for.

Jurors in Connecticut should examine their privileges & their attachments to their own lives.

Okay, some of you keep talking about the possibility of killing an innocent incarcerated man/woman. Sure, some prisoners have been released due to DNA evidence. Good for them. Our justice system is improving. In this case I am sure there is a hell of a lot of DNA evidence to prove guilt. Otherwise, they would not have been seeking the death penalty.

that was basically the defense attorney's argument at a press conference yesterday.


there's maybe a premise-level differend here tho.
i basically and fundamentally oppose the death penalty.
that it ends up functioning as an extension of class warfare is just one reason for it.

and this is one area that i am not changing my mind about.
as close as i come to thinking otherwise is what i said when i first posted to the thread.

This guy pretty much admitted guilt. The surviving victim would not sign off on a plea bargain that would have sent him away for life without parole. This trial was strictly about whether or not he would receive the death penalty.

I won't lose any sleep over this guy being put to death. If the death penalty is valid anywhere, it is valid here. My problem is that laws and processes must cover all eventualities. DNA evidence isn't always available or relevant. The track record in Texas demonstrates that the system isn't flawless. Odds are that Texas has already executed an innocent person.

See I don't view the death penalty as revenge, punishment or a deterrent really, I see it more as a simply a penalty for doing something that (in most cases) is utterly unthinkable. Lets face it there are some crimes/people that simply no longer fit within the realm of the punishment/rehabilitation philosophy and neither the prisoner or society will ever benefit from any sort of rehabilitation program. So what do you do with that?

Maybe there isn't a right answer for some crimes be it death penalty or life in prison but if somebody is going to go through the trouble to commit such a heinous act as to warrant the death penalty in the first place then I don't really have much of a problem with that person giving up their right to exist.

Now of course there is never going to be a flawless system, but we should be striving to remove as many imperfections from the process as possible. Its a very lofty penalty to extract from anybody and if we are going to ask for it we need to make sure they system that does it is as accurate as humanly possible. Nobody should ever have to die based on circumstantial evidence and flimsy eye witness testimony.

Count me among those opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Life in prison is a far worse punishment, it saves us money, and it avoids us having to worry about ever putting the wrong man to death. I honestly don't see much of a downside.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” - Gandalf

...

So you're not o.k. with killing an innocent person, but you don't see much of a downside in doing something far worse?
There's always going to be some doubt in any conviction. We can either decide that at some point, the risk of punishing someone innocent is acceptable, or we can eliminate all punishments that aren't o.k. to mete out to innocent people. In the latter case, it seems odd to me to draw that line between death and life imprisonment.

Whoa, you equate life imprisonment (without parole i'm assuming) as far worse than a death sentence? What's the underlying principle? I'm curious.

inBOIL, the whole point with life imprisonment and innocent people is that it's not worse precisely because they can be released if we discover they are innocent.

Guilty person: Options are death or life in prison. Life in prison is the worse option precisely because they will actually spend the rest of their life in prison.

Innocent person: Options are death or a period of time in prison until the point where their innocence is discovered. I think it's pretty obvious which punishment is easier to recover from.

If someone's innocence is never discovered, we must assume the judgement was correct. We just shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume we will never be proven wrong in the future.

---------- Post added at 11:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------

KirStang: He was responding to my post in which I agreed with others in this thread who have expressed the view that life in prison is worse than the death sentence. Unless you believe in an afterlife - and I don't - I really can't see how life in prison can't be seen as worse than death.

Gnarly.

Smeth, am I correct in assuming that your primary reason for opposing the death penalty is that it prevents innocent people from being killed? If so, and given your belief that life imprisonment is worse and the fact that wrongful convictions aren't just limited to capital cases, are you also against life imprisonment? What about long prison sentences where there's a good chance that the prisoner will die before being released?

If we choose to have a criminal justice system, we have to accept that despite our best efforts, innocent people will be convicted and that some of them will never be exonerated. It seems arbitrary to me to say that risking a wrongful execution is unacceptable, but that risking a fully-served life term is o.k.

See this is where I get hung up on the whole death penalty vs life imprisonment discussion, it seems the enlightened, modern opinion is that the death penalty is a a violent, cruel, outdated and inhumane sentence and there is a push to abolish it, I can understand that. Yet I would think and it sounds as though others might agree that between the two life imprisonment is probably the worse punishment. A lifetime (a 20 something could spend the next 50+ years in this state) of being locked up in a small, confined space, never prospering, never changing, never really growing or living...couldn't that also be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

If that's the case and considering that the person is never going to be paroled wouldn't it be more humane to simply end his life? Now of course if the ultimate goal here is punishment for a horrible deed, then life in prison seems to be the best option, but if the person is beyond any sort of rehabilitation then whats the point?

Anyway, just thought I'd toss that out there for a little discussion.

EDIT: Didn't see your post there inBOIL, I guess we kind of asked the same question.

The death penalty artificially ends someone's life. It's that simple. No matter how long the sentence, when you let someone live out their natural life there is an opportunity to set that person free if their innocence is discovered. If you kill them, that's impossible and there is no going back. It's that simple. I honestly don't know how it's difficult to understand the difference between the permanence of death and the impermanence of any other punishment we mete out in our justice system.

InBOIL, I'm pretty sure I argued this the last time this dead horse zombified itself. I'm hoping the abortion crossthread pops up here at some point.

Call me a romantic, but I can think of quite a few things that are worse than death. Being stuck in a box for two decades is definitely one of them.

If justice is simply about punishment ("prison") over rehabilitation ("corrections") (the mood of the current pendulum swing), why lock anybody up for the rest of their life? Why not just do 10 years? 10 years is a really long time to be in a cell, right? What's the difference between 10 years and 15? 20? 30?

The value of human life is being able to live. Depriving me of liberty by sticking me in a box is worse than ending my life. Dead men have no complaints.

It's fun to pick out who'd rather suffer in a cage for a couple dozen years instead of embrace the peace of oblivion.

I'm not quite sure that 30+ years into a life sentence, pushing 65 and having spent the pretty much half my life behind bars that I would find a whole lot of comfort in maybe, just maybe having my sentence overturned and being let free. My life at that point would pretty much be ruined beyond any kind of meaningful repair, and god only knows what kind of mental problems I'd walk away with that I'd be forced to deal with the rest of my life, why bother?

Unless I had any kind of hope of my sentence being overturned relatively quickly (with a few years maybe) I'd probably rather just face the death penalty and call it a day.

Wes: Listen to the people who have had such experiences. Everyone I've ever heard of is happy to have their life back. It doesn't undo what was done to them, but at least they are free again. There is no being set free from death.

Depends on your philosophy, bro. Rumor has it death is pretty freeing. In some cases, I would see death as freedom itself.

Live free or die and all that. I think it takes some balls to accept death as a more noble path than lifelong incarceration.

Would that be pride?

No quetion about that. My thoughts on the death penalty are definitely influenced by the fact I don't think there's anything whatsoever after death. If I thought otherwise, I might have different opinions.

Do I look religious? I don't think there is life after death, either. I don't believe in god or other ancient magical outer space superheroes.

I just know that a life in, say, a solitary confinement cell probably isn't worth living and that it would better to be stinking up a pine box.

I value my life and that doesn't mean living just for the sake of being alive. I think a lot of people are simply afraid to die. They'd rather suffer.

...

Innocent or guilty, I think putting a man in a cell for 30 years and letting him out is worse than just putting him to death.

I think our current practice is just as cruel and unusual. And, gosh, how we like to masturbate over how civilized we are.

To me it comes down to the old If I was on life support...

I mean I'm sure these folks are happy to be out of what is probably hell on Earth and if I made it that far I would be too but my god, the quality of life in between would be virtually non existent and lets not forget that the odds of being found innocent after a conviction probably isn't very high. Sitting in a cell with nothing but the rest of my life to think about how I have no life is much worse to me then maybe being set free somewhere down the line.

Once out of prison, a couple of decades to kick around with my best years left behind in a prison cell, I don't know it sounds pretty bleak to me.

EDIT: Which kind of brings me back to my original question posted above. Why is life in prison seen as the modern, humane way to deal with criminals? It still seems rather cruel and unusual to me.

In cases where there is absolute proof that the murderer is guilty, as in this case, the murderer should be executed. Appeals should be accelerated or limited. The murderer gave up any rights he had when he took away the rights of his victims.

The only way a life sentence would be remotely acceptable would be to be put in a cell 24 hours a day, naked, lights always on, no TV or other entertainment, just a steel cot, a toilet and a sink/shower. Or let the guy out in the general prison population with no protection and let the other prisoners know what he did. Se how long he lasts.

Acceptable to what or whom?

Probably Dogzilla, since he posted it.

Me for one. If the killer is undeniably guilty, why does he have a right to anything beyond the absolute minimum required for survival? Life in prison with TV or other outlets, while not perfect, is not that drastic a punishment for killing someone.

He has the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

he killed a woman and two kids, let him fry

This is basically solitary confinement, which is accepted as reasonable treatment of prisoners by US courts, and seems to satisfy the constitutional requirement to not be cruel and unusual punishment.

Why should the killer have any sort of diversion at all? Let him meditate on the seriousness of his crime for the rest of his life.

It shouldn't satisfy it. It's cruel and unusual punishment. However, there is evidence of unconstitutional practices going on elsewhere as well.

Isolated in the nude and without day/night light cycles? Adequate meditation cannot easily be accomplished when one is disconnected from an outside reality and while under the effects of psychological torture.

I have a new thought, at least to me, and I haven't heard it discussed elsewhere.

I propose no death penalty; however, if a person with a life sentence requests it, they can be euthanized.

Thoughts?

Since I support euthanasia - provided the person passes psychological evaluations - I see no problem with that.

I think murders lose their right to have an opinion on such matters.

Wouldn't euthanization (is that a word?) and serving out a death penalty be the same thing? The only real difference is we'd be allowing the person to choose which fate they want but its still a state sponsored death carried out in the name of the people. It doesn't really eliminate the death penalty it only keeps the state from forcing it on people.

The only way to REALLY remove the state/people from the equation would be to allow the prisoner access to cyanide pills or something and let them take care of it themselves...but that would open up the doors to a whole new set of problems I'd imagine.

Yea, giving a convicted killer a lethal substance... how could that go wrong?

I dunno Tully seems pretty fool proof to me!

I was just throwing out ideas on how to remove the death penalty while giving convicts the option to die...I can't imagine anything would work though. It seems to me that you either have to have a death penalty or abolish it all together, there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room.

unconstitutional, defenitely. unethical, maybe not. this guy isn't being sent to time out so he can think about what he did, he is paying the price for his crime with a punishment that isn't exactly a secret.

i think "psychological torture" is a bit extreme to describe his situation. to me psychological torture would be putting up a tv behind plexiglass with a reenactment of his crime over and over again with the survivors of the family each recording "i hate you" and having it played on repeat for the rest of his sentence.

The Canadian Press: US rejects call in UN human rights body to abolish death penalty

It's interesting though. America remains one of the few nations in the developed world who still has the death penalty (Japan is another). There are others who don't use it in regular practice but reserve it for war crimes.

well i'm kind of glad that Tim McVeigh is dead. anyone else?

What I don't understand is that if intentionally taking someone's life is such an abhorrent crime why is intentionally taking someone's life a suitable punishment? Do they rape rapists or kidnap the children of kidnappers?

Social isolation, forced nudity, 24-hour lighting is psychological torture in that these things can have serious long-term psychological consequences—this is a degrading and dehumanizing treatment that I would call cruel and unusual punishment. No individual or state has the right to inflict these things on a human being any more than they have the right to waterboard them or inflict unrelenting physical pain or agony.

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

I'm indifferent.

People in close custody have nothing but time to think of new ways to "play" with the people around them. Giving a convict a lethal substance and telling him/her "go ahead and use it on yourself" would likely not go well. Before you knew it you'd have three guards on the other side of the prison dropping dead and your inmate would be nice and healthy, probably laughing his/her ass off.

I say lock them up and consider them "legally deceased." No contact with anyone, no mail... nada. After a few years of good time they could earn the privilege of having reading materials other then religious books.

i'm not saying that the punishment of each crime should mirror that crime, but with increasing severity, more time is taken from the criminal's life. i like the idea that if someone serving a long amount of time wishes to die before their sentence is up, then they should have the right to make that request for any sentences lasting longer than 10 years.

imagine how the survivors feel, they would probably want all the horrible things imaginable done to this criminal. naked with lights on 24/7 may cause psychological damage, i agree, but thats kind of the point of punishment: to make people suffer for what they did. cruel and unusual? how many people living in Antarctica live colder than most naked folk with sunlight on for 24 hours a day for 6 months at a time. how many of them are seriously psychologically damaged?

Oh Snap. It's my Graham v. Florida (or was it Florida v. Graham) legal brief all over again. Other countries don't have death penalty for juveniles, only Somalia still does. etc. etc.

Is this cruel and unusual punishment, etc. etc.

I'd really like to see papers discussing solitary confinement and it's mental effects on prisoners.

:Shrug: As far as I'm concerned, the state goal of incapacitation as justification for life without parole is good enough for me.