The cost of getting someone executed far outpaces the cost of life in prison due to the lengthy and expensive appeals process. And because of the finality of the deed, that lengthy and expensive appeals process is a necessity. If you're going to put someone to death, you damn well better make sure you're right about their guilt. As such, it can neither be an effective deterrent (by the time it happens, it's so far removed from the crime), it does nothing to ease the pain of the vicitims' families (study after study has shown this), it's not a cost effective solution (see above), and even with the most stringent appeals process carries the risk of killing an innocent person.

It is the law as it stands, and I have not seen anything that suggest to me that Tookie Williams deserves exemption from that law, so I'm not surprised or upset about Arnold's decission not to grant clemency. But the death penalty needs to go.

Either that or it needs to be....executed, for lack of a better term....before 26 years passes.

I have never really bought into the biblical argument against the death penalty regarding "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" stuff. Principles of forgiveness certainly need to be applied, and contextually it is speaking on a personal level rather than a governmental level. I could present some out of context argument from scripture like "The wages of sin is death", but I certainly don't think thievery is worthy of the death penalty.

I suppose what makes me saddest about the death penalty is not the execution of someone like a Tookie Williams, but the fact that the family must wait 26 years for the sentence to finalized. What a horrid thing to have to endure. Life without parole would certainly bring it to (and good lord I hate this term) closure much, much faster. While certainly possible to move on with life, whenever the appeals are heard and the story hits the news again it's right back in the face of the families of the victims. It is almost more punishing to them than the perpetrator.

Anything that speeds it up or makes it cheaper makes it more inaccurate. 26 years is too long? What's not? 20 years? 16? 10? Even shortened to that length, it will cost millions of dollars up front and continue to be a non-deterent.

What I think is a disservice to the victims' families is convincing them of the myth that the execution will make them feel better. Because it simply doesn't. That, combined with exactly what scaeagles says (regarding being made to re-visit the ugliness over and over due to the necessity of appeals), and I find little to no justification for the death penalty.

I think it is wrong to say that the death penalty "simply doesn't" make anybody feel better. It most certainly does make some people feel better.

When I was a young boy (I can't remember what summer it was) Wesley Allen Dodd kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and mutilated three younger boys before stringing them up in a local nature preserve. He was captured attempting to abduct a fourth boy. There was now doubt of his guilt (he had documentation in his home) and he was sentenced to death.

He did not appeal his sentence and actually sued to prevent others from appealing for him. This resulted in a relatively quick execution (something like 4 or 5 years from sentencing).

I didn't know any of the boys myself, or their families, but I did know many people who knew one of the boys. There is no denying that when Dodd was executed it made them feel better. They were pleased that his punishment for removing that boy from this life was to be removed himself. They were pleased that there was now zero chance that Dodd would ever be able to do to another person what he had done to those three boys.

I personally don't feel that way about it, but there is no denying that a lot of people do.



[As a gruesome aside. Washington State has two forms of execution (or it did back then): hanging or lethal injection, and the prisoner was allowed to choose which form would be used. Another prisoner on death row selected hanging (as did Dodd) and then intentionally gained a massive amount of weight, only to sue that hanging would be inhumane since his weight would likely cause decapitation. The statute did not allow prison officials to switch him to lethal injection over his objection and the debate over this (not his guilt) successfully delayed his execution for a long time. I don't know how it all resolved.]

For some reason, Washington state seems to be a magnet for serial killers. I remember the Dodd case very well, Alex. I've also had two people I know murdered by serial killers- one was my best friend in jr. high, and the other was my sis-in-law'a sister, by Robert Yates. They found her body buried in his flower bed. I don't see the death penalty as anything other than a method for permanent removal of someone who has so broken the social contract that they are no longer trusted to live in society, any society. The latest and saddest case ocurred less than 30 miles from here, near Couer D'Alene, Idaho. Shasta Groening and her brother Dylan were abducted by a very sick man who had a long rap sheet. He murdered their family, took them up in the woods, and then murdered Dylan, who was only ten. He did so in front of the sister, who is nine. He did a lot of other really horrific things that I won't print; suffice it to say that the death penalty is too good for him.

I am still conflicted on the death penalty, but my personal experiences coupled with the knowledge that such animals as the ones listed above even exist tends to color my perspective. It's not about revenge, it's about making sure they can never, ever do this again. Ever.

Life in prison without the possibility of parole is a good enough Ever for me. Talk about the dealth penalty being too good for them ... well, that's why I think life in prison is so perfect.


And yes, Wendy, that's what the 120 years-to-life sentence handed down to Young and Taylor was ... a guarantee that no parole could ever be issued. Because they got six sentences (two for each victim) ... if they were to be paroled on one, they would then begin serving the next sentence. In essence, it's a life sentence with no parole possible.

Short of severing each of their spinal cords, I find life in prison to be the best justice possible for these scum; far better than the easy escape of death.


And I happen to think that our lifeless Moon would make a far better prison planet than Mars ... and could be set up as such far sooner.

Fair enough. My statement was a general one based on repeated research that the majority of victims' families have said that they did not feel the closure they expected (and were often lead to expect by prosecuters) after the execution. That case is clearly a rare exception.

It does bring up a slightly murkier area for me. Stripped of the cost of uncertainty (both monetary and moral costs), in a case where the evidence is clear and the defendant admits to everything, would I support the deat penalty? Though I honestly haven't satisfied myself with an answer to that question, I feel I still lean against it. I am not comfortable with empowering the state to take a life in that manner. No matter how heinous the crime and how certain the conviction, human life is not in the purview of government.

"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 judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

How come the state can decide to put criminals to death instead of letting them suffer in jail but the person in constant aganozing pain from terminal cancer cannot legally make the choice for themselves and must suffer?

Damn you, GC!;)

This is where I am conflicted- there have simply been too many cases of innocent people wrongfully convicted. I really am on the fence about this, and it's not a comfortable place for me. I can usually weigh the pros and cons and determine my stand on an issue- this one is simply too complicated.

Great quote, oh Crickety one. :snap: