[Vision2020] The death penalty....a deterent?????

[Joe Campbell]

Again, I share your revulsion. I agree that we are dealing with something different in these cases. But ... we can talk more about it when you return!

I hope you have a nice trip, Kai!

Best, Joe

---- "Kai Eiselein wrote: 

=============
When i think of heinous crimes, I think of the Jeffrey dahmers, John Wayne Gasey's (sp) and the Duncans of the world. Predators, all, killing only to satisfy their own twisted cravings.
That is a huge difference from a man or woman that kills a spouse/lover/rival in a jealous rage. 
I don't have time to go deeper, I'm on an early deadline and leaving for a tropical isle for some r&r in the morning.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Campbell [mailto:joekc at adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Kai Eiselein, editor
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The death penalty....a deterent?????


Dear Kai,

I should point out that I don't have a clear opinion on this issue. I'm of two minds.

I certainly do not care much whether Duncan lives or dies, and I agree with you that there are benefits to be gained from his death. When I read back these words, though, my blood run cold.

You write: "our society has decided that some people have committed crimes so heinous that death is the penalty for committing them." What is the act that is so "heinous"? Isn't it the killing of another person? How can putting criminal persons to death convince others that it is wrong to kill another person? Wouldn't it more easily convince them that sometimes it is OK to kill another person?

No disrespect to your views -- in fact, I understand exactly where you are coming from -- but these are the kinds of questions that come to mind when I think of your quote.

Best, Joe

---- "Kai Eiselein wrote: 

=============
The death penalty was never meant to be a deterent. It is a punishment.
Our society, and every other, has the obligation to decide what to do with
those that cannot or will not live without harming others. To that end, our
society has decided that some people have committed crimes so heinous that
death is the penalty for committing them.
Here are some irrefutable facts:
1: As long as a dangerous offender is alive, he or she has the potential to
injure or kill others.
2: As long as a dangerous offender is alive he or she has a chance of
getting out of prison, either by escape, mistake or intention.
3: A dangerous offender who has been put to death has a zero percent chance
of recidivism.
So you think putting a dangerous offender in prison wth three hots and cot,
medical and dental care, access to a law libray so he or she can file appeal
after appeal is worse than death? Then think about this.
What about the victim and or the victim's family who have to relive the
crime every time that offender is in the news with a new appeal or is filing
a lawsuit because conditions aren't "humane". He or she wasn't too worried
about humane treatment of the victim. Opening old wounds of those hurt by
the offender's actions time and time again isn't humane, in my opinion.
Cost: I would suspect much of the cost for execuyting a convict comes from
the myriad appeals that go on for decades, not from the actual
holding/executing of the convict.
Is the monetary cost any more relevant than the emotional cost to the victim
and/or family? I think it is less so.


=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================


__________ NOD32 1.1827 (20061023) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com