Jury recommends death sentence for Cleveland Serial Killer

A stated in my pervious post, there are no innocent people on death row. An innocent person, having gone to trail and being found so, goes home. Only those found guilty go to prison. These are the facts. That is not to say in the future the system with its check-and-balance will not find new evidence or testified statements that would change the equation. Nevertheless, those citizens did their best with what was presented to them and made their decision likewise. The future is always uncertain and these citizens have no control over it.
Last I saw, the building where we have trails has the name "JUSTICE" on it. So to make the death penalty or any other punishment handed down anything but justice for the victim is totally ridiculous and a disservice to society. Punishment is meant to be punishment and it is carried out to give justice to the victim for whom we are protecting. Don't get it backwards! Criminals don't need protection from us, society needs protection from the criminals.
 
Beowulf said:
Being wishy-washy, eh? Either you are FOR the death penalty or you are AGAINST it. As far as I am concerned, there is no middle ground.
Some posters in here complain about the cost, yet they keep forgetting that is is FAR CHEAPER to imprison a person for life than to give the death penalty.

And by the way, I also had people close to me murdered.
Click to expand...

Wishy washy because I said I can't support the DP wholeheartedly?

No.

And, what's with the snide remark? Kristina said nearly the exact same thing I did, but, you're not jumping on her about it. :hmm:
 
jillio said:
Exactly. There is no middle ground here. Any time you add "except in cases of" you are stating that you are, in effect, for the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I never suggested there was a middle ground. I'm for overhauling our justice system; including our death penalty system. I've always said that. Nothing's changed in my position on it.
 
Grummer said:
im gonna get the book, even we dont have death penalty in NZ.as a small country, with 4 and half million ppl here, with rising crime rates there have been abit of calling for the need of capital punishment to be introduced here. So I'd want to read this book to get educated about this related issue. heck im doing death and dying right now, while its not 'covered' in the study guide - Id still come away learned more, and impress my lecturer - actually she's my mate i helped to train one of her dog...now she regrets it because her dog wants to shake hands all the time:giggle:
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you are interested in reading the book, Grum. I think you will get a lot out of it. Especially societal attitudes and practices that actually serve to stratify and judge the value of another human life. It was recommended to me by a sociology professor that was intrumental in my return to school to get my doctorate.
 
rolling7 said:
A stated in my pervious post, there are no innocent people on death row. An innocent person, having gone to trail and being found so, goes home. Only those found guilty go to prison. These are the facts. That is not to say in the future the system with its check-and-balance will not find new evidence or testified statements that would change the equation. Nevertheless, those citizens did their best with what was presented to them and made their decision likewise. The future is always uncertain and these citizens have no control over it.
Last I saw, the building where we have trails has the name "JUSTICE" on it. So to make the death penalty or any other punishment handed down anything but justice for the victim is totally ridiculous and a disservice to society. Punishment is meant to be punishment and it is carried out to give justice to the victim for whom we are protecting. Don't get it backwards! Criminals don't need protection from us, society needs protection from the criminals.
Click to expand...

The first sentence of this post is an unequivocally false statement.

Being found guilty does not mean that one is actually guilty of the crime for which one has been tried. Being found not guilty does not make one innocent of the crime for which one has been tried.

You have a very distorted and dichotomous belief of what justice is and what punishment is.

If the vast majority of criminals were protected from the wider society there is a better than average chance that they would not have committed criminal acts. It is attitudes such as yours that make criminal behavior an option.
 
Last edited:
rolling7 said:
A stated in my pervious post, there are no innocent people on death row. An innocent person, having gone to trail and being found so, goes home. Only those found guilty go to prison. These are the facts. That is not to say in the future the system with its check-and-balance will not find new evidence or testified statements that would change the equation. Nevertheless, those citizens did their best with what was presented to them and made their decision likewise. The future is always uncertain and these citizens have no control over it.
Last I saw, the building where we have trails has the name "JUSTICE" on it. So to make the death penalty or any other punishment handed down anything but justice for the victim is totally ridiculous and a disservice to society. Punishment is meant to be punishment and it is carried out to give justice to the victim for whom we are protecting. Don't get it backwards! Criminals don't need protection from us, society needs protection from the criminals.
Click to expand...

There are innocent people sitting on death row. That's why there are groups out there who go through all these case records and and re-investigate them and get some people off. There have also been cases where a "guilty" party was coerced into giving a confession. That's usually what happens when the "guilty" party has a mental illness that is not diagnosed or has been diagnosed, but not mentioned.

I am also reminded of a quote "Judge not, lest you be judged." Or how about, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone"
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Wishy washy because I said I can't support the DP wholeheartedly?

No.

And, what's with the snide remark? Kristina said nearly the exact same thing I did, but, you're not jumping on her about it. :hmm:
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be snide, Oceanbreeze. I just reread your post and I misunderstood. I thought you were sort of being on the fence, and I assure you I was just kidding you, calling you wishy-washy. I certainly do not mean to hurt your feelings, and if I did, forgive me.
 
Beowulf said:
I wasn't trying to be snide, Oceanbreeze. I just reread your post and I misunderstood. I thought you were sort of being on the fence, and I assure you I was just kidding you, calling you wishy-washy. I certainly do not mean to hurt your feelings, and if I did, forgive me.
Click to expand...

My position on the Death penalty has NEVER wavered. I don't support it as IS. I have always said that, and I said it in the few posts above. As long as we've had these debates, I've always said that I believe our justice system needs to be overhauled. This INCLUDES the Death Penalty. If the DP were to be abolished some day, I wouldn't be sad about it. I take no delight when someone is executed.

As for your remark, you're forgiven.
 
The real problem here is the fact some wish to bring additional parties to the criminal charges. There are, and can only be, two parties involved. I'll admit that at times one or more party can have more that one individual represented. Normally speaking, there is the victim and the accused of the crime. The whole purpose of our justice system is to have a trail to find facts and evidence of a possible violation of law. Much depends on circumstances, however the rights of the accused as well as the victim must be protected. To allow the trail to become a case of deferment, vindication, to have the aim to rehabilitate, revenge, etc. is not justice.
Should the total facts show guilt, only the victim can be taking into consideration for justification. The jury will determine the sentence of punishment, although I'll agree that in some cases the judge does so. I, myself do not judge, I leave that up to the system. I have in the past (i.e. O.J.) disagreed but, nevertheless, respect, and never criticize, the jury. Try and walk a mile in their shoes, it is not easy.
I've tempered my posts and allow others to take a position without criticism. There is no need for a personal attack on my position.
 
Perhaps you would do well to investigate the four different types of justice. I think you will find your definition in error.
 
Out of respect for the OPoster, the issue pertains to the criminal justice issue. I will not be the one to take us off topic but anyone else is free to do so.
 
rolling7 said:
A stated in my pervious post, there are no innocent people on death row. An innocent person, having gone to trail and being found so, goes home. Only those found guilty go to prison.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be something if it were true?

Problem is that there have been people saved by DNA tests, having someone else step forward with evidence/ admission of guilt, etc. Realize that juries are filled with real people that have real opinions and biases, despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to weed them out. Guilty people have been found innocent; why would all convictions be the correct verdict?

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Mark Twain
 
rolling7 said:
Out of respect for the OPoster, the issue pertains to the criminal justice issue. I will not be the one to take us off topic but anyone else is free to do so.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear: the 4 different types of justice within our criminal justice system.:roll:
 
Here's a question:

Is it better to punish or to correct?

Punishment is to suffer the wrath for bad behavior.

Correction is changing a persons behavior through discipline.

Thoughts?
 
That's one of those questions that you can't give a 100%, "this is always how it should be," sort of answer.

Training and guidance actually I think should be number one. "Train up a child in the way he should go..."

After that, correction.

Finally, if all else fails, punishment.

Somewhere along the line, removal from society comes into play, to protect both the removed one and society at large. This is even true on a small scale when children are given "time out" punishments, like 5 minutes sitting away from the rest of the family, to help them calm down and de-fuse the situation.

On a larger scale, if someone cannot follow the norms of civilized behavior, then the person has to be removed from society, for a greater or lesser amount of time. If possible, training, guidance and correction might all be appropriate during the time the person is removed.
 
As for the concept of "removing" the offender from society to rehabilitate them, it sounds good. However, even if they do get rehabilitated and all that, they have a felony offense in which they will have to include whenever applying for jobs causing life more difficult for them. To me, that is like saying, "Yes, you are fit to return to society but you have to continue to suffer from your actions.:
 
shel90 said:
As for the concept of "removing" the offender from society to rehabilitate them, it sounds good. However, even if they do get rehabilitated and all that, they have a felony offense in which they will have to include whenever applying for jobs causing life more difficult for them. To me, that is like saying, "Yes, you are fit to return to society but you have to continue to suffer from your actions.:
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a problem there.
 
shel90 said:
As for the concept of "removing" the offender from society to rehabilitate them, it sounds good. However, even if they do get rehabilitated and all that, they have a felony offense in which they will have to include whenever applying for jobs causing life more difficult for them. To me, that is like saying, "Yes, you are fit to return to society but you have to continue to suffer from your actions.:
Click to expand...

Right on!....I know of someone (a female), who has 5 charges of domestic violence. On her rap sheet, she is listed as a dangerous person...and to proceed with caution (several cops to subdue her). Because of "her feet"! Strange as it may be....

She can't find a job, no one will hire her with her record. She has found jobs that pays 'under the table"...but they don't last very long.....In and out of homeless shelters, jails, staying with friends, etc. If she gets one more charge of domestic violence, she will be jailed for 5 years...(she also has other felonies on her record). At 41 years old, she looks 60...very sad situation....She's had mental health counseling, anti-depressent drugs, etc.
 
What did she do with her feet to make her a dangerous person?

I'm in support of more vocational rehab for prisoners who can be expected to return to society. A good training program and some sort of certificate of completion might be very helpful to someone hoping to start a new life.
 
shel90 said:
As for the concept of "removing" the offender from society to rehabilitate them, it sounds good. However, even if they do get rehabilitated and all that, they have a felony offense in which they will have to include whenever applying for jobs causing life more difficult for them. To me, that is like saying, "Yes, you are fit to return to society but you have to continue to suffer from your actions.:
Click to expand...

And this, compounded with the documented tendency for this person to commit felonious crimes, makes rehabilitation a very difficult task. No wonder there are so many career criminals.
 
Back
Top