|
Post by Lisa on Jan 25, 2009 23:21:47 GMT -6
Then we should be offing the ones in gen pop, not those on DR. Find a convicted capital murderer in TX who received LWOP instead of the death penalty who's murdered again. If you can't, I guess juries haven't made a mistake so far. Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all. They're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs. a day, and they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles. Does anyone here know if evidence is presented during capital murder trials regarding the security precautions on death row vs. the general population? Are jurors made aware of how different the two really are? I'll answer your question with a question. How would placing 3,000+ more vicious murderers into general population make CO's safer? If the death penalty were abolished next week there would be no death row, and that's where they would be placed.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 25, 2009 23:44:48 GMT -6
If preventing them from killing again is the goal, surely the track record of Death Row, particularly in recent years, should show that it’s not necessary to kill them, only to house them under the strictest of maximum ~ even Death Row like ~ conditions and security. For me personally, the death penalty is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. I can't see punishing capital murderers and serial rapists with the same penalty, be it the DP or LWOP. I know that I'd have no problem sentencing a serial rapist to LWOP, and a capital murderer needs to be punished way, way more severely than a serial rapist IMHO. Preventing them from killing again is on the list, but not at the top of the list. Since 1976, we have executed 1,141 murderers. That's 1,141 less we have to worry about...period. I'm comforted by that.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Jan 26, 2009 1:10:34 GMT -6
Find a convicted capital murderer in TX who received LWOP instead of the death penalty who's murdered again. If you can't, I guess juries haven't made a mistake so far.One mistake, so far: www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/pruettrobert.htmGuess this speaks more to the pro argument than the pro one though, Lisa.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Jan 26, 2009 1:14:20 GMT -6
If preventing them from killing again is the goal, surely the track record of Death Row, particularly in recent years, should show that it’s not necessary to kill them, only to house them under the strictest of maximum ~ even Death Row like ~ conditions and security. I see PTO in your future. They'll eat you up like chocolate cake, too. Why do you say that Cali, I think that the statistics bear out what Wonderwoman is saying. I had no idea, statistically, I was at more risk working in a bank, than I would be working on death row, although in the 25 plus years I've worked in a financial institutions, we've been robbed twice, once at gunpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Jan 26, 2009 1:33:46 GMT -6
I understand both sides of this, but it's not really as simple as executing the offenders simply because of the risk to CO's is it?
Surely it safeguards not only the CO's but also the public in the event of LWOP being changed on appeal/overturned/becoming a determinate length sentence in the future.
I do think that there should be more murderers sentenced to at least LWOP, but how do you ensure that changes aren't made to sentences for them to be freed again?
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 26, 2009 1:40:42 GMT -6
Find a convicted capital murderer in TX who received LWOP instead of the death penalty who's murdered again. If you can't, I guess juries haven't made a mistake so far.One mistake, so far: www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/pruettrobert.htmGuess this speaks more to the pro argument than the pro one though, Lisa. He was a murderer serving Life (not LWOP), so maybe that wasn't a capital murder conviction. Of course, LWOP wasn't an option in Texas in 1999, so it's hard to tell. But I would think the record would indicate "capital murder" instead of "murder," if that's what it was. Whatever, if his first conviction wasn't for capital murder the jury couldn't have sentenced him to death so I wouldn't call this a "mistake" made by the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Jan 26, 2009 6:43:05 GMT -6
Find a convicted capital murderer in TX who received LWOP instead of the death penalty who's murdered again. If you can't, I guess juries haven't made a mistake so far.One mistake, so far: www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/pruettrobert.htmGuess this speaks more to the pro argument than the pro one though, Lisa. He was a murderer serving Life (not LWOP), so maybe that wasn't a capital murder conviction. Of course, LWOP wasn't an option in Texas in 1999, so it's hard to tell. But I would think the record would indicate "capital murder" instead of "murder," if that's what it was. Whatever, if his first conviction wasn't for capital murder the jury couldn't have sentenced him to death so I wouldn't call this a "mistake" made by the jury. You're right, for some reason I thought he received 99 years for the previous murder, maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Jan 26, 2009 6:47:15 GMT -6
I understand both sides of this, but it's not really as simple as executing the offenders simply because of the risk to CO's is it? Surely it safeguards not only the CO's but also the public in the event of LWOP being changed on appeal/overturned/becoming a determinate length sentence in the future. I do think that there should be more murderers sentenced to at least LWOP, but how do you ensure that changes aren't made to sentences for them to be freed again? That's a really good question Moonbeam. As it stands now, when SCOTUS overturned the death penalty for juveniles, 28 offenders on death row in Texas had their sentences converted to life, not LWOP, because it was not available in Texas at the time they committed murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 8:41:41 GMT -6
I understand both sides of this, but it's not really as simple as executing the offenders simply because of the risk to CO's is it? Surely it safeguards not only the CO's but also the public in the event of LWOP being changed on appeal/overturned/becoming a determinate length sentence in the future. It's my understanding that a death sentence is far more likely to be overturned on appeal ~ approximately a third of them, if I'm not mistaken. You're right, though. There's no guarantee that LWOP will remain LWOP. Juries aren't supposed to consider that possibility... though once it's in their heads, I don't see it not being considered. Me too. I wish it were all. As for the future of LWOP, we have to be diligent, and as with most things, people lose interest ~ or never had any to begin with, so it may yet come to pass, right along with DP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 8:50:32 GMT -6
If preventing them from killing again is the goal, surely the track record of Death Row, particularly in recent years, should show that it’s not necessary to kill them, only to house them under the strictest of maximum ~ even Death Row like ~ conditions and security. For me personally, the death penalty is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. I can't see punishing capital murderers and serial rapists with the same penalty, be it the DP or LWOP. I know that I'd have no problem sentencing a serial rapist to LWOP, and a capital murderer needs to be punished way, way more severely than a serial rapist IMHO. Preventing them from killing again is on the list, but not at the top of the list. Since 1976, we have executed 1,141 murderers. That's 1,141 less we have to worry about...period. I'm comforted by that. At some point, we reach a maximum punishment with nothing further we can dole at all these POS, so we're sentencing one 'lesser' POS to the same thing as a worse POS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 9:04:25 GMT -6
I see PTO in your future. They'll eat you up like chocolate cake, too. Why do you say that Cali, I think that the statistics bear out what Wonderwoman is saying. I had no idea, statistically, I was at more risk working in a bank, than I would be working on death row, although in the 25 plus years I've worked in a financial institutions, we've been robbed twice, once at gunpoint. I guess we're not supposed to question those who'd have us believe COs, particularly those working on DR, are in grave danger. And, I'm not saying they aren't in any danger, only that there are equally, and more dangerous, jobs ~ even when only looking at homicide in the workplace. I'm guessing it's callous and unfeeling not to bleed over non-existent murder victims, such as those in recent years ~ COs working our death rows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 9:39:10 GMT -6
If preventing them from killing again is the goal, surely the track record of Death Row, particularly in recent years, should show that it’s not necessary to kill them, only to house them under the strictest of maximum ~ even Death Row like ~ conditions and security. For me personally, the death penalty is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. I can't see punishing capital murderers and serial rapists with the same penalty, be it the DP or LWOP. I know that I'd have no problem sentencing a serial rapist to LWOP, and a capital murderer needs to be punished way, way more severely than a serial rapist IMHO. Preventing them from killing again is on the list, but not at the top of the list. Since 1976, we have executed 1,141 murderers. That's 1,141 less we have to worry about...period. I'm comforted by that. One man's banana-nut bread is another's toxic waste. You think that doling death is 'way, way more severe' than LWOP. Someone else would consider it the other way round. Or, as in CA, pretty much equivalent. As the numbers bear out, we have the means to prevent them all from murdering again, in or out of prison, if we so choose.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 26, 2009 9:42:10 GMT -6
As the numbers bear out, we have the means to prevent them all from murdering again, in or out of prison, if we so choose. But by a rather large majority, we don't so choose. Therein lies your problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 9:51:39 GMT -6
In one breath, just days ago, talking about DR inmates and the COs who work with them: They have to be transported to hearings, sometimes hundreds of miles each way. They receive medical treatment, sometimes in medical facilities that are offsite. Believe me, they're a continual threat... They (COs) face huge risks day in, day out. And now: Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all. They're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs. a day, and they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles. So, which is it?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 26, 2009 10:02:35 GMT -6
In one breath, just days ago, talking about DR inmates and the COs who work with them. So, which is it? Both. Transportation to court hearings is pre-trial. Would you send them to prison before they're convicted? As for medical care that can't be provided in prisons, would you deny them that care? A federal judge wouldn't. LWOP doesn't mean forever. Death does.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 26, 2009 10:18:40 GMT -6
In one breath, just days ago, talking about DR inmates and the COs who work with them. So, which is it? Both. Transportation to court hearings is pre-trial. Wouyld you send them to prison before they're convicted? Not necessarily, Bob. DR inmates (while onsite, and regardless of how well mannered they seem to be), are kept in their cells 23/7, as opposed to GP inmates, who are allowed much more contact with prison staff and other inmates (as long as they behave themselves). Here's what happened when an appellate court ordered a new sentencing hearing for a DR inmate. www.policeone.com/corrections/articles/120535-Texas-death-row-inmate-escapes-from-Houston-jail/I suppose that's "pre-trial" though, so you're right.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jan 26, 2009 11:15:27 GMT -6
The death penalty means forever, Which is exactly why Bob the Dp shouldnt be handed out as a sentence unless there is 100% proof in all conviction cases. Mistakes have been made. Once all the evidence has been exhausted and tested then go for it but only if its proven without a doubt. I just dont trust it like i dont trust convicted murderers being let out to kill again. Not say they all do or will by statistics posted on various threads suggests they do.
To answer Moonbeam's question, the only true way is to elect a government that puts in places directives, laws, regulations and guidelines for judges or to elect a governemtn that will not change the law so that they reduce the risk to a minimum by stopping the continuous appeals etc etc etc .
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 26, 2009 12:01:28 GMT -6
This thing about "future dangerousness" in TX is interesting to me. Throughout my education, I've always been told that how unethical it is for counselors/psychologists to try to predict future behavior, especially when it comes to forensic patients. Basically, it's been shown that even those who are trained at a masters+ level in human behavior are highly unskilled at predicting whether a criminal will commit another crime, even when that practitioner knows and has been working with a client. You disingenuously fail to mention the #1 predictor of future violent behavior, which is past violent behavior. And "unethical?" Gimme a break. Defense attorneys put expert witnesses ( both psychologists and psychiatrists) on the witness stand all the time to vouch for the gentleness of defendants. Is that "unethical?" And let's look at another reason: It's "unethical" because many of their respective associations don't believe in the DP. OK. You're misunderstanding the discussion, because you view the violence perpetrated as a problem to be fixed through therapy and counseling. I see the DP as first of all a "penalty," and then protection of society from those whoe have demonstrated a propensity for extreme violence. Yes, past violent behavior is the best predictor of future violent behavior. However, Lisa was saying that in TX, juries in capital murder cases pick WHICH murderers are likely to murder again. Those that the juries decide aren't as likely to murder (based on what, since they all have that "best predictor" counting against them?) are given LWOP - which right now means general population, where they have a greater opportunity to be violent, if they so choose. And no, counseling does not "fix" a violent act that is already done. My goal, if I were working with an offender (and I have worked with offenders), is to help that person to increase the "tools" that they have, so that they don't see crime/substance use/whatever as their best choice. However, whether that works or not depends on the person, especially once they're out of treatment. I've found that they're pretty motivated when they're on probation or parole, of course. Psychotherapy doesn't "fix" anyone. A propensity toward violence/addiction/anxiety/depression/whatever can be managed, but as I tell clients, I'm not in the magic wand business. It's unethical for a psychiatrist to testify something that he doesn't believe is true. If a client's mental illness played a significant role in his commission of the crime, then that should be known in court. I can't really say much about psychology's role in court defense (or prosecution, for that matter) because as a counselor, testifying for/against any of my clients wouldn't be part of my job. Anyway, I think you misunderstood what I was asking. What I'm asking is why TX is apparently trusting juries with predicting a capital murder defendant's future behavior, when people who, generally speaking, should know more about human behavior than Joe Plumber on the jury, are not able to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 26, 2009 12:28:34 GMT -6
Yes, past violent behavior is the best predictor of future violent behavior. However, Lisa was saying that in TX, juries in capital murder cases pick WHICH murderers are likely to murder again. Those that the juries decide aren't as likely to murder (based on what, since they all have that "best predictor" counting against them?) are given LWOP - which right now means general population, where they have a greater opportunity to be violent, if they so choose. Yes, but jurors don't make the decision in a vacuum. Evidence of the likelihood of "future dangerousness," is developed, I assume, by a consistent pattern of "past dangerousness." This evidence is presented to the jury, and it's up to jurors to weigh that evidence, just like they weigh all evidence during both phases of capital murder trials here.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 26, 2009 12:50:47 GMT -6
Yes, past violent behavior is the best predictor of future violent behavior. However, Lisa was saying that in TX, juries in capital murder cases pick WHICH murderers are likely to murder again. Those that the juries decide aren't as likely to murder (based on what, since they all have that "best predictor" counting against them?) are given LWOP - which right now means general population, where they have a greater opportunity to be violent, if they so choose. Yes, but jurors don't make the decision in a vacuum. Evidence of the likelihood of "future dangerousness," is developed, I assume, by a consistent pattern of "past dangerousness." This evidence is presented to the jury, and it's up to jurors to weigh that evidence, just like they weigh all evidence during both phases of capital murder trials here. So....someone who, say, commits just one capital murder may not have enough "past dangerousness" to be considered capable of future murder?
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Jan 26, 2009 13:10:00 GMT -6
Both. Transportation to court hearings is pre-trial. Wouyld you send them to prison before they're convicted? Not necessarily, Bob. DR inmates (while onsite, and regardless of how well mannered they seem to be), are kept in their cells 23/7, as opposed to GP inmates, who are allowed much more contact with prison staff and other inmates (as long as they behave themselves). Here's what happened when an appellate court ordered a new sentencing hearing for a DR inmate. www.policeone.com/corrections/articles/120535-Texas-death-row-inmate-escapes-from-Houston-jail/I suppose that's "pre-trial" though, so you're right. I know the families of the victims in this case, and that was a pretty scary time for them. Especially since the killer had made a "hit list" while he was in jail awaiting his original trial.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 26, 2009 13:25:31 GMT -6
Yes, but jurors don't make the decision in a vacuum. Evidence of the likelihood of "future dangerousness," is developed, I assume, by a consistent pattern of "past dangerousness." This evidence is presented to the jury, and it's up to jurors to weigh that evidence, just like they weigh all evidence during both phases of capital murder trials here. So....someone who, say, commits just one capital murder may not have enough "past dangerousness" to be considered capable of future murder? Of course, we know they're capable of murder, but the question, IMO, is whether or not a pattern of dangerousness is present, which indicates they pose a greater risk if placed in GP than others convicted of the same crime. Just because no CO's have been murdered on death row recently, isn't proof that they weren't dangerous after all, and the jury was wrong. IMO, it means the security precautions on death row have been successful for a period of time, but in all probability, won't be successful forever. Only executions can remove the risk permanently, and obviously jurors would think about that when hearing evidence of "future dangerousness" during the sentencing phase.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 26, 2009 14:25:58 GMT -6
So....someone who, say, commits just one capital murder may not have enough "past dangerousness" to be considered capable of future murder? Of course, we know they're capable of murder, but the question, IMO, is whether or not a pattern of dangerousness is present, which indicates they pose a greater risk if placed in GP than others convicted of the same crime. Just because no CO's have been murdered on death row recently, isn't proof that they weren't dangerous after all, and the jury was wrong. IMO, it means the security precautions on death row have been successful for a period of time, but in all probability, won't be successful forever. Only executions can remove the risk permanently, and obviously jurors would think about that when hearing evidence of "future dangerousness" during the sentencing phase. I was thinking more the other way. I'm not concerned about DR inmates who are housed with all the precautions murdering again. I'm concerned about someone who has committed first-degree murder being put in a situation where it wouldn't be all that difficult for them to murder again, just because a group of 12 ordinary citizens (most of whom have no training at all in anything in forensic psychology or the criminal justice realm and only have the words of two opposing attorneys to go by) decided that they're not THAT high risk. THAT, IMO, is putting COs AND other prisoners at grave risk. Again, just my opinion, but if my colleagues who have years of experience working with offenders aren't qualified to assess risk, then I have trouble believing that 12 jurors are. Not to mention that it's putting jurors at risk. What if Joe Texan served on a jury in a capital trial, and they decided that Jim Murderer didn't have enough of a violent background to warrant the DP, and that he should be just fine put in general pop with a LWOP sentence...then, a year later, Jim Murderer shanks a CO. Joe picks up the news the next morning and will probably never fully recover from the guilt of putting Jim in a position to kill again.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 26, 2009 14:45:58 GMT -6
Of course, we know they're capable of murder, but the question, IMO, is whether or not a pattern of dangerousness is present, which indicates they pose a greater risk if placed in GP than others convicted of the same crime. Just because no CO's have been murdered on death row recently, isn't proof that they weren't dangerous after all, and the jury was wrong. IMO, it means the security precautions on death row have been successful for a period of time, but in all probability, won't be successful forever. Only executions can remove the risk permanently, and obviously jurors would think about that when hearing evidence of "future dangerousness" during the sentencing phase. I was thinking more the other way. I'm not concerned about DR inmates who are housed with all the precautions murdering again. I'm concerned about someone who has committed first-degree murder being put in a situation where it wouldn't be all that difficult for them to murder again, just because a group of 12 ordinary citizens (most of whom have no training at all in anything in forensic psychology or the criminal justice realm and only have the words of two opposing attorneys to go by) decided that they're not THAT high risk. THAT, IMO, is putting COs AND other prisoners at grave risk. Again, just my opinion, but if my colleagues who have years of experience working with offenders aren't qualified to assess risk, then I have trouble believing that 12 jurors are. Not to mention that it's putting jurors at risk. What if Joe Texan served on a jury in a capital trial, and they decided that Jim Murderer didn't have enough of a violent background to warrant the DP, and that he should be just fine put in general pop with a LWOP sentence...then, a year later, Jim Murderer shanks a CO. Joe picks up the news the next morning and will probably never fully recover from the guilt of putting Jim in a position to kill again. The only way around any possibility of feeling guilt if a capital murderer chooses to kill again in GP would be to sentence all capital murderers to death whether a pattern of dangerousness can be developed or not, which I would support, and you wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 26, 2009 15:21:20 GMT -6
would be to sentence all capital murderers to death whether a pattern of dangerousness can be developed or not, Would the discussion of a pattern of repeat offending be applicable to already known serial killers? Or would they automatically address the issue that they are a high threat to COs and other prisoners? Because, assuming that's true, what makes people sure that a prisoner who recieved LWOP for killing one person, wouldn't have killed another if they hadn't been caught? The murder act alone should establish beyond all doubt that the person is dangerous to others and COs. To exclude people from receiving the DP because they don't know whether they will offend again in prison is another example of how little the government cares for it's people and victims.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 26, 2009 15:43:07 GMT -6
would be to sentence all capital murderers to death whether a pattern of dangerousness can be developed or not, Would the discussion of a pattern of repeat offending be applicable to already known serial killers? Or would they automatically address the issue that they are a high threat to COs and other prisoners? Because, assuming that's true, what makes people sure that a prisoner who recieved LWOP for killing one person, wouldn't have killed another if they hadn't been caught? The murder act alone should establish beyond all doubt that the person is dangerous to others and COs. To exclude people from receiving the DP because they don't know whether they will offend again in prison is another example of how little the government cares for it's people and victims. Well, I would think establishing a pattern of dangerousness would be fairly simple for prosecutors when it comes to serial killers, but your second paragraph is why I support sentencing all convicted capital murderers to death.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 26, 2009 16:47:34 GMT -6
I was thinking more the other way. I'm not concerned about DR inmates who are housed with all the precautions murdering again. I'm concerned about someone who has committed first-degree murder being put in a situation where it wouldn't be all that difficult for them to murder again, just because a group of 12 ordinary citizens (most of whom have no training at all in anything in forensic psychology or the criminal justice realm and only have the words of two opposing attorneys to go by) decided that they're not THAT high risk. THAT, IMO, is putting COs AND other prisoners at grave risk. Again, just my opinion, but if my colleagues who have years of experience working with offenders aren't qualified to assess risk, then I have trouble believing that 12 jurors are. Not to mention that it's putting jurors at risk. What if Joe Texan served on a jury in a capital trial, and they decided that Jim Murderer didn't have enough of a violent background to warrant the DP, and that he should be just fine put in general pop with a LWOP sentence...then, a year later, Jim Murderer shanks a CO. Joe picks up the news the next morning and will probably never fully recover from the guilt of putting Jim in a position to kill again. The only way around any possibility of feeling guilt if a capital murderer chooses to kill again in GP would be to sentence all capital murderers to death whether a pattern of dangerousness can be developed or not, which I would support, and you wouldn't. Nope. But I do support punishing capital murderers more harshly than letting them roam around the general population.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 26, 2009 17:06:09 GMT -6
The only way around any possibility of feeling guilt if a capital murderer chooses to kill again in GP would be to sentence all capital murderers to death whether a pattern of dangerousness can be developed or not, which I would support, and you wouldn't. Nope. But I do support punishing capital murderers more harshly than letting them roam around the general population. Not sure they're allowed to "roam" around as they please in GP, but up until an inmate misbehaves, he will have much more freedom to move around and will come in contact with CO's & other inmates more frequently than death row inmates.
|
|
|
Post by PIP on Jan 26, 2009 17:48:11 GMT -6
In one breath, just days ago, talking about DR inmates and the COs who work with them: They have to be transported to hearings, sometimes hundreds of miles each way. They receive medical treatment, sometimes in medical facilities that are offsite. Believe me, they're a continual threat... They (COs) face huge risks day in, day out. And now: Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all. They're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs. a day, and they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles. So, which is it? I'm sorry, that's just too funny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 20:46:26 GMT -6
In one breath, just days ago, talking about DR inmates and the COs who work with them. So, which is it? Both. Transportation to court hearings is pre-trial. Would you send them to prison before they're convicted? The question/answer was very specific to DR inmates.
|
|