My personal opinion about the death penalty, notwithstanding, I would maintain that until you lose a child or other loved one to an animal like Couey, or until you cast a vote for death as a juror, you really don't know what you what you would do. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
Killing for revenge, which is "the other side of the argument" is indicative of a lack of civilisation: the point is that the legal system is there to protect and rehabilitate (if possible), not to provide warped solace to relatives of victims.
If I lost a loved one to scum like that, I am the last person who should be allowed decide his fate.
I'm not sure about that. It could be that you would be eliminated during the jury selection process though by one or the other counsels. The jury in the Couey case voted 10-2 for death and the judge cast the deciding vote, so there were at least 2 ("civilised")persons who declined to vote for death.
I understand what you say about revenge and rehab. Both are vaid points. Nothing will restore a loved one from death, and for me putting the killer to death would provide no solace whatsoever. (Not to say that, in a fit of rage, I couldn't be tempted to do the job myself, but that would be wrong.) Rehab. doesn't seem to work in many cases and the person is released back into society to commit more crimes. The consequences of such a person being released following a sentence are profound, as in Couey's case, when that person kills.
Couey himself was out on probation.
Convicted sex offender John Evander Couey, 46, said he took cocaine around 1:00 AM then entered the Lunsford home through an unlocked door, went to Jessica's room, put his hand over her mouth and said, "You're going with me." Jessica took a stuffed purple dolphin from her room. On Snowbird Court, 150 yards away from, and in view of the Lunsford home, Jessica climbed a ladder to enter Couey's bedroom. Couey said it is unlikely the other four people in the house knew she was there. Other occupants of the residence during this time include, Couey's half-sister Dorothy Dixon, 47, Dixon's boyfriend, Matthew Dittrich, Couey's niece Madie Secord, 28, and her teenage stepdaughter. Dorothy said Couey didn't leave the house for several days because he was afraid deputies knew he hadn't shown up for a probation meeting. She said her brother usually stayed inside his bedroom with the door closed. "Then, I sexually assaulted her," he said. "I'm a sick person. It's hard for me to talk about. I mean, I was stupid. I was stupid for doing it."
On Snowbird Court, 150 yards away from, and in view of the Lunsford home, Jessica climbed a ladder to enter Couey's bedroom. Couey said it is unlikely the other four people in the house knew she was there. Other occupants of the residence during this time include, Couey's half-sister Dorothy Dixon, 47, Dixon's boyfriend, Matthew Dittrich, Couey's niece Madie Secord, 28, and her teenage stepdaughter. Dorothy said Couey didn't leave the house for several days because he was afraid deputies knew he hadn't shown up for a probation meeting. She said her brother usually stayed inside his bedroom with the door closed.
"Then, I sexually assaulted her," he said. "I'm a sick person. It's hard for me to talk about. I mean, I was stupid. I was stupid for doing it."
You previously argued that the inability to prove that a person was guilty of capital muder was cause not to apply the death penalty. In the Couey case, the evidence was overwhwelming and he showed considerable, possibly genuine, remorse for the killing. He is without doubt a very sick man as are most child molesters. The problem with child molestation is very serious in terms of actual numbers in America and the recidivism rate high enough to cause alarm.
I wouldn't suggest that anyone be allowed to sit on a jury trying a case relating to a relative, and it's probably fair to say that persons who have lost loved ones to criminals probably would be screened out by the defense if it came up during the selection process.
Retribution is a wide spread reason for prison sentences (or the death penalty as you state). Again, I don't see retribution necessarily as an indicator of a state of civilisation.
Huntley should die in prison, says Falconer
The Lord Chancellor waded into the row over sentencing last night by indicating he believed Soham murderer Ian Huntley should die in prison. Lord Falconer said Huntley - currently serving a minimum 40-year term - belonged to a class of killers who should never be released because of the "heinousness" of their crimes. "It is both because of dangerousness, but it also because society does require retribution in those sorts of cases and if it doesn't get it then people will not be confident of the criminal justice system." Huntley was convicted of murdering 10-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2003.
"It is both because of dangerousness, but it also because society does require retribution in those sorts of cases and if it doesn't get it then people will not be confident of the criminal justice system."
Huntley was convicted of murdering 10-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2003.
I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
As I understand it, I wouldn't be permitted to sit on a jury that could hand out a death sentence because I'm opposed to it. I'm not sure about that. It could be that you would be eliminated during the jury selection process though by one or the other counsels.
I'm not sure about that. It could be that you would be eliminated during the jury selection process though by one or the other counsels.
That is an easy way to get out of a jury in a Capital case if you want to avoid jury service regardless of your actual opinion on the Death Penalty. There are a number of other ideological ways to exclude yourself from a jury, for instance claiming to support Jury Nullification.
In the US the jury selection process is deeply flawed because people get excluded from the jury on ideological/philosophical grounds. This is entirely different from people being excluded because they know the plaintiff or defendant, or because they have been involved in a similar crime in the past. Just like judges recuse themselves, jurors should be excluded if their participation would result in a verdict being overturned on appeal. The question is whether the jurors' ideological/philosophical opinions on criminal justice would lead to an overturn on appeal. It seems it would, which is disturbing. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
July Fireworks
In the middle of an intersection of Columbia Pike on the Fourth of July, 1969, Roger Whitney confronted a Navy commander and his family who were returning from watching the fireworks in Washington, D.C. "Whitney, who is a big guy, got in a fight with the Navy commander and knocked him down," Robert. F. Horan Jr. said. When the commander's son got out of the van to help his father, Whitney knocked them both down, semi-conscious in a median strip of Columbia Pike. Whitney went back to his car to get a gun and killed both the commander and his son while their family in the van watched. Horan asked for the death penalty in the case, but the Fairfax jury gave him a double life term in prison. "The trial judge left four jury members on that case who didn't believe in the death penalty," Horan said. "There was no chance."
"Whitney, who is a big guy, got in a fight with the Navy commander and knocked him down," Robert. F. Horan Jr. said. When the commander's son got out of the van to help his father, Whitney knocked them both down, semi-conscious in a median strip of Columbia Pike. Whitney went back to his car to get a gun and killed both the commander and his son while their family in the van watched.
Horan asked for the death penalty in the case, but the Fairfax jury gave him a double life term in prison.
"The trial judge left four jury members on that case who didn't believe in the death penalty," Horan said. "There was no chance."
The victim's interests are decided upon in civil trials. (And if they insist upon revenge, they ought to try and get it themselves. And be punished accordingly by society if they are successful)
Oh, BTW, You're as much of an animal as Couey is (and I am), as instances of the human species. Couey is an human and a member of society, and that is why he is getting a trial. Dehumanization of "the other", however criminal or mad, is a dangerous path. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
