Originally Posted By cstephens I heard a very little bit about the story last night and decided to find out a bit more and found this story: <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20051228-1553-ca-elderlykiller.html" target="_blank">http://www.signonsandiego.com/ news/state/20051228-1553-ca-elderlykiller.html</a>. I understand that when the death penalty was no longer legal, prior death sentences were commuted to life in prison, but I don't get why it was life in prison WITH the possibility of parole instead of WITHOUT. If the crime was bad enough that they got the death penalty, wouldn't it have been bad enough that they should no longer be able to walk the streets? Or maybe life in prison without the possibility of parole was also outlawed at some point, so everyone go life w/ parole. I really can't see his wife's illness or his own age and illnesses being a good enough reason to parole him. From the story: "Don't you think 40-some years is enough?" said Andrea Modesto, who says her husband of 55 years has had a stroke and has high blood pressure. "We're trying to get him to come home before it's too late. I'd hate to have to bring him home in a box," she told The Press-Enterprise. Is 40-some years enough time for the parents of the murdered children to be done missing their kids? The second statement I can't even comment on. /cs
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I understand that when the death penalty was no longer legal, prior death sentences were commuted to life in prison, but I don't get why it was life in prison WITH the possibility of parole instead of WITHOUT. If the crime was bad enough that they got the death penalty, wouldn't it have been bad enough that they should no longer be able to walk the streets? Or maybe life in prison without the possibility of parole was also outlawed at some point, so everyone go life w/ parole. >>> I think that it depends on the state. For example, here in Texas, up until earlier this year, the two punishment options for capital murder were the death penalty or life in prison with parole possible after 40 years - there was no "life in prison without parole" option. So, if the death penalty were somehow thrown out again (not likely), then those sentenced to it before the law changed would revert to "life with parole possible after 40 years" as you can't impose a punishment other than those that were on the books at the time the crime was committed. I suspect that this is what happened in the 70's in many states. When the Supreme Court ruled that you can't execute people for crimes committed while they were children (which in Texas involved 17-year-olds tried as adults), they changed the law to allow life without parole. There was actually a substantial opposition to this option, as it is felt by some that adding this option will make it more likely that juries will choose it over the death penalty where they would not have before when there was a chance of parole. But in the end, it was felt more important to be able to lock away 17-year-old murderers for life. It's an interesting situation.
Originally Posted By cstephens His request for parole was denied: <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060104-1428-ca-elderlykiller.html" target="_blank">http://www.signonsandiego.com/ news/state/20060104-1428-ca-elderlykiller.html</a>. Next parole opportunity won't come up for another 4 years. Hope it's denied then as well. /cs
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Hope it's denied then as well. << Why? I mean, short of wishing that 'we the people' killed him a long time ago, is there some satisfaction to be gained from seeing his parole denied? >> Is 40-some years enough time for the parents of the murdered children to be done missing their kids? << "Forty-some years" is a long time (he was sentenced in 1961). For all intents, he's already sacrificed his own life - he's 76 years old and in failing health - it's hard to imagine that he's a threat to anyone any longer. And we don't know what the parents of the slain children think - or if they're even still alive. I don't get the outrage and indignation over something that most of us have never even heard about before today, and occured before many of us were even born. It seems rooted in vengence and unyielding misdirected anger. Isn't there any room for mercy and forgiveness - something to counter-balance the darker emotions? If you need more pragmatic reasons, how about the fact that the state must absorb the costs for all medical treatment - and he IS entitled to medical treatment. I guess my point is that it's too easy to sit in an armchair forty six years after the fact and decide that this guy is just a monster who doesn't rate an ounce of compassion or basic humanity. And this is one of the unfortunate outcomes of the death penalty. It feeds the darker side of humanity, devalues life, and allows people to think they have the right to decide who deserves to live and who deserves death, and dehumanizes convicts in the process. It's too god-like for me.
Originally Posted By cstephens gadzuux wrote: >> Hope it's denied then as well. << > Why? I mean, short of wishing that 'we the people' killed him a long time ago, is there some satisfaction to be gained from seeing his parole denied? No, I'm not throwing a party and celebrating his not being paroled. I don't want him to be paroled because I see no good reason for him to be paroled. The "hasn't he suffered enough" argument doesn't work with me. Have the two kids that he killed been dead long enough? Have the parents missed their dead kids long enough? > For all intents, he's already sacrificed his own life And the fault for this would belong to...? > I don't get the outrage and indignation over something that most of us have never even heard about before today, and occured before many of us were even born. So if it happened, and I didn't know about it and wasn't born yet when it happened, then it doesn't matter? Interesting outlook. > Isn't there any room for mercy and forgiveness - something to counter-balance the darker emotions? For someone who killed two small children and doesn't appear to be showing any remorse for it? They're not saying he's sorry or that he's become a saint. The only argument for releasing him on parole seems to be his age and illness. > If you need more pragmatic reasons, how about the fact that the state must absorb the costs for all medical treatment - and he IS entitled to medical treatment. If we were only talking about the financial aspect, then I would think that making sure death sentences are carried out in a short amount of time would be the most cost-efficient solution. Heck, he was originally sentenced to death, which was commuted to life in prison with parole when the death penalty was outlawed. Now that it's legal again, we should reinstate his original sentence. That work for you? > I guess my point is that it's too easy to sit in an armchair forty six years after the fact and decide that this guy is just a monster who doesn't rate an ounce of compassion or basic humanity. How much compassion am I supposed to feel for a guy who killed two small children, who not only destroyed their lives and the lives of their family and friends but is also responsible for his own absence from his wife all these years? I am presuming he's being treated humanely in prison. I guess if we really want to prove how nice we all are, we should just let all prisoners out of jail, hmmm, because it's not right to punish people for their crimes. Oh, and in case you missed it, he's not getting the death penalty. We're talking parole. I think you've mixing topics on purpose. /cs
Originally Posted By gadzuux In a real way, it's the same topic - crime and punishment. I'm addressing the passion you express about why this guy should even be considered for parole. You've made your view clear that you think he should be locked up for life - no ifs and or buts. "But" that doesn't change anything, does it? Whether he's released to his family to live out his few remaining days, or he's imprisoned til the day he drops, what happened in `61 remains constant. Your implication is that justice would be less served by releasing him now. I disagree. I don't think the motivation is justice, but vengence - sating a personal darker urge that has nothing to do with this convict or his victims.
Originally Posted By cstephens gadzuux wrote: > I'm addressing the passion you express about why this guy should even be considered for parole. You've made your view clear that you think he should be locked up for life - no ifs and or buts. Given that he doesn't appear to be sorry for what he did, that he's still giving excuses instead of taking responsibility, and that the only reason they can come up with for his release is his age and sickness? Nope, keep him locked up for life in that case. > "But" that doesn't change anything, does it? Whether he's released to his family to live out his few remaining days, or he's imprisoned til the day he drops, what happened in `61 remains constant. No, it doesn't change anything, so because it doesn't change anything anyway, let's make sure this murderer of two small children is comfortable for the remaining years of his life, able to enjoy the time at home with his wife? Part of the passion I feel is when I see how more and more often, so much compassion and feeling and consideration and thought goes to the prisoners, to the people who have committed heinous crimes, but there seems to be no thought or consideration at all for the people they've hurt and killed and traumatized and destroyed. Let's not throw stones at the criminals, but let's also not bend over backwards to make them as comfortable and feel as loved as possible. I'm seeing too much of concern about the criminals and none at all for the victims. That's what boils my blood. /cs
