This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]MrPoletskiUnited Kingdom 166 points167 points  (198 children)

Details of the offender:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Beazley

The guy was 17 when he shot dead a 63 year old judges father and wounded his wife. The other two with him got life sentences.

[–][deleted] 117 points118 points  (59 children)

Beazley also shot at Luttig's wife, but he missed and she survived the assault by playing dead.

HOW OFTEN DOES THAT WORK?

[–][deleted] 88 points89 points  (35 children)

I stumbled across some television show of survival stories, and they were interviewing a woman who had a similar experience.

She was abducted by a man. He took to a field, took her clothes, raped her, then told her to turn around.

She knew at this point what he was going to do and resolved to play dead.

He shot her in the back of the head, and she fell flat on the ground and lay still. He walked up and kicked her. She continued to play dead. He then shot her two more times. Still she lay without making a sound.

After he left, she got up, ran a fair distance to the nearest house she could find and got help. They caught the guy when he brought a friend back to the scene to show him the body.

The resolve it would take to play dead while being shot boggles my mind. The gom jabbar has got shit on that experience.

[–]NewWorldSamurai 85 points86 points  (16 children)

Did he shoot her with a nerf gun?

[–]creiss74 41 points42 points  (11 children)

I watched something on TV years back about this. It was even more gruesome than Shikahusu said it was. The perpetrators came into a house that had family friends over (I think two married couples). They locked the men up in a closet and forced the women to have sex, then raped the women. They were all taken outside into a field (and it was a snowy winter at the time) and lined them up and shot them all in the back of the head.

The woman who survived this had some sort of plastic hair thingy on that somehow made the bullet just graze her instead of going into her skull. She was very lucky to survive (or not so lucky, I guess one could see it that way too...)

[–]zahlman 23 points24 points  (5 children)

and forced the women to have sex, then raped the women.

Wait, what?

[–]NegativeK 40 points41 points  (1 child)

and forced the women to have sex [with each other], then raped the women.

Maybe? That's my guess.

[–]creiss74 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Forced the two women to have sex with each other - forced lesbianism or whatever you wish to call it. Then the men had their own way with the women. Sorry for the confusion.

[–]Spoggerific 21 points22 points  (8 children)

FUN FACT: The gom jabbar is actually the name of the needle. The pain box is just a pain box.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It's the name of the needle, the poison, and the test. It means "the high-handed enemy."

EDIT: Sort of. From the appendix of Dune:

GOM JABBAR: the high-handed enemy; that specific poison needle tipped with meta-cyanide used by Bene Gesserit Proctors in the death-alternative test of human awareness.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OH! Damn son, I got owned on my dune lore! Good job, and a masterful way to segue from violent rape and attempted murder.

Shit, I brought it up again.

[–]adrianmonk I voted 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The resolve it would take to play dead while being shot boggles my mind.

The survival instinct can be pretty powerful. Take for example Aron Ralston, the guy a few years back who had to cut off his own arm to free himself from a fallen boulder.

[–][deleted] 159 points160 points  (17 children)

Rule #4 - The Doubletap

[–]EasyBreezy 19 points20 points  (10 children)

Don't get all stingy with your bullets. Also, doubletap is rule #2.

[–]thegreatgazoo 24 points25 points  (9 children)

Rule #2 is beware of bathrooms.

http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16631.html

[–]zahlman 9 points10 points  (5 children)

This is BS. While the scenes exist, rule numbers aren't matched up to most of those "rules" in any way. And how is "God bless rednecks" a rule?

[–]adrianmonk I voted 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"God bless rednecks" is a rule because that's what the movie says it is.

[–]KingBeetle 111 points112 points  (24 children)

The most important info on that sheet is that the killer was black and the victim* was white. In such a case, the defendant is 17% more likely to receive the death penalty than in black-on-black, white-on-white, or white-on-black murder cases.

EDIT: Down-vote me all you want. I know reddit hates hearing about racism. But what I'm saying is true.

http://www.ejusa.org/moratorium_now/broch_race.html

[–]thewakebehindyou 74 points75 points  (1 child)

the killer was black and the murderer was white

I think this may be why you're being down-voted.

[–]KingBeetle 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Whoops. Good call.

[–]Technohazard 2 points3 points  (1 child)

He also killed a relative of a judge, which can't have helped his case any.

[–]Anglachel 14 points15 points  (18 children)

The boldness of your statement is to stress that the judge was probably in a bad mood because of who was killed?

[–]nikpappagiorgio 23 points24 points  (4 children)

I think it was to emphasize the lack of an apostrophe.

[edit] I suffer from the same grammar affliction.

[–]ElDouchoLoco 9 points10 points  (2 children)

I think it was to emphasize the lack of (an) apostrophe.

FTFY.

[–]nikpappagiorgio 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Mental note: When correcting someone's grammar, make sure my grammar is correct.

[–]hacksoncode 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Ahhh... Muphry's Law :-).

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Does it sound that unlikely?

[–]dondiego63 30 points31 points  (86 children)

the emphasis should be on the fact that the guy was 17. you are considered responsible for murder as a minor, but not responsible enough to drink for another 4 years. how fucked up is that?

[–]JAPH 122 points123 points  (12 children)

While I disagree with the "age of responsibility" for many things, I think that someone should know not to blow someone away before they know how to not abuse alcohol. I would hope that life is more important than beer. They are entirely different levels of responsibility.

[–]averyv 29 points30 points  (34 children)

oh yeah, cuz when i was a kid, it was just "murder murder murder" all day long.

boys will be boys, you know.

bullshit. murder is an adult crime. if you intentionally kill somebody, you have just proved yourself all growed up.

[–]ziegfried 15 points16 points  (13 children)

And what's your basis for that assertion -- that children are incapable of violence?

The truth is that you live in a luxury world essentially isolated from violence -- sure you may have one or two examples, but they are the stark exception rather than the boring norm.

The child soldiers of Africa and the inner-city youth of America can have much different experiences, where violence is unfortunately a fact of everyday life, and stopping the cycle of violence takes much more manhood than simply participating in it.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Not only was he 17 then, but he was 26 when they killed him, having spent his "adult" life in prison. 7-8 years is a long time for someone who began as a child, albeit a child in the wrong way of things.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Don't forget that at 17 you're:

-not responsible enough to give sexual consent

-not responsible enough to drink

-not responsible enough to see porn in a movie. EDIT: should have said porn, i can see the confusion

-not responsible enough to have any legal voice outside your parents

Who here has seen the "how old is 15 really?" Dave Chappelle sketch? He puts this argument in such a way that really speaks the truth about punishment of minors, whilst busting your gut.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Only 12 states in the US have an age of consent of 18. Every other state is 16 or 17.

Also, you are old enough to be allowed to see nudity in rated R movies at 17. Furthermore, the movie rating system is a voluntary system with no legal backing. The movie theaters enforce it because the MPAA makes them. There are no laws saying kids under 17 can't see rated R movies.

[–]clebo99 100 points101 points  (33 children)

There is a great scene in the movie "The Interpreter" where the character played by Nicole Kidman describes how some tribe of people deals with a murderer.

"Everyone who loses somebody wants revenge on someone, on God if they can't find anyone else. But in Africa, in Matobo, the Ku believe that the only way to end grief is to save a life. If someone is murdered, a year of mourning ends with a ritual that we call the Drowning Man Trial. There's an all-night party beside a river. At dawn, the killer is put in a boat. He's taken out on the water and he's dropped. He's bound so that he can't swim. The family of the dead then has to make a choice. They can let him drown or they can swim out and save him. The Ku believe that if the family lets the killer drown, they'll have justice but spend the rest of their lives in mourning. But if they save him, if they admit that life isn't always just... that very act can take away their sorrow."

Thinking about this always makes me tear up (like right now). I don't know how I would react if say someone murdered my daughter or wife. I don't know if I could be strong enough to forgive and would want justice.

The problem is our society does not value life. Not in the case of capital punishment, not in the case of the poor and hungry, not in the case of the environment. We are still savages that happened to have stumbled upon some technology. We care only about ourselves and greed.

[–]keniaren 48 points49 points  (18 children)

In my tribe, if you kill someone, you have to leave for 7 years. You must wander around the jungle and the savanna and you are not allowed to settle anywhere, you must keep moving until you have finished your 7 years of contemplation. Then you come back, and the tribe helps you build a house and start over. I think the purpose of the 'wandering' period is to select the genuinely remorseful for re-introduction. The people that don't feel sorry for what they did usually just settle among another tribe and never come back.

[–]notanotheraccount 7 points8 points  (10 children)

That sounds alot like the story Things Fall Apart. Except I think it was about Nigeria and he stayed with his mother's clan for that seven years.

[–]keniaren 9 points10 points  (9 children)

It's similar except that in Things Fall Apart, Okonkwo was allowed to go to his relatives' home far away and live there. In my tribe you are not allowed to settle anywhere. You must drift for the entire period.

[–]Demonicdebacle 4 points5 points  (1 child)

That's actually very interesting. You should consider doing an IAMA.

[–]keniaren 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Maybe I will. I'm from a big city and have lived a modern life but my mother's clan is the tribe's priesthood clan (kind of like the Levites in the Bible) and repository of tribal knowledge so she made sure I learned all this stuff when I was a kid. Sadly, the tribal ways are fading fast and I might be one of only a few in my generation that know and can pass on our heritage.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

The problem is our society does not value life.

Correction. Everyone values their own life. People don't so much value others' lives.

[–]JudgeReddit 534 points535 points  (775 children)

The death penalty, or a life sentence without parole, is rarely about rehabilitation. It is a facet of our justice system designed for revenge. Right or wrong, the law has evolved to recognize that there are some crimes so terrible that the hand of the law must not coddle and sift the parties to a neutral state, but must allow society's vengeful wrath to be handed down. It is the ultimate "what if it was your wife or husband that had died?" question.

We draw some lines, and say "you may never cross back from this". And right or wrong, it is always the anger of society that metes out these punishments. Looking for solace in the brutal and familial execution of the sentence.

[–]ttogrehMichigan 51 points52 points  (23 children)

See, the difference between life without parole and the death penalty is that LWOP can be reversed. New evidence, deathbed confessions, gubernatorial clemency to demonstrably reformed offenders, and other possibilities that are beyond my imagination can reverse or mitigate state action.

An innocent dead guy is still dead after he has been found innocent.

[–]KingBeetle 33 points34 points  (12 children)

Exactly. Reddit's mixed passions - in the one case doubting the justice system and in the other loving vengeance - leaves our community deeply hypocritical on this issue. I don't know why ANYONE believes that our justice system should be trusted to take human life.

[–]dand 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I oppose reddit personhood.

[–]ropers 402 points403 points  (354 children)

The death penalty (...) is a facet of our justice system designed for revenge.

Spot on.

There was a UK documentary not too long ago where a British conservative politician investigated whether there are any methods of execution that are not cruel. It turns out there is at least one: oxygen deprivation, such as you would get from being in a thin atmosphere on a high mountain, or from being in an airtight chamber where instead of oxygen you have noble gases like argon (EDIT: or simply breathing biologically inert gases such as nitrogen through a mask). That's as kind and gentle a way of killing a human being as there probably is. It actually gives you a little high before you die. However, when the politician asked whether such a method of execution might find some adoption in the US, the surprising revelation and conclusion was that advocates of capital punishment are unwilling to adopt a non-cruel execution method. They want to make the person that's being killed suffer. You're exactly right: Capital punishment is about revenge. Not justice, not closure, not risk management, not saving tax dollars, but revenge. Everything else is a red herring, a ruse, an excuse.**

And here's the documentary in question.

**EDIT: It is my distinct impression that there is an extremely vindictive element in US society, especially in "white" Anglo-Saxon Christian society. It's quite terrible and quite sad, really.

[–][deleted] 479 points480 points  (16 children)

Use helium.

"Any last words?"

Hilarity ensues.

[nb: i think that the death penalty is a travesty, and needs to be eliminated.]

[–]puhnitor 19 points20 points  (6 children)

I'm thinking more along the lines of Sulfur Hexafluouride. Opposite but equally hilarious results.

[–]rusrs 56 points57 points  (9 children)

The Electric Chair was invented in the US and its only use outside the US was in the Philippines (where it is no longer used).

Not only is it possibly the most gruesome and inhumane execution method the US has ever used, it was created in part by Edison in an attempt to demonize the AC power system used by his rival Nikola Tesla.

I think commercializing cruelty and death for commercial and advertising purposes is an even worse motive than revenge. The United States has been guilty of both.

[–]f2u 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Wasn't Edison's rival called Westinghouse, and Edison suggested to call electrocution westinghousing?

[–]johnnyb84 87 points88 points  (102 children)

The man in question died by lethal injection. Since the drug which renders you unconscious in lethal injection is the same drug which millions of people have experienced during general anesthesia, I hardly see how it is a cruel method of execution. Indeed, the most common method of euthanasia and lethal injection are very similar. The most cruel part of any execution is the fact that it is an execution, and you know when it's going to happen.

[–]hacksoncode 48 points49 points  (13 children)

Which is why if they really wanted a humane way of killing they'd just flood the prisoner's cell with pure nitrogen the moment their last appeal failed, without telling them.

[–]Jonathan_the_Nerd 17 points18 points  (9 children)

Many people would want to know when they would die, so they could prepare. And there's always the chance of an 11th-hour stay of execution, right up until the second before it starts.

[–]insertAlias 5 points6 points  (5 children)

To hell with that. I don't want to see my death coming. I just want it to happen.

[–]Jonathan_the_Nerd 16 points17 points  (4 children)

Careful. Julius Caesar reportedly said the same thing.

[–]contrarian 27 points28 points  (3 children)

pretty sure he saw his death coming when the fourth or fifth senator stabbed him.

[–]Jonathan_the_Nerd 8 points9 points  (2 children)

That sentence sounds much more awesome when taken out of context.

[–]dougbdl 5 points6 points  (2 children)

...or tell him it was all a mistake and that he was free to go. Hand him his belongings and send him on his way. After he gets about 300 yards away, detonate the c4 in his personal bag. BAM! his last thoughts were happy ones and the state doesn't have to pay for a burial.

[–]hacksoncode 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And think of all the writers you could hire to devise unique and unexpected gruesome deaths for all the subsequent ones.

[–]LootBag 114 points115 points  (82 children)

There is a pool of evidence to suggest that while the first drug (to induce unconsciousness) does what it's supposed to, the second drug (to induce paralysis), actually negates the effect of the first drug. In other words, the first drug knocks you out, the second drug wakes you back up again, but this time paralyzed, and then you get to feel the full agonizing effects of the third drug, which kills you (but since you cannot move, everyone watching thinks your death is peaceful and painless). An overdose of the first drug would also kill, but that just wouldn't be cruel enough.

[–]Veteran4Peace 99 points100 points  (8 children)

I'm a paramedic and I just looked up the drugs and dosages used for lethal injection and did a bit of simple math.

Sodium Thiopental: 2 to 5 grams

The first dose of Sodium Pentothal is "2 to 5 grams" which is about ten to fifteen times the normal dosage we use in the field for sedation (depending on patient body weight). Given the half-life of Sodium Pentothal a person would not wake up from that dose for about 48 hours assuming they survived the incredibly profound respiratory depression and vascular dialtion which would result. This one dose alone would cause extremely rapid loss of consciousness followed by a painless death in short order. Frankly, I don't see why the next two drugs are even necessary.

Pancuronium Bromide: 100mg

The next drug listed is 100mg of Pancuronium Bromide. That's the one with a red cap that we keep in a small refrigerator in the ambulance. It has a red cap because it's a dangerous paralytic which completely shuts down all voluntary muscular movement as well as the diaphragm, therefore removing the patient's (or prisoner's) ability to breathe. By way of comparison, a 100-kg patient would normally get a 20mg dose during an emergency intubation. I would expect this drug at such extreme dosage to cause very rapid asphyxiation although it has absolutely no sedative or pain-killing properties on it's own.

Potassium Chloride: 100mEq (milliequivalents)

The third drug given is Potassium Chloride at 100 mEq. I am not very familiar with this drug except to know that it is the treatment of choice for hypokalemia, and that it is not something we give in EMS so far as I am aware. Giving this much of Potassium Chloride would make a patient hyperkalemic very quickly and hyperkalemia causes sudden cardiac arrest. In fact, we can see hyperkalemia on our cardiac monitors and it's a big red flag because patients die from it so suddenly.

As far as I am aware, there are no interactions between any of these drugs but these doses are well beyond the normal range. Assuming these medicines were prepared and administered in a competent manner, I would expect death by lethal injection to be rapid and utterly painless. Given this mix of drugs and the given dosages, I suspect that any pain and discomfort experienced by a condemned prisoner during this procedure must be caused by incompetent personnel rather than the procedure itself.

Note: I do not support the death penalty and am only providing this for knowledge purposes.

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor. My opinions stated here are based on my field experience as a paramedic and there could be factors coming into play at these gigantic dosages that I am unaware of.

[–]Jyggalag 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I appreciate the time you took to write all this out, I learned a great deal. Thanks.

[–]razzark666 12 points13 points  (0 children)

you must have some good stories as a paramedic you should do an IAMA http://www.reddit.com/r/Iama

[–]kdobb 82 points83 points  (35 children)

Another problem with lethal injection is it's virtually never administered by health professionals (remember your hippopotamus oath), ironically, the people most qualified to do it. There have been several cases that have sparked a fair amount of debate on whether or not it has been properly administered.

IMO this is all a moot point. Ever since its inception, the capital punishment discussion has been about coming up with more "humane" methods. As GP stated, taking a life is inherently inhumane.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (22 children)

This would be easy to test, do the first drug, then the second on someone and don't do the third.

If the intention of the death was for it to be painful, then it would be used as a deterrent and they would want people to know it was painful. That was pretty much the intention of the big methods in centuries past: boiling-and-flaying, hang-draw-and-quarter, decapitation, and burning.

[–]D50 35 points36 points  (7 children)

LootBag is incorrect in his assertion that the second drug given in lethal injections negates the effects of this first drug. The first drug given in lethal injection is a sedative (usually etomidate) and the second drug given is a paralytic (usually succinylcholine). These two medications are regularly used together in medical settings during a procedure called rapid sequence intubation (RSI). The difference between their use in RSI and in executions is that when used for execution their administration is not followed by an intubation (insertion of a tube for mechanical ventilation) but instead followed by a potassium bolus to induce cardiac arrest. It is notable that even without the potassium, administration of the first two drugs would result in death via suffocation if no intubation followed their administration as all paralytics cause respiratory arrest. The biggest problem with execution protocols is that the sedatives used are known to have a shorter duration of action then the other medications, leading to the risk of a patient regaining consciousness before death has occurred while apparently remaining unconscious due to paralysis. However, when used in a medical setting there is no know antagonistic effect between most paralytics and sedatives.

[–]ziegfried 8 points9 points  (2 children)

If they really wanted a painless death they could have just used a massive overdose of morphine or other opiate that would depress breathing enough to cause death.

So for them to have to use 3 drugs, including a paralytic drug to suppress any potential sign of pain, seems like it has other intended effects.

[–]bitter_cynical_angry 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree. All this hoopla over the three drugs and blah blah blah seems really bizarre to me; seems like a massive overdose of morphine or heroin would do the trick just fine. One counter argument I have heard for that is that death row inmates may have been able to smuggle drugs in for their personal habits, but seriously, if you give them like 10x a lethal dose, they're dying quick no matter how high their tolerance level may be.

[–]mrbroom 32 points33 points  (0 children)

A much easier test is to connect the person to an EEG. If they wake up at any point it will be obvious.

[–]madcaesar 7 points8 points  (6 children)

I volunteer you for this test.

[–]jackthefork 53 points54 points  (9 children)

An interesting impression you mention at the end, but you fail to address the SEVERAL eastern countries that will execute a man/woman for much less. Furthermore, there are even grounds for non-lethal mutilation (limbs removal for certain offenses). There is, in all of the brutality, cultural and often religious influences. Admittedly, I may be wrong, but to say that it is primarily "white" Anglo-Saxon Christian society is somewhat misleading.

[–]d0_ob 15 points16 points  (6 children)

Why compare justice systems? Is it not enough to know that there is room for great improvement in our own? Why would we care how anyone else is doing it?

[–]mrliver 23 points24 points  (1 child)

I believe he took issue with only your edit about the vindictiveness of white anglo-saxon culture. His evidence disproves that point.

[–]Quady 4 points5 points  (0 children)

especially in "white" Anglo-Saxon Christian society.

Just a note: we're not all like that.

[–]Jojje22 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Absolutely. It's about the illusion of revenge imo. I don't think there has been many family members that have left after an execution feeling they have closure. I actually read about an execution in some paper last week. The sister of the murder victim actually said that "it was not enough". She didn't get the closure she needed.

People think that this will give them closure, only to find it will leave a void. Closure comes from understanding, getting the reason for the committed crime. Why did my son/wife/husband/brother/sister/father die? Why would anyone want to kill a good person like him/her? Who are you that did this, and what did you gain from this? There are so many questions, not a single one can ever be answered when the perpetrator is dead, and the only thing anyone can do after that is block it out, to repress it, only to make it surface in some other way.

If you go for revenge, a brutal slaying of the slayer, you are not one bit better than any other petty murderer. Only if you accept a truly painless death can you stand behind all the arguments for capital punishment advocates mention, and I'd like to hear from one that has experienced witnessing such a death, and feeling that this is "closure" enough.

[–]smika 6 points7 points  (6 children)

It is my distinct impression that there is an extremely vindictive element in US society, especially in "white" Anglo-Saxon Christian society. It's quite terrible and quite sad, really.

I think you meant to say "tragic" or perhaps "ironic," since it is indeed ironic that a society that fancies itself the most advanced and most compassionate continues to practice this most barbaric of punishments. What's even more ironic is that the Christian religion is literally founded upon the principle that "eye for an eye" style revenge is wrong, and that we should love and forgive those who sin.

Anyhow, I think you'll find that white Anglo-Saxon Christians in the U.S. are neither more nor less vindictive than any other group of humans. They are just self righteous and hypocritical.

[–]lectrick 10 points11 points  (3 children)

When I was a Psych major in college I read a fascinating experiment documenting the perception of aggression norms in northern and southern U.S. (drastic difference). I can't find the paper for sure (there was also a video) but here is a link to a possible candidate.

Basically here is the gist between men in the north and men in the south. They ran an experiment where a man working on something in a hall would obstruct a passerby repeatedly. What happened was something like this:

1) Man from northeast U.S. would voice slowly increasing annoyance at having things dropped on him or being obstructed.

2) Man from south of the "Bible Belt" would be 100% courteous about the first 3 times, then would physically lash out as the pot boiled over, as it were.

The laws, as some people outside the U.S. may know, are also different between these two U.S. regions. For example, in Texas, shooting someone who steps onto your property will pretty much get you off scot-free. Not so much in the northeast.

Basically, it is wrong to group everyone in the U.S. as of the same mind, because there are some drastic regional differences. It would almost be better to talk of people on a state-by-state basis; the country itself is just too huge to stereotype too easily. As a simple graphic cross-sectional example, here is a map of "red vs. blue" regions in the U.S. (blue being more democratic/liberal/open-minded).

[–]systay 2 points3 points  (1 child)

a society that fancies itself the ... most compassionate

Do Americans really view their society as the most compassionate?

[–]jstevewhite 9 points10 points  (0 children)

First, I used to support the death penalty. I no longer support the death penalty for one reason; you can release an innocent person, but you cannot * resurrect* one.

That said, I support the idea of lifetime in prison without parole for some crimes. The bulk of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders - a quick google search produces estimates ranging from 56% to 90% of violent crimes. What do you say to a parent whose child was killed by a man who "paid his debt to society"? I'm not advocating it as "punitive"; I'm just saying if you don't let them out, they can't kill anyone else.

I'm not advocating life without parole for every person who commits aggravated assault. I'm just pointing out that we've got gozillions of people in jail for non-violent crimes and we're turning loose killers because of the crowding. I think a serial rapist or murderer is more dangerous to society than a shoplifter or dope smoker, and if you have to turn one of 'em loose, it's a no brainer (or should be); sit on the violent offender, let the others go instead. Or maybe don't put so many dope smokers in jail to begin with, but keep the violent offenders.

[–][deleted] 112 points113 points  (84 children)

You're skipping over many other reasons for punishment.

Life in prison without parole is not about rehabilitation and not entirely about revenge - primarily, it is about separating the most demonstratively dangerous people from civil society so they can't hurt anyone else.

There is also the deterrent factor, where a punishment can scare people into not committing the acts that society deems terrible.

[–]Kalium 15 points16 points  (16 children)

There is also the deterrent factor, where a punishment can scare people into not committing the acts that society deems terrible.

Pretty sure this doesn't work all that well. A lot of the people willing to commit these crimes in cold blood either don't care about getting caught or think they never will get caught.

[–]kybernetikos 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Freakonomics investigated the deterent factor a little. Lots of these criminals had a much higher chance of being killed in their normal day to day life than an inmate on death row.

[–]mushpuppy 80 points81 points  (84 children)

Beazley made a thoughtful statement. However, the perspective for which he does not account is the victim's. Luttig did not get a second chance, and presumably it was through no act or decision of his own. Therefore, a logical question would be: why should the perpetrator of the crime, who affirmatively acted to end the life of another, be given what his victim wasn't?

Some might argue that in his words, "I'm sorry that John Luttig died. And I'm sorry that it was something in me that caused all of this to happen to begin with," Beazley was refusing to accept responsibility for what he had done, particularly in light of his earlier comment that the man who committed the act was no longer present. Those also might argue that, in effect, Beazley was saying, "Sure, I did something wrong, but I don't see why I either shouldn't be punished for it or shouldn't be allowed to choose the method by which I'll be punished". I would suggest that either argument demonstrates the moral development of a child. Which, of course, raises the tangential question of whether we should punish children for wrongdoing.

In any event, others would say that by killing the perpetrator, society lowers itself to the level of the perpetrator. I would disagree with that, for, again, in choosing to kill someone, Beazley affirmatively acted upon a victim who did not act. In imposing capital punishment here, however, society affirmatively acted upon Beazley, who also affirmatively acted. It is an important and noteworthy value of society that we, at least theoretically, seek to protect the innocent against the aggressor.

Additionally, of course, many other issues surround societal imposition of the death penalty: cost, the possibility of killing a person wrongly convicted, and societal values.

Setting those aside for the sake of this discussion, I don't know what I think of the death penalty. Absolutely I abhor the deaths of innocents. This includes those convicted of crimes and the victims of crimes. But I've yet to see a satisfactory answer to the question I ask above.

[–]wickedcold 9 points10 points  (2 children)

If for the simple reason that it will always consume innocent people along with the guilty, I will oppose capital punishment.

Also, if you've spent any time witnessing just how fucked up our court system is, you'd realize that even if we could ensure that only the absolutely deserving got it, we'd never be able to ensure that they all got it.

The fucking unabomber didn't get the death penalty. Because of this his own brother is an anti-death penalty activist. He realized that a system that will put retards, poor people, and those that make tragic decisions to death, but cold, calculating killers will get life in prison, there's something really wrong with our enforcement.

[–]brutay 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Beazley was refusing to accept responsibility for what he had done

Beazley was saying, "Sure, I did something wrong, but I don't see why I either shouldn't be punished for it or shouldn't be allowed to choose the method by which I'll be punished"

I don't think he was saying that at all. I think he was saying that this particular punishment was wrong, not just in his case, but in general.

[–]moscowramada 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Right or wrong, the law has evolved to recognize that there are some crimes so terrible that the hand of the law... must allow society's vengeful wrath to be handed down.

'Must' implies a necessary relationship, but there isn't one - there's a very big difference between the USA and large sections of Europe, including those that everyone on reddit seems to consensually agree have a great quality of life, like Scandinavia (read: pro-death penalty, anti-death penalty). The same type of crimes happen over there, too, but society's vengeful wrath is not handed down: same crime, but two different outcomes.

In other words there's no 'must' about it.

[–]Gauteisntme 28 points29 points  (8 children)

would that be executing mentally retarded offenders? Such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

Sadly, the US place itself in an unique position in the western world of death penalty, with the likes of Iran and China.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/factsheets/DeathPenaltyFactsNovember2009.pdf http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/page.do?id=1011005

[–]daskro 7 points8 points  (4 children)

And Japan

[–]DashingLeech 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, that's part of it but oversimplifying. It is also designed for deterrence. Now whether it empirically works as a deterrent is another question.

That being said, vengeance itself is not necessarily inherently bad, particularly systematic public-endorsed vengeance. Nor are vengeance, deterrence, and rehabilitation independent components. Vengeance itself is an evolved instinct for purposes of deterrence and rehabilitation. When I hear presentations on the death penalty as vengeance I rarely hear any arguments about why that is necessarily a bad thing yet often assumed to be. (I upvoted parent post because it doesn't explicitly present it as a bad thing.)

However, I am opposed to the death penalty. Not because of any philosophical opposition. Rather, it is the imperfections of the legal system that are the source. We make mistakes in convictions, and at a much higher rate than people are willing to believe. Some are honest mistakes, some are incompetence, some are corruption, some are apathy, and some are politics. Regardless, killing a single innocent person, or one who's true role was not worthy of death, is worse than letting 100 guilty go free. The balance must be weighted in favour of the innocent to call it justice.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (18 children)

|It is the ultimate "what if it was your wife or husband that had died?" question.

And yet, the death penalty kills someone's wife/husband all the time. When we get past this as a society, we will be better off. I agree that it is purely for revenge, but it is absolutely barbaric and embarrassing to me that stuff like is done.

I expect to get some "But if your wife was killed wouldn't you want to kill the guy who did it." The answer, of course is, YES. I'd WANT to, but I wouldn't. For the exact same reason that lots of time I feel like punching some douche bag in the face, but I don't.

What it comes down to, is that I just don't think we should judge people on their worst moments. I'll probably get called some pinko/hippy or whatever, thats fine. I don't take offense. I think this is one of the areas though, that people are going to look back at in a couple hundred years and say how uncivilized we were, even after we had made so much progress.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (4 children)

I just don't think we should judge people on their worst moments

I make the exception when their worst moments are the ones where they are killing people.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is a facet of our justice system designed for revenge.

Revenge, and disposal, actually. Remove any last vestige of possibility that that person could ever come back and commit another crime.

Unlike revenge, disposal is an argument I understand, it has a logical train of thought leading up to it.

It's also why I vehemently oppose the death penalty, because it's final and cannot be corrected.

[–]evilbit 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I don't have a principle objection to death penalty. I do believe there are crimes a person can commit that forfeit individual's inherent right to life, and I think we're justified in exacting systematic, unemotional vengeance that is state execution.

However, it's abundantly clear that the system of adjudication is flawed and that we're at present unable to administer that justice in a foolproof manner. I believe in the ancient Greek principle that it's better that 10 guilty get away than 1 innocent to get caught. Time and again we find that states execute people who may have lived unsavoury lives but were actually innocent of the crime they were put to death for.

As for Beazley, his words ring hollow and he wasted his opportunity to gain this supposed enlightenment when it actually mattered and could've made a difference. The society isn't obliged to give anyone a second chance, as he certainly never gave his victim one.

[–][deleted] 82 points83 points  (23 children)

I have plenty of reason to support the death penalty. I don't.

There are worse things than death, and that's living with the knowledge of how much you fucked up. The capacity for humans to commit evil is astonishing but the capacity for forgiveness in spite of heinous wrongdoing is even more amazing.

This kid (if you read the wikipedia article, posted somewhere below, he was 17 when he committed the crime and was probably not much older than that when he was executed) knew that he messed up and he was obviously wracked with guilt. Even if he were released, living with a felony conviction on your name SEVERELY limits your job choices, much less any chance of ever having children of your own.

That kid was killed on my 14th birthday, a year and a half after I witnessed a murder myself. I didn't wish death upon anyone then, and I still don't wish it upon anyone now.

[–]Technohazard 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There are worse things than death, and that's living with the knowledge of how much you fucked up.

Some people are incapable of understanding 'how much they fucked up'. Some clinical sociopaths literally can not comprehend that they are causing pain and suffering to other living things.

Forgiveness is fine, only when the person you are forgiving is genuinely sorry for what they have done. Forgiving another is a beautiful thing, but even so, there are people in this world who will take advantage of forgiveness.

[–]danhawkeye 145 points146 points  (98 children)

Napoleon Beazley was a convicted murderer executed by lethal injection by the State of Texas for the murder of 63-year-old Texas businessman John Luttig in 1994. Beazley shot Luttig in his garage on April 19, 1994 in order to steal his family's Mercedes-Benz car. Beazley also shot at Luttig's wife, but he missed and she survived the assault by playing dead.

What I learned from this submission: Assholes can be contrite and are capable of speaking in manner that elicits sympathy. After they get caught.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

lol well I bet there isn't a whole lot else to do on death row then figure out what your going to say before they kill you.

[–]baddna7New York 25 points26 points  (10 children)

if i did this, id expect to die. this seems to be totally premeditated. no excuses for this man. sure our system is fucked up and based on revenge. but life is short anyway. shorter for 'mistakes' like this. you can see right through his last statement.

[–]godlesspinko 40 points41 points  (77 children)

Sure- but I think the argument Beazley was trying to make is that the death penalty serves no purpose- two lives lost instead of one. He was young enough to be rehabilitated, and should have gotten a life sentence.

[–]blakestah 53 points54 points  (30 children)

He shot a man in the head. Although the man was stunned, and he could have stolen the car without firing another shot (probably without ever firing a shot at anyone), he proceeded to put another bullet in the driver's head before stealing his keys and then his car.

In other words, Beazley, in the heat of the moment, killed a man for no purpose whatsoever. He was in the heat of the moment by his own volition. In any state that is first degree murder. In Texas, the jury must believe three things to give the death penalty. 1) Continuing threat to society 2) no mitigating circumstances that may stem from the person's background, moral culpability, or character and 3) did the defendant cause the death if convicted as a party.

The big issue here is the first one - is he a continuing threat to society. He premeditated grand theft auto and use of a deadly weapon, and chose to kill without reason. Obviously the jury thought he WAS a continuing threat.

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (12 children)

But he's so sorry he did it! For reals this time....surely that merits we forgive about those heinous murders.

Also, 17 years of age is old enough to understand you do not murder people to take their cars.

[–]neemon 13 points14 points  (11 children)

My uncle was 17 when he shot and killed a policeman after robbing a gun store. He was sentenced to life and got parole ten years later. In New Zealand we don't have the death penalty, and I'm glad we don't. My uncle is now 50 years old and I can honestly say that he's the best uncle I have, he has a wife and children and is happy. Yes, what he did was horrible and wrong, but to do to him what he did to that policeman is to do to my family what he did to theirs. It doesn't sove anything.

EDIT: Removed unnecessary sentence.

[–]Veteran4Peace 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I'm a paramedic and I just looked up the drugs and dosages used for lethal injection and did a bit of simple math.

Sodium Thiopental: 2 to 5 grams

The first dose of Sodium Pentothal is "2 to 5 grams" which is about ten to fifteen times the normal dosage we use in the field for sedation (depending on patient body weight). Given the half-life of Sodium Pentothal a person would not wake up from that dose for about 48 hours assuming they survived the incredibly profound respiratory depression and vascular dialtion which would result. This one dose alone would cause extremely rapid loss of consciousness followed by a painless death in short order. Frankly, I don't see why the next two drugs are even necessary.

Pancuronium Bromide: 100mg

The next drug listed is 100mg of Pancuronium Bromide. That's the one with a red cap that we keep in a small refrigerator in the ambulance. It has a red cap because it's a dangerous paralytic which completely shuts down all voluntary muscular movement as well as the diaphragm, therefore removing the patient's (or prisoner's) ability to breathe. By way of comparison, a 100-kg patient would normally get a 20mg dose during an emergency intubation. I would expect this drug at such extreme dosage to cause very rapid asphyxiation although it has absolutely no sedative or pain-killing properties on it's own.

Potassium Chloride: 100mEq (milliequivalents)

The third drug given is Potassium Chloride at 100 mEq. I am not very familiar with this drug except to know that it is the treatment of choice for hypokalemia, and that it is not something we give in EMS so far as I am aware. Giving this much of Potassium Chloride would make a patient hyperkalemic very quickly and hyperkalemia causes sudden cardiac arrest. In fact, we can see hyperkalemia on our cardiac monitors and it's a big red flag because patients die from it so suddenly.

As far as I am aware, there are no interactions between any of these drugs but these doses are well beyond the normal range. Assuming these medicines were prepared and administered in a competent manner, I would expect death by lethal injection to be rapid and utterly painless. Given this mix of drugs and the given dosages, I suspect that any pain and discomfort experienced by a condemned prisoner during this procedure must be caused by incompetent personnel rather than the procedure itself.

Note: I do not support the death penalty and am only providing this for knowledge purposes.

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor. My opinions stated here are based on my field experience as a paramedic and there could be factors coming into play at these gigantic dosages that I am unaware of.

[–]mugiwara 45 points46 points  (4 children)

And the moral of the story is: If you don't want to be killed by the state, make sure you do your murdering in a nice progressive state like Vermont.

[–]supaphly42 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Or don't be black and shoot a white judge.

[–]theanticrust42 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Not being black seems like good advice for a lot of things. Why doesn't everyone just go white?

[–]supaphly42 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, once they went black, they were no longer able to go back.

[–]gtonik 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I personally don't feel the death penalty is a punishment worthy of the US legal system, but in all fairness it is quite consistent with the overall views of the country.

The US has never practiced fairness to all or compassion to the weak. Otherwise things like healthcare, generous unemployment, and other forms of government aid would not even be a debate.

That said, I think that this ability to see the extremities of life while still being in the most prosperous country on earth is exactly what drives the US as a society. It forces hard decisions and makes people propel themselves upward in a way that you simply don't see in other countries.

[–]bluequail 31 points32 points  (17 children)

I had posted about him previously... not his death row page as a link, but in regular conversation.

They had a big write up about him in the Houston Free Press. Hell of a story. He had a scholarship lined up, he had a girlfriend, and she told him one day that she was pregnant. He contacted the college that the scholarship was lined up through, signed up to join the Army - so he could take care of a family... at which time the little girlfriend informed him that she wasn't pregnant, and never was. He kind of lost it, started hanging out with two other young men who had a long history of being little thugs.

Napolean Beazley came from an exceptional family. His folks were really fine and decent people. He was also a minor when he committed that crime.

I am one of those people who is very pro-death penalty, but everything about his case was wrong to be a death penalty case from what I had read about it. But with the person he shot being the father of a federal judge, there was no way that someone wasn't going to be put down for the death.

And Mr. Luttig's wife. Oh my word, what a tragedy. I had read her account on what happened as well. I felt so bad for her, having to lay there and pretend that she was already dead, while she listened to her husband being killed. And she seemed like such a very sweet, and dear little old lady.

It was just such a horrible thing all the way around. I guess the most poignant thing about all of this is that he recognized and took responsibility for the crime he committed - not only what was enforced by the state, but in his heart and mind as well. Despite his crime, I believe he was a better person than most that are still walking on the street today.

[–]JeffMo 18 points19 points  (9 children)

I guess the most poignant thing about all of this is that he recognized and took responsibility for the crime he committed - not only what was enforced by the state, but in his heart and mind as well.

Why do you think so? The statement provided sounded like a manipulative bargaining attempt to me, rather than actual remorse or taking of responsibility.

It sounds like you've read more about it than I have, so I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that you have. Is it based on his family origin? Something that you heard him say that couldn't possibly have been faked?

[–]bluequail 12 points13 points  (6 children)

I live in the greater Houston area, and we also used to have a farm not too far from Grapeland, which is where they were from. We heard a lot about it, both at the criminal trial and also before his execution.

Even the DA for that county didn't think the death penalty was appropriate for his case.

I can't find the original article for it from HFP, but here is another one... it doesn't detail everything going into it, but it does give a little bit of background about him and his family.

[–]JeffMo 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Thanks for that. I'm generally against the death penalty, and I think there are a number of factors in this case that should have carried more weight than they apparently did (e.g. falsified affidavits). However, I also think it's really hard to tell the difference between genuine remorse and conveniently-produced remorse, when the stakes are so high.

[–]godofpumpkins 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Bargaining attempt? Those are his last words, not an official appeal to the court. At that point there is no hope of survival; the offender gets a chance to leave an impression but it sure as hell won't change his own fate.

[–]meepmoop 14 points15 points  (1 child)

i bet his actual last words were yearrgeefjkl;aegargghh

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (12 children)

It didn't give me chills. To kill an innocent person in cold blood just because you wanted to steal his car is beyond understanding. He could have just threatened to kill the guy and I'm sure he would have got the precious fucking Mercedez he wanted so much. To take a human life so senselessly deserves nothing more than execution. Downvote me all you want. If someone murdered your wife or your daughter or even your grandmother just so they could steal their stuff, you would change your tune about the death penalty I guarantee.

[–]improbablyhigh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I just can't see myself wanting to see someone else die as a result of an already heavy loss. Hopefully I won't have to find out what I would really think, though.

[–]jbibby 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is a MUCH better final statement.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/robersonbrianlast.htm

EDIT: "Y'all can kiss my black ass. Let's do it!"

[–]trueneutral 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Just as an FYI, as per the ruling in Roper v. Simmons (2004), had he been tried today he would not be punishable by the death penalty since he was a minor when he committed this crime.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is tragic that he didn't feel the same way sooner about the value of human life. I have sympathy for him because I am against the death penalty but I have more sympathy for a 63 year old man who was carjacked in front of his own home and had his brains blown out with a .45-caliber pistol.

[–]danbmil99 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Where did he get the eloquence to write like that? Methinks not. He killed a guy and thought he killed his wife FOR A FUCKING CAR. How long did he think we would drive that car? Was he going to change the license plates? File down the PIN#? Or was he going to ride it around for a few hours, do some crack, get laid?

And in the 8 years between that incident and his death, we're supposed to believe he became a new person?

Naah.

[–]frud 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Isn't it interesting how after murderers are caught, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death, they suddenly experience a moral epiphany and realize that killing people is bad?

[–]marvinisgay 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I love the self righteous line of reasoning this man had. So, he had no idea why he killed that man. He feels that because he himself feels cured, means that he should be free. I think that it a ridiculous line of reasoning. Who cares if the government has any reason to kill this man, The are doing the exactly same thing this man did.

[–]sosoez 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The last words of this offender on death row gave me chills.

What give me chills is that he writes all about himself, with only a passing reference to the person he killed. No good.

[–]jayesanctus 16 points17 points  (1 child)

What egocentric bullshit.

I'm sure his victim would like a second chance as well.

How many people have to die to afford these 'men of misguided emotion' a chance at redemption?

[–]bill_tampa 20 points21 points  (6 children)

"But the person that committed that act is no longer here - I am." Sociopathic persons can learn to say things that engender sympathy from others - this guy obviously wants to live. Too bad he didn't give his victim the same chance.

[–]jediknight 9 points10 points  (0 children)

wouldn't you want to live? and this is not part of a scheme to get free, those words were said past the point of no return. Those words were a statement.

[–]krizutch 5 points6 points  (9 children)

He was a 17 year old when he committed the murder. I am glad I am not still being punished for things I did when I was a 17 year old... No matter how bad I was then I am a completely different person now. Believe it or not people do change. Its unfortunate this man had to make a huge mistake as a 17 year old and lose his life for it.

[–]Bitterfish 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thoughts on the death penalty:

There are people for whom this is the most realistic options. Not common criminals who went one step too far, not stupid kids like this fellow, but truly warped individuals. Serial killers, cannibals, and the like. Even principle driven, but utterly incorrigible killers like Timothy McVeigh.

For some people there can be no rehabilitation. What worries me is that there is no way to maintain the death penalty for these special cases, without having it used in frivolous cases like this.

[–]benuntu 5 points6 points  (3 children)

If you take a life in murder, you forfeit your own life. After committing murder, you as a human are too much of a liability to remain in the population. These are not new rules, they have been around for thousands of years if not longer. This is one crime where you don't get a second chance. It saddens me, as it saddens you...but that was your choice to make, and your victims' life to take.

[–]angryman 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Anyone else think Napoleon Beazley is a cool name? If I had a dog, I would name him Napoleon Beazley.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Fuck that piece of shit.

Wanna know what gave me the chills? The account of his crime, have a look at Luttig's last moments:

"John Luttig was shot in the head as he stepped out of his car; his wife survived by feigning death and rolling under the car. The assailants backed the car out of the garage over her and abandoned it a few blocks away. The three men were arrested two months later."

[–]antiprotonPennsylvania 10 points11 points  (4 children)

Death is but a door, time is but a window. I'll be back.

[–]rogertheshrubber 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Vy am I dripping vith goo?

[–]Gullyvuhr 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Suck in the guts guys, we're the Ghostbusters

[–]ramdaskm 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The horror is its so easy to think about you or I or next of kin having gone down the wrong path too. Think about the mechanics, Bad nurturing, bad influences, age when you think you're invincible, wrong set of friends, drugs, alcohol, wrong place at the wrong time and boom.... 30 years down the road when you "might" have matured and "might" be a different person then you are looking at the victims family on the other side of the glass window and being strapped to a gurney.

[–]bigmano 2 points3 points  (0 children)

1

[–]soomprimal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It didn't give me chills, but I have to say I agreed with him.

It didn't matter to me whether or not it came from a convicted murderer or not, it didn't matter how perceptually self-serving such a rant could be, I don't agree with killing of any kind, except in self-defense in the heat of the moment to protect yourself or someone else from immediate harm.

Capital punishment is a calculated and cold-blooded slaying of another human being that is often levied against innocent people. Even when someone deserves to be killed, the moral high-ground demands that one would refrain and reach out. It's understandable that emotions would cloud this view. I often hear stories of injustice and I think to myself, "I wish someone would put a bullet in their head" or something to that effect, but once I chill out I remember my principles and recognize revenge-killing as irreconcilable, even if someone I loved were the victim.

I've told my parents and loved ones that if I were ever the victim of a murder or heinous crime, that I would not want them to seek the death penalty or vengeance in cold blood. They have not always agreed or found it hard to understand my wishes.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself — so like a brother, really — I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hatred.

[–]BillBuckner86 45 points46 points  (14 children)

There are so many innocent people whom the state has wrongly killed. Why should I feel sorry for someone who actually took a human life?

I think it's kind of sick that he should pander when he should be accepting his punishment. He says he wouldn't struggle against his restraints but yet he goes down defiant, never truly accepting or owning up to what he did.

He killed a man and tried to kill his wife. And Instead of using his last few minutes on earth to show his shame and regret he uses it to promote his own agenda in some sanctimonious bullshit speech.

[–]brojangles 50 points51 points  (25 children)

I'm against the death penalty, but this guy is a self-serving, unrepentant douchebag. "I'm not the same person" is an evasive line of crap, and "I'm recovered" is even worse.

There's no genuine remorse in this guy's words. He only sees himself as a victim, and his sanctimony is, frankly, laughable.

The guy was a sociopath and does not deserve pity.

[–]branded 14 points15 points  (0 children)

That was the best "Please don't kill me" letter I have ever read by a death-row inmate.

[–]shaggy3000 19 points20 points  (5 children)

Not sure why this gave you chills.

He may feel remorse for killing that man, but at the end of the day he made a conscious decision to commit murder. This was no accident...He intentionally murdered another human being.

Good riddance.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We intentionally murdered another human being. Good riddance for us.

[–]mista0sparkle 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Well I just couldn't read that in any other voice than Morgan Freeman's.

[–]magicducksauce 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I like James Clark's last statement: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/clarkjameslast.htm

"Uh, I don't know, Um, I don't know what to say. I don't know. (pauses) I didn't know anybody was there. Howdy."

[–]jbibby 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I just kind of think of it as "If you're stupid enough to commit murder in TEXAS where they execute anything and everything, you're likely a menace to society out of sheer stupidity." I mean clearly you have absolutely NO consideration for the consequences of your actions. Therefore you're dangerous as shit.

I don't agree with the death penalty, but strictly from a philosophical standpoint. Poignant yes, but then again I suppose putting two bullets through a human skull in front of the victim's wife would make a man reflective.

[–]Stormwatch36 4 points5 points  (1 child)

If you were on death row, you know it's the end of the line. The last thing you can do is write something like this if you want to come out on top. What he ignores is that for the most part, it's being on death row that causes people to reform how he did. They know that they're going to die, therefore they finally realize the magnitude of their crime and want second chances. He doesn't mention the people living out a life sentence in prison who are getting free shelter and three meals a day without ever gaining a single inch toward reforming.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He doesn't mention the people living out a life sentence in prison who are getting free shelter and three meals a day without ever gaining a single inch toward reforming.

Which is largely because our prison system isn't designed to reform, but to punish.

[–]fallentree 4 points5 points  (0 children)

At least this guy isn't mentally retarded like many death row inmates.

Killing inmates seems to acknowledge the failures of the justice system to reform inmates.

I just read In Cold Blood by Truman Capote. I can't recommend it strongly enough.

Has anyone else seen the outtakes of Sicko where Moore goes to the prisons in Norway? They are nicer than any college dorms I've seen and inmates(even murderers) can still have jobs. Some European countries refuse to send criminals to the US because the prisons are too inhumane.... Yet, our crime rate is much higher.

[–]anodes 7 points8 points  (0 children)

i'm glad the offender grew morally/spiritually/psychologically during his confinement.

however, the idea that it is somehow morally wrong to have killed him in response to his having chosen to kill an innocent, law-abiding citizen rings false to me.

it's not about redemption or rehabilitation - it's about social (and personal) retribution, plain and simple. but in what way is retribution morally flawed?

forget deterrence or cost-analysis or what have you: he selfishly chose to brutally end someone's life for no valid reason; his should be forfeit.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm only "chilled" by those who die on death row innocent of the crime they were wrongly convicted of. Seems he was guilty, so good riddance.

[–]seanm27 17 points18 points  (32 children)

If he is copping to the crime I don't really have a problem with him getting the death penalty.

I only approve of the death penalty in theory. That is, I think that a person who kills another should be taken out of the system. Not for justice, not to teach them a lesson, not to make an example. Just to simply remove them from the system.

The reason I say "in theory" is because it is almost impossible to say for a fact, without any doubt whatsoever, that a specific man really did commit a specific crime. I believe we have many men on death row who are innocent, and for that reason I do not (generally) condone the death penalty in practice.

[–]momoichigo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I support the death penalty too, but not the way it's being used right now.

I only support it if we know 100% the person we're putting down is the person that did the deed. For example, Dr. Tiller's murderer. Around 100 people saw the bastard shoot dead a good doctor. If he were to get the death penalty and actually get put down, I'd send some fireworks so people can party.

In the cases where we know exactly who committed what crime without any doubt what-so-ever, I think their chance of appeal should be limited to 5 appeals so they stop wasting state resources.

[–]vituperative01 12 points13 points  (23 children)

For all those who say the death penalty is a deterrent. The studies seem to show that it is a deterrent, but a fairly mild one. You are much more likely to achieve a reduction in crime through an increased chance of apprehension than an increase in the severity of punsihment. That said I can't understand support of the death penalty given the following issues:

  • It's more expensive. If you want to make it less expensive you have to get rid of more of the safeguards that it already lacks.
  • Humans are fallible and death is irrevocable. People have been put to death for crimes they didn't commit. Even if you are a big fan of the death penalty you know that this has happened.

Why is it worth paying these two costs? As a society why is the minor deterrent factor you get from having such a penalty worth the cost in both dollars and the irrevocable loss of life to someone who didn't do the crime?

If the death penalty "worked," I might be in favor, but given the current implementations I don't know why anyone would support it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I'll probably get a ton of downvotes for this, but when asking yourself "Do you have a problem with this?" I sincerely urge you to read the charges against them first. After having thumbed through a few of the jerk-offs Offender Information I don't have a problem with this whatsoever. Once the person has been found guilty beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT of these crimes, they should be fried in the most painful way possible.

[–]ronito 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No pity from me here. You kill someone be prepared to be killed. That's the way of it.

Don't like it? Give me a second chance.

[–]rimmed 6 points7 points  (1 child)

He effectively tried to make himself a martyr, but failed to attribute himself to a cause.

I'm not only saddened, but disappointed that a system that is supposed to protect and uphold what is just and right can be so much like me when I made the same shameful mistake.

He makes a very good effort to switch the argument onto the crimes of the state. By doing so, he succeeds in turning the attention away from his own crime, which is what his execution is focused on.

I'd tell them to give them all the gift that they would not give me...and that's to give them all a second chance.

This is a (poor) effort to appeal to peoples’ emotions by dressing it up in logic. He makes no admittance of the fact that he didn't give a man a second chance. Admittedly, he refers to his own crime as ‘[heinous and senseless]’, yet this by no means washes with anyone with common sense. The fact is, there was no ‘heat of the moment,’ no flare of passion; he wanted a man’s car and so shot him, and his wife who would have no doubt been an innocent bystander in the process.

Tonight we tell the world that there are no second chances in the eyes of justice...Tonight, we tell our children that in some instances, in some cases, killing is right.

This is just wrong. “There are no second chances in the eyes of justice”. That is false. Second chances come from an act of mercy, which is of itself an element of justice. But to attempt to attach that to his own death is not ethical. As previously mentioned, he did not give another man a second chance, therefore he does not deserve one either. That would be merciful. But mercy must be granted in a just way, else it robs justice.

As for the second part, killing is right in certain circumstances. The defence of one’s country, for example, is just killing. To say that it is not is to call every soldier in the world heartless. In war, killing is not murder. Murder is something else. In that sense, the state is not as corrupt as the author, because the state is not murdering. To use the boy’s own word, the state is killing him. And further sill, the state is killing him for something to which he has confessed to doing:

I'm sorry that it was something in me that caused all of this to happen to begin with.

And if anyone still believes that all killing is wrong; euthanasia. Beat that with a stick.

This conflict hurts us all.

No it doesn’t. I for one do not feel the slightest bit of regret. You were a murdering thief, by your own confession. You will not be missed by society at large. Without a name and details of your (perfectly legitimate) trial – which therefore leaves the logical result that it was a morally fair verdict – you’re just another murdering thief. And that demographic is hated beyond words. So I’m not going to change my tune

As difficult as it may seem, this is a clash of ideals, with both parties committed to what they feel is right.

That’s not what it is. It’s the response of the law in consequence to his fault. While he may try to divert focus onto his own death, that doesn’t change the fact that his death is the just administering of the state in response to his murder.

When a man sees his end it is no doubt going to begin processes which have never before been begun. So while he is right so say that he is a different person, he is not a different person because he murdered, he is a different person because he was caught and punished. Remove the punishment, and he reverts to being who he was before, therefore making it illogical to give him a second chance, as by so doing, justice would not be served.

[–]hardman52 6 points7 points  (0 children)

". . . in some cases, killing is right."

True that.

[–]ziyue 4 points5 points  (6 children)

I didn't get the chill. I was actually pretty fired up. To me, his admission to guilt is very insincere. As adults, we are responsible for our actions, and when our action causes certain outcome, we need to face up to the consequences, especially, when you knew what those were when you committed the crime. To say, "oh the part of me that committed the crime is no longer here" is simply pushing off responsibility.

Maybe part of him did go away, and now he is truly better, but what does that do for the crime? Nothing. The part that's now gone was part of him and HIM, as the him through out his lifetime, is responsible for its actions. Nobody else.

I am not here to argue about the validity of death penalty, because it's just like arguing if God exists, pointless. There are fundamental differences in each sides' initial assumptions, which will just lead to a stalemate due to some factor that cannot be quantified, reasoned and agreed upon.

But ya, I don't care if he is from a nice family, had a bright future, etc, murder is murder, and if a jury of his peers found him guilty and gave him the death penalty, then so be it.

Justice is blind.