New Updates

[dawnfla6aa2]

I have to turn to you guys for some info. See, I use to think I was a die hard UM fan and then I came to this site. You guys are incredible!

So does anyone know if any of these updates are new?

[LooksLikeCRicci]

The "new" UM which is being broadcast on Spike TV, to my knowledge, has taken each case it's profiled and if there has been an update, it has updated it with the applicable stuff.

So if you're watching it on Spike... it's probably the most updated information available.

[dawnfla6aa2]

Thank you.

[Fletch]

It's really pissing me off when they show an update for someone who murdered someone, and Farina says something like "He was sentenced to 16 years in prison. He was released after serving 5 years."

WTF! Sometimes the judicial system in this country is an absolute disgrace. :mad:

[TracyLynnS]

My DS, who is 21, was watching some of these with me before he left for work. He said, "That guy was sentenced to 18 years for murder and he was released after only 8 years!"

DS was outraged. But that's just one of the few times he's been exposed to our pathetic justice system, where you can kill somebody, spend a few years getting free food and free shelter, and then just mosey on your way to do whatever else you feel like doing in your life of crime.

[Fletch]

DS?

[TracyLynnS]

DS = shorthand for dear son
DH = dear hubby
SO = significant other
etc

[dawnfla6aa2]

I use to be a corrections officer in Florida and I remember the inmates going to court for sentencing and on thier way back to the jail they had already calculated when thier release date would be if they recieved time for good behavior, etc. It use to burn my A**!

[nohwheregirl]

That's what happens when a nation decides that it would rather lock up minorities, poor people, drug addicts and mentally ill people then give them education, jobs, or treatment. The people that really should be locked up get pushed out of the system and put back on the streets. I'll get off my soap box now. :wave:

[VikingsGal]

My DS, who is 21, was watching some of these with me before he left for work. He said, "That guy was sentenced to 18 years for murder and he was released after only 8 years!"

DS was outraged. But that's just one of the few times he's been exposed to our pathetic justice system, where you can kill somebody, spend a few years getting free food and free shelter, and then just mosey on your way to do whatever else you feel like doing in your life of crime.

I am not here to defend ANY justice system but remember we are usually watchig cases that are very old and murder convictions did not always mean life in prison. Here in Minnesota a murder conviction used to mean 20 years. And even if they catch someone 25 years later they must be sentenced how they would have been sentenced back when the crime was committed. Fair? No. But life isn't fair.

And many times prisoners are released due to overcrowding in prisons. Again, fair? No. And prison is much more than free food and free shelter. It is a VERY hard place (rightly so) where you have No privacy, no rights and someone can stab you in the neck and not care cause he is in for life anyway!

But the "getting out early due to good behavior" always makes me laugh. Good behavior? THEY ARE IN PRISON DUE TO BAD BEHAVIOR!!

[kadrmas15]

Well now, let's just take it easy folks. First some FACTS. Yes, it is true that prisoners get free food and shelter, but I find that people that get on their high horse about this probably wouldnt last half a day either side of the bars (either as a guard or inmate). The food is of low quality and is sometimes produced by other inmates, many of which have HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis and who knows what other diseases. These prisons are not country clubs and I have still yet to figure out how people got under the very common and very wrong illusion that they are.

Good behavior is meant for good behavior in prison. If you kept everyone for 100 percent of the time you would have disasterous conditions in prisons in terms of overcrowding and other problems. If non-violent offenders were not being locked up there would be more room. Instead we are throwing non-violent offenders, drug users and other people of this sort into prison for longer periods of time than ever before. Not good. This is what leads to massive overcrowding and this is what leads to mass paroles. You know how much of a disaster that would be? Texas knows first hand.

The feds required Texas to do a mass parole in the late 80's because the state refused to run their prison system properly. As a result many people were released that would not have been in any other circumstance. Among them, Kenneth McDuff, a convicted triple murderer that had been in prison for 23 years was paroled in 1989. He went on to kill, I believe 8 or 9 women while out on parole over a 4 year period. California is looking at a similiar situation if they do not do something and fast. California refuses to run their prison system properly and has refused for sometime. As a result they are 75,000 inmates over capacity and the feds are threatening to order a mass parole in California as well.

As for Florida, I am not slamming the particular person that was a guard, however that state in particular is well known for it's highly corrupt prison system, in particular it's prison guards. Of course some guards are good, some are not good. In Florida, the gaintime system is easy to figure out as it requires 85 percent of the sentence to be served. So subtract 15 percent of the time from your sentence and there is when you will be released.

Finally, in many of the cases where you are hearing about where a person was released after serving 50 percent of their sentence or less there is a simple explaination behind that. It is because many of these people are tried in states where the state is required to sentence the person according to the laws that were in effect at the time of the crime. Since many of these crimes occured in the 1970's and 1980's the laws were much more lax.

Sorry for getting on the soapbox but I felt that some of the facts needed to be put out there and some of the fallacies cleared up.

[TracyLynnS]

Well, I just think we don't apply the death sentence as liberally as we should. Charles Starkweather was 19 years old when he started his killing spree in 1957. 18 months later, they fried him in the electric chair. Caril Fugate probably would have fried too, but she was only 14, and claimed to have been an unwilling captive.

Raymond Fernandez and Martha Beck were 34 and 29 years old when they killed their last victim in 1949. They both died in the electric chair in March 1951.

Fast justice. They had their trials. They had their appeals. They were sentenced to death for the crime of murder and the sentence was carried out. And this was before we even had DNA, or even any kind of good science to make sure we weren't sending innocent people to their deaths.

With the certainty of DNA to back up a conviction, I don't see any reason why a prison system has to be full of convicted murderers sitting around for 15 or 20 years waiting for their sentences to be carried out, or to finish their appeals. Carry out the DP. That's the way to issue an effective mass "parole".

But then, that's just my opinion.

[Big3sCompanyFan]

Well, I just think we don't apply the death sentence as liberally as we should. Charles Starkweather was 19 years old when he started his killing spree in 1957. 18 months later, they fried him in the electric chair. Caril Fugate probably would have fried too, but she was only 14, and claimed to have been an unwilling captive.

Raymond Fernandez and Martha Beck were 34 and 29 years old when they killed their last victim in 1949. They both died in the electric chair in March 1951.

Fast justice. They had their trials. They had their appeals. They were sentenced to death for the crime of murder and the sentence was carried out. And this was before we even had DNA, or even any kind of good science to make sure we weren't sending innocent people to their deaths.

With the certainty of DNA to back up a conviction, I don't see any reason why a prison system has to be full of convicted murderers sitting around for 15 or 20 years waiting for their sentences to be carried out, or to finish their appeals. Carry out the DP. That's the way to issue an effective mass "parole".

But then, that's just my opinion.

You make a good point. Since we can identify killers better these days through forensics they should do it like they did in the 50s and carry out the sentence if they are really sure.

You mentioned Caril Fugate and that pi*sses me off because she was SO guilty and even admitted to cops that she shot victims and held the gun on a couple while Chuck was ransacking. She should not have gotten death but she should've gotten life without parole.

[kadrmas15]

Well, the problem with this philosophy is that it is an overly simplistic way of looking at a very complicated issue. First off, you assume that everyone executed was rightfully executed when in fact there have been innocent people executed. Also, DNA does not apply in all cases. A lot of times, prosecutors are very reluctant to allow DNA testing. Why? Well, because it could potentially prove someone innocent of course! It is still amazing to me how some people think we have to have the death penalty more not less. Most people that have been cleared by DNA or other means had all of their appeals turned down before. The one and your done appeal philosophy was done away with it because it violated the right to due process. The death penalty is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be an effective deterrent. I'm not willing to take a chance and possibly execute an innocent person. There are people on death row now that are innocent! Yet we should "fry" everyone? I'm sorry but I cannot agree with that under any circumstance.

[TracyLynnS]

Nope, no need to fry the "iffy" ones. Just fry the murderers who we KNOW did it, when their crimes are backed up with DNA or another proof.

Who thinks Scott Peterson didn't kill Lacy and Conner on christmas eve? He's on death row, 6 years after the murders. If CA carries out his sentence, it will follow it's average of 20-22 years before applying the DP, adding one more person to their over croweded prisons.

Compared CA's slowpokey way of meting out justice to the federal gov't, who sent Tim McVeigh to the death chamber 7 years after his mass murder occured. He was fastracked compared to what CA does to their killers.

But then, I'm also of the opinion that 3 time convicted rapists should receive the DP. And 1 time child rapists should be sent off to the death chamber, too.

I'm really an extremist in that way, and no one ever agrees with me. It's JMO, as it developed over the years of studying crimes. Also becoming the victim of a child pretador, who the cops flat out told my mom "will progress to killing his victims" to eliminate them as witnesses, and then watching him get no jail time for his crimes helped to mold that opinion.

If they've proven that they'll victimize the innocent repeatedly, and won't be rehabilitated, society has to cut its losses. I'm feeding them and housing them against my will, and I count that as being victimized again.

[kadrmas15]

Well yes McVeigh was executed quickly by today's appeal standards. However that is because he voluntarily chose to end his appeals. He might still be alive now had he not chose to end them. I mean yeah McVeigh did a bad thing and he should not have been out on the streets. However I guess I do not see what good it does for anyone to kill him regardless of how he was killed. I mean, even if you killed him the exact way he killed his victims would that truly help anyone? I do not think so. But that is just me.

Well, California has more problems than just their lengthy appeals process. They have problems with their execution procedure protocol and other issues. I mean to be honest, while I am opposed to the death penalty with a passion, I say if you insist on having this death penalty, you could at least carry it out properly. However California's death row, contains just under 700 men, even if you killed all of them that would not even put a dent in the overcrowding in the state prison's system as it is 75,000 over capacity.

There is a couple of reasons behind this massive increase in overcrowding. First is due to the three strikes law which in my opinion has been a miserable failure. Also, California tends to be much too liberal in returning people to prison for rather minor parole violations. Mandatory minimum sentences have also been a disaster as you have people doing years for non violent crimes while you have people that did violent crimes that are getting out much sooner than the non violent ones.

This is a very complicated issue, there simply is not a one sized fits all solution. Eventually the death penalty will be done away with, it is already slowly losing traction. However like any major social issue it takes decades for public opinion to turn against it.

I mean rapists getting the death penalty? Please. Heck, the death penalty for people that rape adults was done away with over 30 years ago and for good reason. Child rapists should not be executed either. Regardless of how many times they did it. I mean, if they are convicted two or more times I do not have a problem with them serving a life sentence for that. However I cannot agree with your philosophy.

Also, people do not 'fry' anymore. Well unless they choose it. A majority of state's have done away with 'the chair' altogether. The few that still have it only have it as an option, the default execution method is lethal injection. The chair is a pretty vile way to kill someone although not as bad as the gas chamber. Yes I know a majority of these guys are guilty and yes I know more often than not they killed people in a more vile manner than they themselves are being killed. However we like to think of ourselves as a civilized society and I would like to think we were above state sponsored killing. Sad at how many people still support it and on top of that seem to gleefully delight in the revenge motives execution brings.

[TracyLynnS]

Yeah, I'm aware that most executions are now lethal injections, which some people consider to be a much more humane way to end a life. But I was surprised to see a guy sentenced to die by that method claiming it was "cruel and unusual punishment" in his appeals.

Personally, if I was forced to choose between the gas chamber, electric chair, or needle, I'd be asking for the needle. Regardless of what people say about it, they put you to sleep and then end your life. Clean, quiet, painless.

I've been right there with my dog when he had to be put down and he didn't even whimper. These men convicted of heinous murders need to shut up and accept their punishment like a dignified man. What whiny cowards they are. They can murder without sympathy for their victims, but they complain about the infringement on their rights when they're jailed or sentenced to death. pft.

But, I can see you think I'm a crazy "kill em all and let god sort em out" kind of person. I'm definitely not blind to the corruption that goes on in all levels of our legal system. I just simply believe in very fair justice. That means people committing particularly horrible murders have to head to the death chamber quickly. The rest of the murderers can follow close behind or spend varying lengths of time in prison, depending on their case. All other criminals have to serve their time, and as you say, it's complicated.

Innocent people should never come any where near incarceration. Worse than a criminal never being caught and facing justice is an innocent person facing prison or death for a crime he never committed.

Personally, I think Darlie Routier is innocent. Some of the guilty include the media, who only played the "silly string" incident on tv, and her stupid first lawyer who, while having the silly string video in evidence, let only that portion of the whole video be shown, rather than parts that showed her family praying and crying for far longer than they had the silly string birthday party for the little boy.

Again, I lay some of the blame on her first lawyer who had in evidence a lot of pictures of her in the hospital showing where someone had beat the crap out of her and he never presented them to the jury. She had enormous bruises and knife wounds that needed stitches. They weren't hesitation marks or scratches, and she sure didn't beat herself up.

Oh, and her stupid lawyer had her right there in Dallas with plenty of people to pull for a jury who would think rationally and he requested a change of venue! What a moron. He was in texas. Where did he think they were going to change it to? Of course they landed in podunk texas where all 150 citizens took one look at her bleached blonde hair and decided she was guilty right then!

You know who else I think is doing 90 years in the Federal Pen for nothing more than being a dislikable drunken floozie? Stella Nickell, the woman convicted of product tampering in her husband's exedrin death.

Her estranged daughter was paid $250,000 for her testimony. The pet store owner who testified that he specially ordered the algae destroyer just for her (remnants were found in the morter and pestle she used) was paid $15,000 for his testimony. Later, it was proven that his testimony was perjured, IIRC.

And there was a third person who was paid for their testimony. Without all that bought and paid for testimony, she wouldn't be a convicted felon.

Whenever you have the elements of greed or laziness in the legal system, you most definitely will not find justice.

[Kane]

These men convicted of heinous murders need to shut up and accept their punishment like a dignified man. What whiny cowards they are. They can murder without sympathy for their victims, but they complain about the infringement on their rights when they're jailed or sentenced to death. pft.

Or how about when they become hypocrites by speaking out against the death penalty? I mean, in a way, these murderers actually do believe in the death penalty because they executed their victims. The only difference is that the victims are usually denied the chance for an appeal. :rolleyes:

[TracyLynnS]

>>>Or how about when they become hypocrites by speaking out against the death penalty? I mean, in a way, these murderers actually do believe in the death penalty because they executed their victims. The only difference is that the victims are usually denied the chance for an appeal.<<<

I have no patience for those types at all. They carry their arrogance and complete selfishness through their trials, appeals, and incarcerations. Very, very few have ever taken the time to realize the impact of their actions on others, especially to the point of expressing real remorse over the misery their crimes have caused.

[kadrmas15]

Hey Tracy, well you and I will have to agree to disagree on the death penalty issue. However I do appreciate you clarifying your position. I do agree with you on the innocence of both people you mentioned. Yes Routier should have got a new trial a long time ago just for the ineffective assistance of counsel that she had. Yeah, the worst move ever was moving for change of venue out of Dallas. In Texas you will have a hard enough time getting an acquittal in any Capital Murder case, especially when it involves child killing. However what slim chance you would have would be in urban counties. If you are in a rural county in Texas you are going down, evidence or not. Look at Harris County (Houston). In the last 30 years or so there has only been 3 or 4 acquittals in Capital Murder cases. There was a 17 year stretch where there was not any acquittals in Capital Murder cases in that county.

Well, Kane while I agree with your argument it is also kind of contradictory. You claim to be against murder yet you seem to be an avid supporter of the death penalty. Therefore does that not make you a hypocrite too because you support killing prisoners? Regardless of their crime I do not support killing anyone. You claim to despise murders yet you support state sponsored killing. You can call it an 'execution' if you want but it is still a murder. Hence why on the death certificates for inmates that are 'executed' the cause of death is listed as homicide.

[TracyLynnS]

>>>Hey Tracy, well you and I will have to agree to disagree on the death penalty issue.<<<

Kadrmas, it's been an interesting conversation. I really like to see people's opinions on such issues. :)

[kadrmas15]

Well I certainly look forward to talking with you about more issues. I mean, it is obvious you know a lot about the issue just a different viewpoint. That is what makes this country great, the right to have different opinions. I actually agree with your opinions more often than not. Feel free to message me anytime to talk about cases or any other issue you wish to talk about.

[Kane]

Well, Kane while I agree with your argument it is also kind of contradictory. You claim to be against murder yet you seem to be an avid supporter of the death penalty. Therefore does that not make you a hypocrite too because you support killing prisoners? Regardless of their crime I do not support killing anyone. You claim to despise murders yet you support state sponsored killing. You can call it an 'execution' if you want but it is still a murder. Hence why on the death certificates for inmates that are 'executed' the cause of death is listed as homicide.

It seems to me that such death certificates constantly omit the word "justifiable."

[kadrmas15]

Well regardless of whether it is justifiable or not it is still homicide.

[lilmissd]

I agree with Tracy. The death penalty should especially be used in cases of rape and child murder. The persons that commit those 2 particular crimes should never be allowed parole or to see the light of day again. It is proven that nearly all rapists and pedophile's that have been paroled are right back in the prison system within 5 years! This is because they cannot be rehabilitated, that is why they continue on with their same behavior even when they have been in prison for 20 years. That is the reason why they should be executed or have an automatic life sentence with NO parole. Why should I have to spend my taxpayer dollars to feed, clothe, shelter & give medical care to someone who doesn't care about the crimes they have committed and show no remorse or responsibility for their actions and then expect the government and taxpayers to take care of them for the rest of their stinking lives! Execute them and be done with it, I say.

[kadrmas15]

Well, your tax dollars go towards 'executing' them too. In fact, it costs more to carry out an execution and maintain a death row than it would to just hold a person in prison in general population for life. Of course most death penalty supporters tend to overlook this fact. Why is it the people that always complain about their tax dollars are always the ones that are the biggest supporters of the death penalty? Mind boggling. If you want to support it that is your choice and you have a right to support it if you want. However the death penalty is not a cost-effective method. I'm not even going to get into the whole can of worms on our society's ridiculous paranoia over child molestation. Yes it goes on, I'm not disputing this. However the media has a tendency to over sensationalize crime in general with the latest fad being to overly sensationalize child molestation.

[marlins3]

Well, your tax dollars go towards 'executing' them too. In fact, it costs more to carry out an execution and maintain a death row than it would to just hold a person in prison in general population for life. Of course most death penalty supporters tend to overlook this fact. Why is it the people that always complain about their tax dollars are always the ones that are the biggest supporters of the death penalty? Mind boggling. If you want to support it that is your choice and you have a right to support it if you want. However the death penalty is not a cost-effective method. I'm not even going to get into the whole can of worms on our society's ridiculous paranoia over child molestation. Yes it goes on, I'm not disputing this. However the media has a tendency to over sensationalize crime in general with the latest fad being to overly sensationalize child molestation.

I have a solution to both problems: It costs approx. $37,000 a year to keep one inmate in fed. prison. You can buy a strong piece of rope for less than $20. Immediately after sentencing, take all violent criminals straight to the gallows and hang them (in public) with a sign in front of them that shows what crime(s) they committed.

[MegtheEgg86]

For many years I fully supported the death penalty as well, but over time I have "gone 180 degrees" to fully opposing it. I believe it's unconstitutional, and that it ultimately does nothing to deter violent criminals---it only spurs them on. My full opinion on the matter is something I'll spare everyone, but I just wanted to say that kadrmas makes many excellent points in his arguments, as do all of you, despite what side of the issue you may be on.

Worse than a criminal never being caught and facing justice is an innocent person facing prison or death for a crime he never committed.

This is precisely one of the largest reasons I oppose the death penalty, actually. Perhaps it's simplistic thinking, but I think it's by far worse for one innocent person to die for a crime he or she didn't commit than for one hundred guilty individuals to go free.

[kadrmas15]

Hey thanks Meg the egg. Yeah, at one time years ago I supported the death penalty too. I was never an active supporter but I did not oppose it either. I was sort of indifferent. I just believe there is too many problems with the DP. It is not effective and the people that want that system so badly have yet to figure out a way to apply the death penalty properly and without error.

Marlins, I get you are an avid dp supporter but seriously. Hanging all violent criminals right after sentencing? You do realize we are in 2009, not back in the 1600's where we hang people or burn them at the stake because we 'think' someone is guilty right? Also, how do you know you are not killing an innocent person? I still have yet to hear how this problem can be avoided. Innocent people have been executed folks and there are innocent people on death row. It is kind of sad to me that there are still those out there that refuse to believe this. Also, define 'violent' criminal. Should someone that beats someone else up in a bar fight be taken out and hung because they were convicted of aggravated assault?

I can tolerate it when someone is a death penalty supporter. However I really get turned off by the 'kill 'em all' crowd who act like a bunch of vigilantes and for they know could be killing innocent people. It is amazing to me that even in this day in age, despite all the wrongful convictions come to light, many people still have this 'kill 'em all' mentality.

[yuppielawyer]

I think it's also important to point out that virtually every innocent person who has been taken off death row was on death row for years and years, all the while, staying alive only because of their appeals that were based on legal "technicalities," as some people like to call them. The technicalities kept them alive until the technology and other evidence could catch up and prove their innocence. People who advocate quick carrying out of death sentences, in my mind, are either completely ignorant, or simply don't care if innocent people are executed.

Also, enough with the calls for "child molesters" to be executed. Do you know how many people have been wrongfully convicted of that? Look at all the wrongful convictions of daycare operators and employees in the 80s based on the interviewing techniques that have now been proven to lead to false allegations and implanting of false memories. Think about all the mothers or fathers who were wrongfully accused in order to gain advantage in a custody battle. These cases are some of the most suceptible to wrongful conviction because there is typically no physical evidence, the allegation itself makes it incredibly difficult for an accused to get a fair trial, and it is often one person's word against another. I can guarantee you this. If we ever start executing convicted child molesters (and the Supreme Court just ruled this year that it is unconstitutional to do so), there will be even more innocent people added to our death rows and ultimately executed. I, for one, am not okay with that.

[lilmissd]

I don't believe that life in prison is a deterrant either. Think about it, what do the inmates have to worry about? They are provided for in every way. They get food, clothing, personal items, they don't have to worry about paying bills, they get medical and dental care. Hey they have it better than some people that are living free in society! That's not right. Why should my tax dollars go to provide food, clothes & medical care for someone who's a rapist or child killer? I have watched programs where they have interviewed inmates, and the inmates themselves have said that they lived better inside prison than out on their own because they have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. There's been inmates who have intentionally sabotaged their parole. so they get to STAY in prison, because they say they can't live in society, that it's too hard, they have been in prision so long that they have someone else taking care of them and they don't have to worry about providing for themself. Also I think people don't realize that the persons in prison that are actually innocent will eventually be found out to be so, with the advancements in DNA and forensics. Also, what about the people who have admitted their guilt, who we have DNA evidence and know 100% that they committed a particular crime, should we keep them alive?

[justins5256]

I don't believe that life in prison is a deterrant either. Think about it, what do the inmates have to worry about?

Having relations with someone of the same sex? :eek:

[TracyLynnS]

lilmissd,

Your comment reminded me of one of today's segments. One guy was a cop killer. He tried to pin his crimes on his own son. He sneered to the officials that he'd never get the chair.

Well, his arguments put enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that they didn't feel comfortable giving him the death penalty, so they gave him life in prison.

Guess what happened. The prison took that cop killer and put him and some other guy on unsupervised landscaping duty on the prison grounds for over 8 hours! They took a saw and escaped from prison.

Yep, a cop killer out of jail, free as a bird. You'd think, at the least, that a cop killer would be under the most extreme security and wouldn't be out picking daisies outside the fencing of the exercise yard. But nope, I guess those cop killers just ain't as dangerous as we think they are.

They finally caught him. I think he ended up dying of a heart attack in prison.

[TracyLynnS]

Having relations with someone of the same sex? :eek:

I kinda feel bad for the guy who has to cuddle up with "Liz Charmichael" every night.

[peachysquirt21]

I kinda feel bad for the guy who has to cuddle up with "Liz Charmichael" every night.

:lol:

[yuppielawyer]

At least 99.99% of the inmates in prison would walk out the front door if they could. It's true that some people have been institutionalized by long stretches in prison, and so they intentionally sabotage their parole when they get out, but that doesn't mean that prison isn't a deterrent. I work with criminal defendants every day. Trust me. They don't WANT to go to prison. Prison sucks. They have little to no freedom. They are subjected to violence and sexual assault from other inmates. It is a terrible place to be. To the extent any punishment can be a deterrent, prison is one for most people.

And you are fooling yourself if you think that no innocent people will ever be put to death anymore because of DNA and forensics. First of all, many cases don't have any DNA evidence in them. Second, a lot of so-called "forensics" is junk science, and is RESPONSIBLE for putting innocent people behind bars and actually executing them (see the example of Cameron Willingham, executed by the state of Texas for the "murder" of his children in a fire that almost certainly wasn't even an arson). The National Academy of Sciences just came out with a report that ripped the reliability of forensic "science" in this country. Putting one's faith in DNA and forensics to ensure no guilty person is put to death is unbelievably naive.

Prison officials being foolish enough to put a convicted cop killer on an unsupervised work detail thus allowing him to escape doesn't mean we should have the death penalty. It means we should have smarter prison officials.

[Kane]

lilmissd,

Your comment reminded me of one of today's segments. One guy was a cop killer. He tried to pin his crimes on his own son. He sneered to the officials that he'd never get the chair.

Well, his arguments put enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that they didn't feel comfortable giving him the death penalty, so they gave him life in prison.

Guess what happened. The prison took that cop killer and put him and some other guy on unsupervised landscaping duty on the prison grounds for over 8 hours! They took a saw and escaped from prison.

Yep, a cop killer out of jail, free as a bird. You'd think, at the least, that a cop killer would be under the most extreme security and wouldn't be out picking daisies outside the fencing of the exercise yard. But nope, I guess those cop killers just ain't as dangerous as we think they are.

They finally caught him. I think he ended up dying of a heart attack in prison.

He did. Samuel Leroy Wodke died of a heart attack in August 2005, just three months before the 20th anniversary of the murder of Valdon Keith, the officer he was convicted of killing.

Given his attempt to pin the murder on his own son and his sneering at officials, it almost goes without saying that Samuel Wodke was a very selfish and arrogant murderer.

[Big3sCompanyFan]

I don't believe that life in prison is a deterrant either. Think about it, what do the inmates have to worry about? They are provided for in every way. They get food, clothing, personal items, they don't have to worry about paying bills, they get medical and dental care. Hey they have it better than some people that are living free in society! That's not right. Why should my tax dollars go to provide food, clothes & medical care for someone who's a rapist or child killer? I have watched programs where they have interviewed inmates, and the inmates themselves have said that they lived better inside prison than out on their own because they have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. There's been inmates who have intentionally sabotaged their parole. so they get to STAY in prison, because they say they can't live in society, that it's too hard, they have been in prision so long that they have someone else taking care of them and they don't have to worry about providing for themself. Also I think people don't realize that the persons in prison that are actually innocent will eventually be found out to be so, with the advancements in DNA and forensics. Also, what about the people who have admitted their guilt, who we have DNA evidence and know 100% that they committed a particular crime, should we keep them alive?

You obviously have NO IDEA what a maximum security penitentiary is like. It can be living hell with inmates struggling to survive each day. The food can be so bad that inmates get sick. The rate of violent assaults. suicides and even murders are higher than in the free world.

If you think they have NOTHING to worry about then why don't you try it out sometime and you'll see you won't last.

[FanfromES]

well, for those who think being in prison is like being in a 4 stars hotel, i can tell. I spent 5 days in jail for DUI charges. In my country, you are not allowed to leave your cell, you live with 8-9 people sleeping on the floor. After 3 days your body ask for movement, and you cant do anything about it.

I was lucky to be with nice people who shared their food and apparel, we had our own bathroom, and the guards let us read newspapers.

An average cell is crowded with 25-30 inmates who take turns to sleep because theres no room for all to lay. Gang members and every kind of criminal who can beat you, rape you or kill you.

I was lucky, i spent only 5 days there, in the best conditions the system have, and believe me: I dont want to return.

[TracyLynnS]

well, for those who think being in prison is like being in a 4 stars hotel, i can tell. I spent 5 days in jail for DUI charges. In my country, you are not allowed to leave your cell, you live with 8-9 people sleeping on the floor. After 3 days your body ask for movement, and you cant do anything about it.

I was lucky to be with nice people who shared their food and apparel, we had our own bathroom, and the guards let us read newspapers.

An average cell is crowded with 25-30 inmates who take turns to sleep because theres no room for all to lay. Gang members and every kind of criminal who can beat you, rape you or kill you.

I was lucky, i spent only 5 days there, in the best conditions the system have, and believe me: I dont want to return.

FanfromES, I think that is WAY too extreme treatment for DUI. Two bunks, two guys, per cell, in a generally comfortable environment, along with deterrent training, does not seem unreasonable for such an offense.

In the US, the extreme situation you experience is the kind of treatment I would rather see for violent criminals who think they are above the law and are undeserving of punishment. (I know my views are extreme and anger some folks on the boards here, I'm sorry about that. I don't intend to be offensive.)

In the US, and this could just be sensationalist journalism, I don't know... We are always hearing about murderers and rapists complaining about (and suing) so they can get cable TV and other luxuries that most law abiding citizens do not think violent criminals NEED while they are serving their punishment in prison. These kind of reports stir up negative feelings among the citizenry against the inmates. That's one reason so many of us are angrily yelling, "Why should our tax dollars pay to house them in comfort!?" Because we are unwilling to pay for cable TV, in each cell, for all those inmates. It's ridiculous.

Plus, it is common knowledge that the inmates make their own "home brew" (nasty stuff, tho), and often have access to street drugs through corrupt guards, etc.

Personally, I've only seen inside a city jail when I had to file a report against a man who tried to abduct my son. My dad did a couple years (in county, I think, he won't talk about it) for B&E, breaking into and completely trashing the interior of a cop car, beating the crap out of some guy (plead down from attempted murder to some kind of assault) and I don't know all what else. After his stint in jail, he decided to quit drinking and his problems with drunk driving and crime ended.

Also, I've got a cousin who tried to live on the outside, but couldn't manage so he re-offended (the new offense was just smashing a restaurant window then sitting and waiting for the cops to come get him) just so he could go back to prison and have food and shelter. With his record, he couldn't get employment and couldn't support his kids, so he felt going back to prison was his only option. Otherwise, they were all going to be living on the street.

[TracyLynnS]

Prison officials being foolish enough to put a convicted cop killer on an unsupervised work detail thus allowing him to escape doesn't mean we should have the death penalty. It means we should have smarter prison officials.

LOL, YuppieLawyer! You made me think of Randolf Dial and the deputy warden's wife again! Talk about stupid! I can't believe that warden let this manipulative con man spend all day alone with his wife in their ceramics studio thingie located in his home garage in a supposed prison arts program.

AND, on top of that, the warden had two young daughters at home! That was just a worst case scenario in the making...

If I were the husband, my first thought would be, why does this man, Dial, deprived of female companionship for years, want to spend all day with my young wife, all the time? There's only one answer that comes to mind, and making dainty ceramic figurines has nothing to do with it.

[yuppielawyer]

Oh, yes. Bobbi Parker and her poor, deluded husband. From the first time that episode aired, I always thought she had run off with the man, and I still do. I think she's set to go to trial in May, although it could be continued after that.

Prison programs are good things when they are administered wisely. They are good for rehabilitating inmates and helping them to be in the best position to re-enter society when they are finally released. They are also good for the prisons because there has to be a positive reinforcement system in order to maintain good order and discipline within the prison. The problem is when you have morons administering the programs.

[TracyLynnS]

Prison programs are good things when they are administered wisely. They are good for rehabilitating inmates and helping them to be in the best position to re-enter society when they are finally released. They are also good for the prisons because there has to be a positive reinforcement system in order to maintain good order and discipline within the prison. The problem is when you have morons administering the programs.

Yep, I don't know much about what the heck is going on in prison, but basing my opinion on my cousin's case, you would think that the guys who are going to be eventually released would be expected to complete high school, get a college education and/or learn a trade, along with participating in some type of formal rehabilitation to get them ready for become productive members of society upon their release.

My cousin did several years in prison and was ready to put that life behind him, but had no skills to offer employers and, of course, had his record hanging over his head.

There's got to be a better way...

[Corky Kneivel]

...a lot of so-called "forensics" is junk science, and is RESPONSIBLE for putting innocent people behind bars and actually executing them (see the example of Cameron Willingham, executed by the state of Texas for the "murder" of his children in a fire that almost certainly wasn't even an arson). The National Academy of Sciences just came out with a report that ripped the reliability of forensic "science" in this country. Putting one's faith in DNA and forensics to ensure no guilty person is put to death is unbelievably naive.

Why would you put quote marks around the word science in forensic science? Do you really lump it in with bunk sciences like astrology and creationsim?



Also, kadrmas15 when you said:

...in fact there have been innocent people executed.

Is this a documented fact? I know yuppielawyer alluded to a case in which someone was put to death for something that was "almost certainly" not a crime, but do you, or do you yuppielawyer, know of a case that you can point to and I can verify? I'm very interested in this.

[yuppielawyer]

Why would you put quote marks around the word science in forensic science? Do you really lump it in with bunk sciences like astrology and creationsim?
As I said in my post, the National Academy of Sciences, the most respected organization of scientists, just released a report last week on the horrible state of forensic "science" in this country. Among many other issues, they point out that numerous so-called "sciences" have no underlying scientific testing to support their reliability or the conclusions that are testified to in courts everday. This includes everything from fingerprints to fire investigation. Fire investigation, for example, was based on completely junk assumptions and conclusions, many of which that have been disproven by real, scientific testing in the past several years. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people were convicted of arson and murder based on the junk assumptions. One man in Texas was released from death row a few years ago after the case was overturned and the elected district attorney acknowledged that, in light of new scientific evidence, there was no reason to believe that the fire was intentionally set. Cameron Willingham, the man I mentioned, was put to death based on the same type of evidence which has been thoroughly discredited by actual scientists. His case has been written about extensively, most thoroughly in a special multi-part report in the Chicago Tribune.

Another example, on fingerprints, is Brandon Mayfield. He was a family lawyer in Oregon who had married a Muslim woman and converted to Islam. After the train bombings in Madrid, the FBI asserted that they had definitively matched his fingerprints to prints found on some detonators near the scene. He was arrested on a "material witness" warrant and branded a terrorist all over the media. The FBI head fingerprint examiner swore to a federal judge that it was a 100% match. Funny thing is that the fingerprint experts in Spain disagreed and said they did not think it was a match. Mayfield's lawyers hired their own fingerprint expert who also said that the prints were a match. After spending a significant amount of time in custody, the Spanish authorities told the FBI that they had matched the same prints to a known terrorist in Algeria. After looking at those prints, the FBI acknowledged that they were correct, and that the prints did not, in fact, belong to Mayfield. Oops.

These are just two examples. If you want to read more on it, you can read about all the people who were wrongfully convicted based on microscopic hair analysis that was later disproven when DNA testing became available. Fiber evidence, toolmark identification, bullet lead analysis (which isn't being used anymore--after years of the vaunted FBI forensic lab using it and sending people to prison based on it--because the National Academy of Sciences thoroughly discredited it as having any scientific merit whatsoever), etc., are all subject to the same criticisms.

It's not "bunk" science, as you called it, like astrology or creationism, because those things aren't even capable of being subjected to scientific scrutiny. But, yes, it is "junk" science, in that it has never been subjected to the scientific scrutiny that something like DNA analysis has.