prosecution rests in CT home invasion

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2010/09/29/ac.home.invasion.trial.cnn?hpt=T2

Predictions?

Mine.... CT dusts off the gurney in their death chamber and re trains staff on lethal injection procedure.

Actually it will be the beginning of a very long legal process to get them actually dead, by the state anyway. I wonder how these guys are viewed in prison and if they will ever make it to the death chamber because Hayes has tried to kill himself before.

This is the most haunting case...pure evil.

Everyone knows I oppose the death penalty yet at the risk of sounding inconsistent..why do we have suicide watch in prison? If someone who has done something terrible feels the need to check out..let them go.

Yes the case is haunting to the point of being hard to read.

I was wondering, Scott, if your opposition to the death penalty wavered a bit, in light of this case.

Not judging either way. I can't come down solidly on either side of the issue, myself. I find it very difficult to make a decision on such a complex issue as this one. I'm the same way about abortion, assisted suicide....

Hey, I read a short, funny exchange the other day:

There are no absolutes.

So... is that an absolute?

I agree with Scott.As a matter of fact if somone receives life without parole I wouldn't be against that person having the option to kill themselves.That should be their right IMO.

tapu wrote:I was wondering, Scott, if your opposition to the death penalty wavered a bit, in light of this case.

Not judging either way. I can't come down solidly on either side of the issue, myself. I find it very difficult to make a decision on such a complex issue as this one. I'm the same way about abortion, assisted suicide....

Hey, I read a short, funny exchange the other day:

There are no absolutes.

So... is that an absolute?

My view of the death penalty is the same. There is no practical reason for it.

My view of Sam has changed a bit. I was willing to entertain in the past that perhaps he was a troubled kid and things got out of hand for him after some wildly bad choices. I no longer beleive that to be the case. I beleive him to be a sociopath with nothing redeeming about him.

The two in CT seem to be the same sort of unredeeming defective individuals and if it was up to me a lifetime in whatever the CT verison of Red Onion would be sufficient. If I was guessing though.. at least one will be executed.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/03/greene.justice.system/index.html?hpt=T2

This article does raise some interesting questions. Can there ever be justice in a case like this?

Do they deserve to die? Probably. Is there value in pursuing this? Opinions vary. Will revenge bring peace? I think no.

Revenge may not bring peace, but there are shades of gray. Consider...

These men deserve to die. By that, I mean that their actions were so depraved, so gratuitous, so beyond rationales that can ever be used as mitigation for crimes, that they should not live. Their existence is characterized by moral emptiness. There is no coming back from where they are in human society. In my view, these are not redeemable beings. (I don't believe in a defined god so I can presume to judge.) Nothing they could ever do would even begin to atone for these crimes. Why should they be allowed to do anything? They have done enough.

Beyond that, I think they should be put to death to give William Petit the slightest peace he might gain from having their existence on Earth wiped out. Don't let him lie in bed at night, thinking about how his family is gone, while these guys have even the occasional joy in prison, whether it be through rehabilitative programs, extension courses, furniture building, dog raising, whatever. Don't let Petit have to read their names in the paper when they or their lawyers do something "newsworthy." Ever seen the obscene video of Richard Stark (Chicago, killer of 9 student nurses)in prison, laughing and prancing, doing drugs and "holding court" with his "supplicant" co-prisoners? I would not want Petit to even imagine that. If I try to imagine myself in his position (however slightly that I can), I know that, with them dead, I would be more able to hold my wife and children in my thoughts and tell them that "Those men are dead."

I couldn't agree more tapu. I would think there would be some sense of justice that Dr. Petit could feel knowing they were dead and gone and he would not have to hear about them in the news again or wonder if their families visited them etc. I don't think this feeling is vengence - it is a gray area.

I see no reason to fight for their lives at all. If it's the law, then do away with them. They are taking up oxygen, contributing to the sewer and will need medical care etc. Why? They have no right to live and why should they not forfeit the right to?

I agree they deserve to die but I also think no one has the right to take their life.
They do.Especially I don't think the government has that right.

tapu wrote:Revenge may not bring peace, but there are shades of gray. Consider...

These men deserve to die. By that, I mean that their actions were so depraved, so gratuitous, so beyond rationales that can ever be used as mitigation for crimes, that they should not live. Their existence is characterized by moral emptiness. There is no coming back from where they are in human society. In my view, these are not redeemable beings. (I don't believe in a defined god so I can presume to judge.) Nothing they could ever do would even begin to atone for these crimes. Why should they be allowed to do anything? They have done enough.

Beyond that, I think they should be put to death to give William Petit the slightest peace he might gain from having their existence on Earth wiped out. Don't let him lie in bed at night, thinking about how his family is gone, while these guys have even the occasional joy in prison, whether it be through rehabilitative programs, extension courses, furniture building, dog raising, whatever. Don't let Petit have to read their names in the paper when they or their lawyers do something "newsworthy." Ever seen the obscene video of Richard Stark (Chicago, killer of 9 student nurses)in prison, laughing and prancing, doing drugs and "holding court" with his "supplicant" co-prisoners? I would not want Petit to even imagine that. If I try to imagine myself in his position (however slightly that I can), I know that, with them dead, I would be more able to hold my wife and children in my thoughts and tell them that "Those men are dead."

But... is because the victims family wants them dead a sufficient reason for the state to kill someone? I argue no. Rape victims may want the offenders penis cut off. Fathers of children who were molested may want to bash the perp in the head with a bat. Part of the cost of a civilized society is that we don't all get what we want.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/04/connecticut.murder.trial/index.html?hpt=T1

Jury has the case now.

Scott wrote:

But... is because the victims family wants them dead a sufficient reason for the state to kill someone? I argue no. Rape victims may want the offenders penis cut off. Fathers of children who were molested may want to bash the perp in the head with a bat. Part of the cost of a civilized society is that we don't all get what we want.

Was that what I said??? Gee, I meant it to be much more complex....

tapu wrote:

Scott wrote:

But... is because the victims family wants them dead a sufficient reason for the state to kill someone? I argue no. Rape victims may want the offenders penis cut off. Fathers of children who were molested may want to bash the perp in the head with a bat. Part of the cost of a civilized society is that we don't all get what we want.

Was that what I said??? Gee, I meant it to be much more complex....

Did I oversimplify your post? I hate it when people do that to me.

I did re read this morning. Though you made a more complex argument, the summary of it still appears to be they deserve to die, their life has little to no value, and their death may bring a small measure of peace to the surviving victim. If I missed something else in there help me out.

Maybe they do deserve to die. Maybe MOST people can agree on that. We as a society can still do better. Collectively we try to make decisions based on logic rather than emotion. As a whole we make better decisions than we do as indivduals in cases the involve others. OMG!!! Did Scott just say that? Is he a communist?

Hardly.

People are basically self centered and see things mostly from their view. I have no doubt that the victims of crime want something terrible to happen to the offenders. There was a time when the CT two's death would have had a benefit. In the ideal world accoridng to Scott they would have done something more positive than home invasions and we would never have this conversation. In the closer to ideal world according to Scott the good Dr. would have double tapped them both in the sternum and we probably would not have this converation. That is not what happened. They are not a threat anymore. There is no logical reason to end their lives by force. The only reason to execute them remains as you argued before. They deserve to die. In my mind that is not enough. We can disagree.

Also as a side note, like you I am absolutely uncomfortable with absolutes. There is nothing more absolute than killing someone. No way to unring that bell. It would not be good enough to get it right MOST of the time. The system would have to get it right ALL the time and I am not confident that it can.

Guilty on 16 of 17 counts - they found him not guilty on the Arson charge.

Prepare the death chamber.

I don't care about absolutes when it's a case like this - because they absolutely did it and they absolutely can not be redeemed and they absolutely must forfeit their right to life here on our earth for wha they have done.


We have overcrowded prisons as it is. If someone is going to NEVER get out, why fix their teeth, treat their cancer, pay for their sex changes? Why not let them go meet the maker and make some room for others?

Anyway - Guilty, read 16 times in court today. Under the co-conspirator liability theory I wonder why he is not also guilty of arson? Andres????

I still believe intellectually that there is absolutely no reason for the death penalty.

I find it personally hard to care about what happens to these two. I felt / feel the same way about Sam.

Absolutely no reason to pay for elaborate health care and sex changes. I think that must be something that happens in the 9th circuit.

Scott: the logical reason to end their lives is so that they a) make more room for others b) don't use medical resources needed for others c) cannot hurt anyone else because even in prison when you have nothing to lose you can still be a murderer.

And no, that kind of stuff does not only happen in the 9th Circus - it's happening all over our country; cancer treatments, sex changes, psychological counseling to see if they require the sex changes, surgeries etc.

And if you are caught red-handed like these two; or unmistakenly on videotape - the appeals process should be changed significantly. Why? Because there is no doubt. The margin for error in the trials should be next to nothing. Put them on the Texas fast track and get on with LIFE!

I also have what I call the intellectual circle - it starts at stupid - goes all the way around until some intellectually bring themselves right back around to stupid again with no common sense whatsoever - so I'm not impressed with the intellectual argument at the moment. It sometimes goes too far - balance in all things.

ziggy wrote:I also have what I call the intellectual circle - it starts at stupid - goes all the way around until some intellectually bring themselves right back around to stupid again with no common sense whatsoever - so I'm not impressed with the intellectual argument at the moment. It sometimes goes too far - balance in all things.

ouch

ziggy wrote:And if you are caught red-handed like these two; or unmistakenly on videotape - the appeals process should be changed significantly. Why? Because there is no doubt. The margin for error in the trials should be next to nothing. Put them on the Texas fast track and get on with LIFE!

No, the appeals should not be changed. One appeal process for those that may not be guilty and one for those that are? No way to make that work as the defense would be pretty sure all are not guilty no matter the facts and the opposite would be true of the prosecution. Appeals process must be the same.

As you know, it is very hard to overturn criminal convictions on appeal. It is not a new trial or a simple do over. It addresses questions of law. Often dizzyingly complex questions of law, but questions of law none the less. It is not a new look at the evidence to see if they did it. The prosecution does not have to reprove the original case.

Oh God Scott sorry, I love you man. I really do, you are one of my favorite peeps in the forum universe. I just think intellectually you are in between a rock and a hard place. On one hand you say lives should be spared, as in Sam's and you fight for it with one reason being that it is what one of the victims would have wanted. Then, on the other hand when a victim fights for the death penalty, you assert that we can't do things just because that's what the victim wants or would have wanted. I don't get the difference. I guess because one seems all nice and humanitarian and the other barbaric - but housing humans in those conditions is barbaric. Dude - there are people up in arms over zoos and the treatment of animals which is actually BETTER than how some death row inmates are treated so which is more BARBARIC? "Let's see...yep we're gonna kill you on Thursday; no wait...Friday, if there's enough drug left; oh wait, no back to Thursday because the drug expires Friday..." Death row is torture.

There is nothing wrong with justifiable homicide. It makes sense. I'm taking it back to some old school common sense man, "some people just need killin".

You are a great intellectual but I'm just saying I see no common sense in keeping these people alive when they deserve to be punished and punishment of death is just and practical (assume for the sake of that argument that the appeals process isn't the insane circus that it is). The appeals process must be changed so that death row inmates do not cost more than the other criminals.

Back to your inner monologue - yes, some people's lives are more important than others. Hayes needs to die so that somebody has more breathing room, less of his fecal matter to process in a sewer plant, less toilet paper for his sorry rear end, less time spent watching over him; less worry for other prisoners that he might hurt them and less worry for EVERYONE that he might escape.

ziggy wrote:I also have what I call the intellectual circle - it starts at stupid - goes all the way around until some intellectually bring themselves right back around to stupid again with no common sense whatsoever - so I'm not impressed with the intellectual argument at the moment. It sometimes goes too far - balance in all things.

The balance is in finding a reasonable practical punishment system to get the right people convicted and remove them from society so they can no longer do harm.

I never argued to make prison 100% safe. I never argued to give inmates access to whatever they want. I argue that no matter how angry we are collectively at those who do the worst to their fellow man there is just no way to fix some things. I've thought it out. I am angry. At the risk of and I will use Sam as an example since I am closer to that case.

If Sam spends his life in prison [which he is] 4 people are still dead.
If Sam died by lethal injection, 4 people are still dead.
If Sam is drawn and quartered and it is broadcast at super bowl halftime, 4 people are still dead.
Continuing to ramp up the punishment past a certain point serves no purpose.

ziggy wrote:Oh God Scott sorry, I love you man. I really do, you are one of my favorite peeps in the forum universe. I just think intellectually you are in between a rock and a hard place. On one hand you say lives should be spared, as in Sam's and you fight for it with one reason being that it is what one of the victims would have wanted. Then, on the other hand when a victim fights for the death penalty, you assert that we can't do things just because that's what the victim wants or would have wanted. I don't get the difference. I guess because one seems all nice and humanitarian and the other barbaric - but housing humans in those conditions is barbaric. Dude - there are people up in arms over zoos and the treatment of animals which is actually BETTER than how some death row inmates are treated so which is more BARBARIC? "Let's see...yep we're gonna kill you on Thursday; no wait...Friday, if there's enough drug left; oh wait, no back to Thursday because the drug expires Friday..." Death row is torture.

There is nothing wrong with justifiable homicide. It makes sense. I'm taking it back to some old school common sense man, "some people just need killin".

You are a great intellectual but I'm just saying I see no common sense in keeping these people alive when they deserve to be punished and punishment of death is just and practical (assume for the sake of that argument that the appeals process isn't the insane circus that it is). The appeals process must be changed so that death row inmates do not cost more than the other criminals.

Back to your inner monologue - yes, some people's lives are more important than others. Hayes needs to die so that somebody has more breathing room, less of his fecal matter to process in a sewer plant, less toilet paper for his sorry rear end, less time spent watching over him; less worry for other prisoners that he might hurt them and less worry for EVERYONE that he might escape.

That is a compelling argument.