Jury Duty For A Murder Case

Paschendale said:

I didn't say any of that about serial killers. Serial killers are driven by a compulsion, often born from trauma. They very much could be cured. It is the more common killers, like gang members or brutes who beat and kill their wives, that often have mental disabilities and come from poor backgrounds. Studies vary, but it is estimated that the majority of violent criminals have recognizable and treatable mental illnesses.

Neither you nor Kal seem to be able to comprehend that killers aren't driven by a love of evil and a desire for violence. You can't get past your emotional reaction and look at the facts. Violent people aren't cartoon villains who love evil. Nor do they act for the same reasons. But most of those reasons are identifiable and treatable. It has nothing to do with "making excuses" for violence. It is about finding solutions that work. Meeting violence with more violence has done nothing, for thousands of years, to alter the incidence of violence or crime in society. We shouldn't keep trying the same failed ideas over and over.

Click to expand...

Having been proven factually wrong, you just continue to make up excuses and justifications for kidnapping, torturing, raping, multilating and murdering children and adults.

If fact they do enjoy it. They do it for pleasure. They "love" it. No one forces them to. They want to. It is their desire.

What you claim is the right thing to do is to put them in a cage where they are fed, housed, clothed, never have to work for a minute, socialize where they brag of their acts of sadism, watch TV and masturbate to reflecting and remembering what they did. You literally want them to be rewarded for sadistic violence with a life of leisure.

You have exactly nothing to back up a word you claim and any facts you have claimed are diametrically opposite from the truth.

We know from history exactly what happens when evil violence is not met by just violence to stop it. Genocide.

rhinefire said:

Could you vote for the death penalty if you voted to convict a person of murder? I was called not too long ago and surprising myself I was hesitant about sitting on a jury for a murder trial then I thought I would be very troubled to vote on a death penalty sentence as I sat looking at the accused. It is very different when you are looking at the accused sitting 30 feet away.

Click to expand...

Yes. If there were no mitigating circumstances, I'd have no problem with it. In fact... well, that's a long story, some other time.

joko104 said:

Having been proven factually wrong, you just continue to make up excuses and justifications for kidnapping, torturing, raping, multilating and murdering children and adults.

If fact they do enjoy it. They do it for pleasure. They "love" it. No one forces them to. They want to. It is their desire.

What you claim is the right thing to do is to put them in a cage where they are fed, housed, clothed, never have to work for a minute, socialize where they brag of their acts of sadism, watch TV and masturbate to reflecting and remembering what they did. You literally want them to be rewarded for sadistic violence with a life of leisure.

You have exactly nothing to back up a word you claim and any facts you have claimed are diametrically opposite from the truth.

We know from history exactly what happens when just evil violence is not met by just violence to stop it. Genocide.

Click to expand...

i do not believe that underlined part to be true. are you willing to ignore the fact that society can play a part in creating the criminals.

Unitedwestand13 said:

i do not believe that underlined part to be true. are you willing to ignore the fact that society can play a part in creating the criminals.

Click to expand...

You statement does not contradict a word I wrote. A person can look at reality for the perspective of reality. Or a person believe in ideology for ideology sake and deny reality.

I stated this already. I do not have an opposition to trying to prevent anyone from becoming violent or sadistic. But we are not talking about prevention, are we? You are trying to shift it to that topic. But the topic is not before the fact, but afterward.

"Society" is not the predator as you want to claim.

In fact, they do enjoy it. It is pleasure to them. It is what they desire to do.

joko104 said:

You statement does not contradict a word I wrote. A person can look at reality for the perspective of reality. Or a person believe in ideology for ideology sake and deny reality.

I stated this already. I do not have an opposition to trying to prevent anyone from becoming violent or sadistic. But we are not talking about prevention, are we? You are trying to shift it to that topic. But the topic is not before the fact, but afterward.

"Society" is not the predator as you want to claim.

In fact, they do enjoy it. It is pleasure to them. It is what they desire to do.

Click to expand...

sadism is not a feature associated with a normal mind.

soldiers exposed to bloody combat do not leave mentally unscathed. no rational human being can develop a sense of pleasure from killing other humans, unless there is somthing seriously wrong with that persons mental state.

rhinefire said:

Could you vote for the death penalty if you voted to convict a person of murder? I was called not too long ago and surprising myself I was hesitant about sitting on a jury for a murder trial then I thought I would be very troubled to vote on a death penalty sentence as I sat looking at the accused. It is very different when you are looking at the accused sitting 30 feet away.

Click to expand...

I have a very serious problem with capital punishment, so no, I couldn't.

Without searching message history, I am confident this prediction is correct of those who make excuses and blame society, not the violent sadistic rapists and murders:

1. They absolutely oppose innocent people having a right to arm themselves in self defense.

2. They do not make the same excuses and lack of condemnation of those who oppose SSM, are in the Tea Party, or are bigots. Those they will furiously condemn and claim they are superior to.

Did I "guessed" correctly?

Unitedwestand13 said:

sadism is not a feature associated with a normal mind.

soldiers exposed to bloody combat do not leave mentally unscathed. no rational human being can develop a sense of pleasure from killing other humans, unless there is somthing seriously wrong with that persons mental state.

Click to expand...

That's not true.

Your's is circular logic in which you make an assertion and then declaring it is both self proving in both fact and ethics by the assertion. The other assertion as a self proving truism that you make is that it matters either way. I do not think it matters whatsoever.

What part of the human brain has the "don't hurt other people" genetics you claim everyone automatically has?

I do not doubt "conditioning" often has a lot to do with it. So what?

You reduce the victims - which is not just the person raped, assaulted or murdered - to exactly NOTHING.

joko104 said:

Without searching message history, I am confident this prediction is correct of those who make excuses and blame society, not the violent sadistic rapists and murders:

1. They absolutely oppose innocent people having a right to arm themselves in self defense.

2. They do not make the same excuses and lack of condemnation of those who oppose SSM, are in the Tea Party, or are bigots. Those they will furiously condemn and claim they are superior to.

Did I "guessed" correctly?

Click to expand...

are you making that assumption about me?

joko104 said:

That's not true.

Your's is circular logic in which you make an assertion and then declaring it is both self proving in both fact and ethics by the assertion. The other assertion as a self proving truism that you make is that it matters either way. I do not think it matters whatsoever.

What part of the human brain has the "don't hurt other people" genetics you claim everyone automatically has?

Click to expand...

ted bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and ed gein are examples of the psychopaths i talk about.

Unitedwestand13 said:

ted bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and ed gein are examples of the psychopaths i talk about.

Click to expand...

Yes, they should all have been executed.

There is not value in declaring a preference for cruel or torturous imprisonment instead of the death penalty. The Supreme Court will not allow cruel imprisonment, it will allow the death penalty.

MaggieD said:

That'd be no problem for me at all. I'm not sure I'd vote for it, however. My deliberations with the other jury members would be to remind them that life in prison is a greater punishment. I believe it is. However, if most other people wanted the death penalty, I'd most assuredly vote for it.

The Ted Bundys and John Gacys of this world get much too easy an exit, in my opinion. Live in prison, locked in a cage for fifty years. Get beat up...be somebody's bitch. And then die alone in the prison infirmary without family and friends at your side. Much worse than execution.

Click to expand...

That sounds ever so wonderful when you consider that only the really bad guys in jail/prison are on the receiving end of that physical abuse. The reality is somewhat different for the majority, those with less than LWOP sentences, that are constantly at the mercy of those "lifers" with nothing left to lose. As a juror are you equally concerned about those locked up for shorter terms that get to "enjoy" the company of these pieces of human garbage?

ttwtt78640 said:

That sounds ever so wonderful when you consider that only the really bad guys in jail/prison are on the receiving end of that physical abuse. The reality is somewhat different for the majority, those with less than LWOP sentences, that are constantly at the mercy of those "lifers" with nothing left to lose. As a juror are you equally concerned about those locked up for shorter terms that get to "enjoy" the company of these pieces of human garbage?

Click to expand...

I don't think any of it should be allowed. I think it's a disgrace to our prison system that it's allowed to continue. And, make no mistake, it's allowed.

However. It is what it is. It exists. Look, if Maggie gets Lou Gehrig's Disease (as a horrendous example, knock on wood), she gets to live in misery, begging for doctors to OD her on the good stuff. People who dissect human beings, cut them up in little pieces, flay them alive, etc., etc., get the needle?? There's something wrong with that picture, in my opinion.

I'm not particularly disappointed when someone in a slow-to-execute state gets the death penalty, for I think life on death row is worse than no life at all and provides ample time for a prisoner to think about his nonexistent future, worry about whether or not there's an after-life, live in solitary confinement for the duration, etc. But in Texas, for example? The death penalty is too easy.

MaggieD said:

I don't think any of it should be allowed. I think it's a disgrace to our prison system that it's allowed to continue. And, make no mistake, it's allowed.

However. It is what it is. It exists. Look, if Maggie gets Lou Gehrig's Disease (as a horrendous example, knock on wood), she gets to live in misery, begging for doctors to OD her on the good stuff. People who dissect human beings, cut them up in little pieces, flay them alive, etc., etc., get the needle?? There's something wrong with that picture, in my opinion.

I'm not particularly disappointed when someone in a slow-to-execute state gets the death penalty, for I think life on death row is worse than no life at all and provides ample time for a prisoner to think about his nonexistent future, worry about whether or not there's an after-life, live in solitary confinement for the duration, etc. But in Texas, for example? The death penalty is too easy.

Click to expand...

I am now confused. You just pointed out that those sentenced to death are not kept in general population (they are isolated on death row). You seemed to indicate that you would prefer LWOP to the DP, meaning that these really deranged (and violent) folks are then much more likely to be kept in general population. My point was that those sharing time (however briefly), in general population, with these folks that have little (if anything) to lose are more likely to be getting abused by them than the other way around.

ttwtt78640 said:

I am now confused. You just pointed out that those sentenced to death are not kept in general population (they are isolated on death row). You seemed to indicate that you would prefer LWOP to the DP, meaning that these really deranged (and violent) folks are then much more likely to be kept in general population. My point was that those sharing time (however briefly), in general population, with these folks that have little (if anything) to lose are more likely to be getting abused by them than the other way around.

Click to expand...

So, if I understand your point, you're saying the serial killer sentenced to life in the general population is more likely to abuse than be abused? I guess that makes sense. Unless you're Jeffrey Dahmer. Exceptions to every rule, I suppose. I won't argue with you.

In my opinion the only reason to oppose the death penalty is if there is any possibility the person is innocent or it too harsh a punishment. Otherwise, this is why I pro-actively support the death penalty:

1. A violent sadistic, torturous murder is not entitled to the benefits, experiences and pleasures of life. Not to been able to fantasize into any pleasures, not to watch TV and read, not to be able to communicate or social with or from anyone, not to taste food and feel any comfort, nor to have experiences of dreams, to be able to reflect and think of the pleasures they experienced in their torment and murder of others, not to have a fan club nor even the slightest benefits of being alive.

2. The surviving relatives, children, parents, aunts and uncles, spouses, and friends do not have to accept and live with the knowledge that their murdered loved ones so sadistically and unjustly murdered no longer have the benefits of life - while the government is assuring and protecting the murderer having all the benefits and experiences of living carefree.

3. No one should have to endure 1 second of being in the presence of the sadistic murderer - not even other inmates or guards - who also are humans with rights.

4. It is pure hypocrisy. If Ted Bundy has been killed by one of his would-be victims or in a shootout with the police, people would declare his dead a good thing. But if captured then the same people declare harming him would be wrong.

5. It makes the slogan of government against vigilante-ism a lie. The declaration of government is do not take law into your own hands because you might get it wrong - but then the government instead rewards the person by providing everything for and protects that person - guarenteeing the person the benefits of life without labor or effort - which he would not even have but for having sadistically murdered innocent people.

6. It is an unjust expenditure of government resources and services. Money is a finite resource. Spending a million dollars to provide all necessities of life and the benefits of life to a proven sadistic murderer is the government declaring that murderer has greater entitlements as a reward of murdering innocent people - than innocent people who will lose their lives being too poor.

7. It is a just punishment for the offenses against humanity and individuals the person consciously, willfully and knowingly committed.

8. So the sadistic murderer has no opportunity to have the pleasure of boasting to himself or others of his sadistic, violent acts, deriving more pleasure from those most unthinkably acts against humanity and our fellow innocent humans.

There are two KNOWN false reasons people give in opposition to the death penalty. Both are false - and in my opinion the rationalizations known false:

1. "Capital punishment is the government committing murder."
This is a lie. Killing and murder are not the same. Murder is the killing of a person who is innocent and undeserving of death. A person determined guilty of deliberate sadistic violent murder(s) under the rule for law is not killing an innocent person undeserving of death.

2. "That life in prison is worth than death."
This is false. If it is true, then it MUST also be government policy that every person who has a low quality of life due to poverty, illness or other bad circumstance of life MUST be killed by the government as an act of mercy - and not doing so is evil by a low quality of life is worse then being killed.

In fact, having life is superior to death. For the government to declare that life is worse than death as government policy is a horrific concept on its face.

Paschendale said:

I didn't say any of that about serial killers. Serial killers are driven by a compulsion, often born from trauma. They very much could be cured. It is the more common killers, like gang members or brutes who beat and kill their wives, that often have mental disabilities and come from poor backgrounds. Studies vary, but it is estimated that the majority of violent criminals have recognizable and treatable mental illnesses.

Neither you nor Kal seem to be able to comprehend that killers aren't driven by a love of evil and a desire for violence. You can't get past your emotional reaction and look at the facts. Violent people aren't cartoon villains who love evil. Nor do they act for the same reasons. But most of those reasons are identifiable and treatable. It has nothing to do with "making excuses" for violence. It is about finding solutions that work. Meeting violence with more violence has done nothing, for thousands of years, to alter the incidence of violence or crime in society. We shouldn't keep trying the same failed ideas over and over.

Click to expand...

I understand all that just fine. Frankly though I don't really care. Until such time as they can be cured then they need to be put down just like any other rabid animal.