billsrcursed Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 This happened over the hills from me in Tracy, CA. This hadn't gone to trial yet. She pleaded guilty, so she would not get the death penalty. To clarify, she took a plea deal in which the sexual abuse charge was dropped, and enabled her to accept life w/o parole. I question this move by the DA, but it's California after all... I hope they carve her like a Thanksgiving Turkey in the slammer. She deserves tortureous acts applied to her face....
Mark Vader Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 To me, a miserable lifetime in prison is a much worse prospect than being put out of one's misery. I'm glad she's getting a life sentence. How about a lifetime sentence+hard labor+no television for the rest of your life & no visitors for the rest of your life. I'd be satisfied with that.
McBeane Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 To me, a miserable lifetime in prison is a much worse prospect than being put out of one's misery. I'm glad she's getting a life sentence. The only problem with that is the fact that the taxpayers pay for prison costs. Execution is cheaper in the long run.
LeviF Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 To me, a miserable lifetime in prison is a much worse prospect than being put out of one's misery. I'm glad she's getting a life sentence. Reminds me of what I believe was Pataki's first gubernatorial race. There was a prisoner in New York serving a 20-year sentence, but had the death penalty waiting for him in (I believe) Oklahoma. Cuomo wanted the guy to serve out his 20 years in New York before sending him to OK. Pataki (playing the part of the fiscal conservative and pro-death penalty) said that, if elected, he would send the guy straight to OK to be executed, and bypass the 20-year sentence in NY. The prisoner in question ended up backing Pataki in the election. If the death penalty is good enough for him, then rotting in prison for the rest of his life would be much better, IMO.
The Dean Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 The only problem with that is the fact that the taxpayers pay for prison costs. Execution is cheaper in the long run. No, it really isn't. At least it probably isn't. It is fairly well accepted, based on a number of studies, that the death penalty is the most expensive option. Of course, there are some who dispute the findings of these studies and argue the death penalty is slightly more cost effective, or could be with some reform of the process (fewer appeal options, etc). As I have not been able to do a thorough examination of the studies and data, I can't comment on the findings. But for the record, the studies include the cost of internment and not just the cost of the legal process. But let's say for a moment the studies are wrong and it is a bit less expensive to put a prisoner to death than to inter them for the remainder of their life. Is that really the way to decide which is the right punishment to implement? More troubling, to me at least, are those who want to make the death penalty procedure less expensive by limiting the number of appeals (among other things). Hell, let's just eliminate the trial! That will save a bunch of $$.
Terry Tate Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 I'd hang that jury all by myself. Damn straight. And to the death-penalty opponents, I can only argue that some people needs killin'. I'm not interested in any cost arguments. This is not about cost. She kidnapped, raped/tortured, then killed a little girl. Put her the F down. Whatever suffering she may endure being incarcerated for whatever period of time it turns out to be is not a proper result for her actions.
The Dean Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 And to the death-penalty opponents, I can only argue that some people needs killin'. I'm not interested in any cost arguments. While I'm not sure I agree with it, that's an argument I can respect. I would like to see pro-Death Penalty activists working hard to assure Death Penalty sentences are relatively fairly applied to defendants who "deserve to die". I don't think the system is working well in that regard right now.
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 I would like to see pro-Death Penalty activists working hard to assure Death Penalty sentences are relatively fairly applied to defendants who "deserve to die". I don't think the system is working well in that regard right now. Concur. (And I'm pro-death penalty - not as vengeance, but as equivalent to excising a cancer. Some people are simply too damaged to responsibly exist in this society - Jeffrey Dahmer springs most immediately to mind.)
ieatcrayonz Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 From things I've read this behavior is way out of character for women. I have serious doubts that she acted alone and I hope her conscience gets to her eventually and she comes clean. JMO Maybe whoever helped her also killed Sean Taylor. Are you now de-solving pre-solved mysteries which were caught on tape and have multple witnesses and a confesion so that you can re-solve them? Keep up the good work and maybe some day you'll clear the good name of Charlie Manson. There are very few documented cases of dudes with swastikas etched into their foreheads having a following of zoned out hippies carrying out murder sprees while living in the desert so something is fishy there. Maybe someday Manson's conscience will get to him and he'll admit it was all Fidel Castro.
Chef Jim Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 No, it really isn't. At least it probably isn't. It is fairly well accepted, based on a number of studies, that the death penalty is the most expensive option. Of course, there are some who dispute the findings of these studies and argue the death penalty is slightly more cost effective, or could be with some reform of the process (fewer appeal options, etc). As I have not been able to do a thorough examination of the studies and data, I can't comment on the findings. But for the record, the studies include the cost of internment and not just the cost of the legal process. But let's say for a moment the studies are wrong and it is a bit less expensive to put a prisoner to death than to inter them for the remainder of their life. Is that really the way to decide which is the right punishment to implement? More troubling, to me at least, are those who want to make the death penalty procedure less expensive by limiting the number of appeals (among other things). Hell, let's just eliminate the trial! That will save a bunch of $$. The death penalty would be dirt cheap if they took them out back at the end of the trial and carried out the sentence.
The Dean Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 The death penalty would be dirt cheap if they took them out back at the end of the trial and carried out the sentence. Yup. What a country we would be!
Chef Jim Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Yup. What a country we would be! You have someone who as admitted to killing this girl (who WAS sexually assaulted) and you're saying she deserves an appeals process. She didn't even deserve a plea bargain.
McBeane Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 You have someone who as admitted to killing this girl (who WAS sexually assaulted) and you're saying she deserves an appeals process. She didn't even deserve a plea bargain. +infinity. totally heinous acts by her and she she deserves absolutely nothing.
Recommended Posts