Location: Where it's 72 degrees year round most of the time
Posts: 160
Van Dam
Alright as you all know by now the verdict is in. David Westerfield found Guilty on all three counts.[*]1. Murder in the First[*]2. Kiddnapping[*]3. Possession of child pornography
This kinda hits close to home. I mean I have alot of friends with kids in San Diego county near the same community and I help teach a youth program for at risk youth and I see thier faces often when I'm out. Hearing the verdict made me a little bit happy, but, as we know the appeal process begins. Who know how long this Mother F*****G B*****D of a B***H from Hell will live. Another ten years if he gets the Death Penalty? Or what if he gets life? Come on he's already what in his late 50's or early 60's? And to top it all off we Californians have to pay to keep him safe and alive? So what do you all feel? Do you think that our (U.S.) justice system is too slow? And if you do think it is what can be done to make it better? improve upon an already better then third world system ............................ Oh and lastly if ya wanna vent go right ahead. I still have alot on my mind but that would only get me kicked out of this forum.
<small>[ 08-21-2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: It ]</small>
If found guilty behond any doubt He should be excuted with in three days after dna testing. I don't have much remorse for pepole like him. The number of little girls being taken this year along boggles the mind. Most of you knows I have 5 girls and if something like that happen to one of mine. I would ask to pull the switch myself.
Yes I belive in the death pently for the simple reason that the person can never do it again.
Tim
__________________
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
If he didn't have the right to kill (which he didn't, obviously) then why do you?
as for the cost issue, we cannot eliminate those appeals because death is irreversible. remember the recent rash of overturned decisions in Illinois? A college class with some good investigative skills was able to determine that a high percentage of the inmates on death row were innocent. if you execute 3 days after trial, all of those people would have been exhonorated posthumously. might help your reputation, but kinda limits the effect it has on your life.
so, the appeals are necessary. once you count those appeals, it is actually CHEAPER to keep somebody in prison for life than to kill them.
Tim, how about just TRULY eliminating the possibility of parol for murder 1. if you turn a life sentence into a TRUE life sentence, then the person STILL can never do it again (with the exclusion of possibly shivving an inmate).
I don't take much stock in them saying someone is in jail for life. At some point the prisons get crowded and they start reducing people sentences so they have space to put the new folks being imprisoned. It gets kind of to be a joke, I seen in the news lately people getting out of jail in like 7 years for murdering folks in our state when they get sentenced to 60+ coming back out and killing more folks.
Tim, to my understanding, there are just as many abductions of little children this year as there are every year. The only difference is that the media is reporting more of them.
I worry about whether or not the man is inoccent or not. It would be horrible for a man to be executed for a crime he had nothing to do with. I didn't follow the case much until yesterday, but they were talking about the bug evidence did not conincide with the police theory. I do not know how reliable that bug theory is, but if its verification of a time convicts a man, then its going against a certain time should exhaunerate a man.
I have mixed feelings and emotions on the death penalty as well as the legnth of time it takes to execute the sentance. Its something that should be looked at from case to case.
__________________
... without remorse for the past, confident in the present, and full of hope for the future, [d'artagnan] went to bed and slept the sleep of the brave.
- The Three Musketeers
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Helvetica, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Helvetica, Arial">Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673:
<strong>Tim, to my understanding, there are just as many abductions of little children this year as there are every year. The only difference is that the media is reporting more of them.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Helvetica, Arial">Actually, there has been a decline. Still too many, clearly, but there actually aren't as many as in prior years.
OK, at the risk of inciting another Mergs-bashing rant, let me weigh in on this.
There are two reasons for punishment of crimes. First is obviously for the perpetrator to pay the cost (either by being removed from society at large (and thereby losing the privaleges and freedoms of existing in it), or monetarily, or both) and secondly as a deterent to others to do the same.
As it stands now, with the access to all the social programs, entertainment, schooling opportunities, access to society through the Internet, etc. the first aspect of incarceration is severely minimized. And as such, it is also minimized as a deterent. If it weren't, then why would anyone want to go back in? As was recently the case in California? The individual was released and promptly killed himself because he didn't want to be a part of society at large.
Even though sentenced under laws that did not include the death penatly as an acceptable punishment, it is amazing that Charlie Manson contiues to come up for parole hearings. Not only is he a danger to society (ie bonified nut-case) he is a drain on all of us. Well, at least those citizens of California.
It costs on average $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. That is more than most people in this country make per year. Certainly more than what the majority of criminals in jail make legitimately. And you and I are paying that cost. I wonder how many of us would howl in protest if that was a line item deduction on our paychecks. Or would we look at it like a comment I heard about the state of income taxes "What do you mean pay taxes? I get a refund. I don't pay any taxes." Something flawed here. I look at it as the criminal element, to paraphrase Herr Clausewitz, "..continuing to steal by other means".
Jail for most is an incovienence, not a true punishment. And I'm not saying just for the petty criminal, I mean it for the white-collar criminals, too. Until we get meaninful sentencing and real punishent, then the Enrons and other forms of "victimless" crimes will continue, only under a different guise.
Now to the real meat of this discussion, which obviously is going to center around the death penalty as a deterent. Is it really a dererent today? Well, let's see. The average death-row inmate spends an average of 10 - 12 years on death row. And spends untold dollars in public money on appeals. Not to mention that the average cost of keeping such a prisoner is about 1.5 times higher than the normal prison population. But, is the actual aspect of being put to death, except at the very end when all the appeals have been exhausted and prospect of it being VERY real, all that intimidating?
In the interest of punishments, especially with respect to the death penalty, we have diverged from the original intent. We have sought to make it as humane as possible. What scares most of us about being murdered? The pain and suffering associated with it. The thought of being shot, stabbed, choked, or sufferring the effects of hideous torture associated with most violent deaths, scares most everyone who may bother to examine their feelings about it.
But what of the death-row inmate? Now for me, who HATES IV's and blood draws, the thought of being put to death by leathal injection is pretty frightening. But having been through several surgeries, it is no different than being put to sleep under anesthisia. You just don't wake up. Ok, that is a pretty scary idea, but, you go to sleep with the expectation of waking up. But what if you didn't expect to? No pain, no fuss, no muss. Just go to sleep. Oh, and why dissenfect the injection site prior to the injection? Just in case there is a VERY last minute reprieve? Not likely. So why worry about infections? Sorry, left turn.
My point is that we have removed the thought of death from being a deterent. Does that mean that I am against the death penatly? No. I think that it still serves some purpose. It does give closure to the victim's families, in my opinion.
There are those, and many people on this forum from other countries that do not have the death penalty, who will argue differently. But I will say that their cultures do not idolize the criminal element the way Americans do. Before you bow up and get ready to slam me, my fellow Americans, if this wasn't true, then why have so many movies, songs, plays, etc. centered around crime "heros" like Jessie James, Billy the Kid, The Godfather, Al Capone, etc. Or even the fictional ones like Thelma and Louise, Natural Born Killers, etc. Hip-hop culture stems from the gangs, even the NBA more closely resembles the deep 'hoods than a legitimate sport.
Before you send your blasts this way, stop, re-read what I have said, and use your God given abilities to think through your response. Our criminal justice system isn't perfect (and in MY opinion has been hijacked) but for the US it's the only one we have.
Targets are up and hot.
Regards,
__________________
Remember those who put their lives in danger for your sake.
Excellent points, Mergs. Look at a movie from last year, Blow. Blow was a romanticised movie about the man who is responcible for roughly 85% of all the cocaine traffic in the US. The movie paints him as being very likeable, etc. I know people who actually felt sorry for him after watching the movie. Nevermind all of the trouble that he has caused society by his deviant behavior.
When did all of this romanticising crooks and scum start? The earliest that I can remember was the mid 1960's with movies like Bonnie and Cylde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
I think that Mergs was dead on. If you want to read about a real prison, pick up the Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas. Now that was punishment.
__________________
... without remorse for the past, confident in the present, and full of hope for the future, [d'artagnan] went to bed and slept the sleep of the brave.
- The Three Musketeers
Yes he was. I was not arguing the manner in which justice was decided, but how it was carried out.
__________________
... without remorse for the past, confident in the present, and full of hope for the future, [d'artagnan] went to bed and slept the sleep of the brave.
- The Three Musketeers
In this case the evidence is so overwhelming that he should be excuted. The have been to many ca.se where pepole as been release after several years and go out and killed again. I have done work in state prison and you go in and they have cable tv recliners in there cells. The access to pron. I sorry Prison should be made as harsh as possible. I mean rock piles and road gangs. I forgot some even had there own phones.
First off there was no direct evidence that Van Dam was actually the killer.
Second, his affect on me (or my family) is WAY WAY less than the probability that I (or members of my family) will be killed by some drunk driver or by a lightning strike.
So, as a bane on society, Van Dam has nothing over true scum buckets like Scott Sullivan and Ken Lay and others. If there's any group deserving of being hung out to dry, those greedy CEOs and such should be put first in line.
Murders, as a whole, and child kidnappings as well, are on a decline and has been for the past few years. That's what the statistics show us. Your safety, your family's safety, has never been better. So, why kill Van Dam when there's little direct evidence that he did it? (Maybe the real kidnapper/killer is still out on the loose.)
There is one simple way to reduce the overcrowding in jails: legalize most (if not all) drugs. The vast majority of people in jail are there for nothing more than possessing drugs. (Currently) illicit drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes, both of which are legal (for some weird, convoluted reasons). Cigarettes kill FAR more people per year in the US and the world than all other drugs (including alcohol) combined. A book I've just finished reading suggests that some absurd percentage of all deaths may be attributable to cigarettes. Yet not one cigarette manufacturer CEO has gone to jail. We in the US still SUBSIDIZE the tobacco growers. Gosh, what a brilliant idea, heh? Nicotine is way more addictive than most other drugs, as is now known.
But back to prison crowding: remove those who were sentenced for drug possession. (For example, an ounce of crack gets you 10-25 years or something of the sort, while an ounce of cocaine only gets you 3-5 or something like that...truly a sentencing law that is biased against the poor.)
Remove the drug users, legalize drugs so that most crimes associated with drugs will disappear, and what you're left with is just the psychopaths (Cary Stayner and such) and hardened criminals (the Boyle family, read Tuesday's or Wednesday's NY Times). Oh, and the crooked to the core CEOs and other executives. If we can get anything on them. And that guy Arthur. Arthur Andersen. :-)
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Helvetica, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Helvetica, Arial">Originally posted by edew:
<strong>There is one simple way to reduce the overcrowding in jails: legalize most (if not all) drugs. The vast majority of people in jail are there for nothing more than possessing drugs. (Currently) illicit drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes, both of which are legal (for some weird, convoluted reasons). Cigarettes kill FAR more people per year in the US and the world than all other drugs (including alcohol) combined. A book I've just finished reading suggests that some absurd percentage of all deaths may be attributable to cigarettes. Yet not one cigarette manufacturer CEO has gone to jail. We in the US still SUBSIDIZE the tobacco growers. Gosh, what a brilliant idea, heh? Nicotine is way more addictive than most other drugs, as is now known.
But back to prison crowding: remove those who were sentenced for drug possession. (For example, an ounce of crack gets you 10-25 years or something of the sort, while an ounce of cocaine only gets you 3-5 or something like that...truly a sentencing law that is biased against the poor.)
Remove the drug users, legalize drugs so that most crimes associated with drugs will disappear, and what you're left with is just the psychopaths (Cary Stayner and such) and hardened criminals (the Boyle family, read Tuesday's or Wednesday's NY Times). Oh, and the crooked to the core CEOs and other executives. If we can get anything on them. And that guy Arthur. Arthur Andersen. :-)</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Helvetica, Arial">I agree completely! In a recent poll, 2/3 of high school students said that it was easier to get pot than alcohol or tobacco products. Obviously, the "war on drugs" philosophy is NOT working. wouldn't it be more effective to legalize and tax the hell out of it?
Well, given the FACT that the victim's blood was in his car, on his bed sheets, on his coat, on his shirt, on the rug of his home, is there any chance that he DIDN'T do it? The guy is guilty as SIN, and the sooner they kill him (preferably by hanging, electric chair, or public beheading, or firing squad), the better off the world will be.
Now Eric mentions that there is no direct evidence that he was the killer. Direct evidence is limited to a "smoking gun" or an eye-witness. This S.O.B. PLANNED on there being no direct evidence. That's why investigative procedures are used in todays criminal cases. And thank God that science can say that, yes, this is definately the dead girl's blood that this guy's house is covered with. Lacking any logical, or even illogical, reason that this girl's blood would be where it was found, and in such quantity, and lacking a reasonable explaination from the former defendant, and now guilty b*stard, then he should be killed for his most heinous of crimes. The sooner the better.
p.s: can I be the guy that runs him through several times?
EDEW-
Westerfield is on trial. Van Dam is already dead.
That having been said, I agree that something has to be done about child abusers/molesters/pornographers and people of the like. But aside from being completely psychopathic and in need of desperate help, what caused them to be that way in the first place? Lack of attention as a kid? Bad childhood? Or could this be something different?
The overall question being... How can society prevent this from ever occuring?
Oh well, getting too philosophical at 10 AM
__________________
Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.
I ask again of death penalty supporters: what gives ANYBODY, least of all our bumbling government as guided by 12 people too dumb to avoid jury duty, the right to take anybody elses life??
I don't think anything can give them this right, which is why the vast majority of "civilized" nations in the world do NOT execute anybody.
Also, where is the logic in using a punishment from which one cannot get reprieve? All that does is require a long appeals proccess, whcih IS necessary since allowing appeals to 10 guilty men is worth it for the one innocent man who doesn't die. Thus, it costs us significantly more money, which is NOT, it seems to me, worth it.
Location: Where it's 72 degrees year round most of the time
Posts: 160
Okay for those of you who don't know
A. Danielle Van Dam a 7 year old girl
B. Kiddnapped and Murdered
C. By, now convicted, nieghbor David Westerfield
Who was also convicted of having child pornography at his place of living.
Some Evidence include
Hair and blood found inside his parked RV that was in front of hie house ( in where he was recorded to be attempting to clean out two days before a search warrent was issued )
Her body was found a month after the actual kiddnapping on a side of a deserted road.
Her cause of death is unknown since the body was so decomposed when found.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Helvetica, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Helvetica, Arial">Originally posted by epeemike81:
<strong>I ask again of death penalty supporters: what gives ANYBODY, least of all our bumbling government as guided by 12 people too dumb to avoid jury duty, the right to take anybody elses life??
{snip}</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Helvetica, Arial"></strong>
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Helvetica, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Helvetica, Arial">Originally posted by Philistine:
<strong>What gives us the right to put them in prison?
--Philistine</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Helvetica, Arial">Self preservation of the rest of society makes it necessary to incarcerate them, but NOT to kill them.
So what do you all feel? Do you think that our (U.S.) justice system is too slow? And if you do think it is what can be done to make it better? improve upon an already better then third world system ............................ Oh and lastly if ya wanna vent go right ahead. I still have alot on my mind but that would only get me kicked out of this forum.
Linear Mode
