Darlie's injuries

[Goody]

it seems....this will never change...sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh:banghead:

I am sorry, Irish, that you are so frustrated with my opinions. LOL! I agree that people who kill their children do not deserve second chances, but I am not talking about what anyone deserves. Victims don't deserve to be murdered either, but once the deed is done there is no turning back.

It's just when I look at other countries who seem to be satisfied with 20 year sentences for the same types of crimes, I wonder if we are not just so wrapped in revenge we can't see what the honorable thing to do is. You can't deal with an inmate or convicted killer while looking at the details of their crime. You have to separate the two. Deal with the crime at trial, deal with the person behind the face of the defendant after trial. Because there is a person, for better or worse, in every single defendant. Some are beyond saving but most aren't.

 

[j2mirish]

Goody! I agree that people who kill their children do not deserve second chances, but I am not talking about what anyone deserves.

but you did say you thought somehwere down the road Darlie might deserve this, and you have said you dont consider her a threat to society....you state people shouldnt be locked away fro the rest of their lives.......

that is where my confusion comes in-- do you or dont you think darlie or other murdered like her deserve a second chance?

 

[Goody]

Criminals inside, good honest law abiding people who don't kill, rape, maim, murder on the outside..........the good honest law abiding people value our lives, therefore keep the convict inside..........

I wish this were true.

Let me repeat that again, just in case there is a learning curve here, people who kill, will kill again, and again, there are on the inside as in Prison. Society needs to be protected from them...........

People who kill strangers at random will most likely kill again. People who kill family members and are caught the first time, usually do not kill again even when they receive very light sentences. You should check the stats on that.

People who need to be protected from them, are on the outside........

Again, I wish this were true. Unfortunately most of the criminals are on the outside walking amongst us because we only solve 35% of murders and I don't know what the stats are on other types of crime. Bottomline, we don't solve most crime committed and are always at risk of being a crime victim, no matter where we live.

If you 'choose" to kill anyone, anywhere you are a danger to the entire population.

Sure, have a murderer appear before the Parole board - I have been rehabiliated, sorry won't do it again, until someone crosses his path that should not have. Then we have another person dead and a a convict back in jail.....again......opps I thought he was rehabiliated.

If you kill, you forfeit your freedom, that was your choice, you ended another person enitre life and existance..........you have your life, but you robbed the person of their entire future life.........

You are choosing to play God with another person who values his/her life, but you do not value his/her life and not even your own.

At least with the death penalty and LWOP the public is assured that the person will not enter into society and kill again.

It is bad enough that there is Parole and probation, that is even no deterent, the person has no regard for the rules of society and the law.

Keep them caged. Protect the little kid down the street, the baby, the mother, the father, the son, the daughter, the Grandmother, the shop keeper, etc.......society needs to be protected.:doh:

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but locking most criminals up for their entire lives is not the answer. For one thing, the state can't afford it. For another, sentences like that are not divied up fairly. For another, those who kill family members are not going to go back home and bump off the rest of the family if they get out unless they are crazy, in which case they should be in an insane asylum where they can spend the rest of their days if necessary. Prison needs to be a temporary housing unit for those who will not conform to the law with the exception of the most violent offenders, who either need to be executed or locked up in special maximum security prisons. Those like rapists who cannot be rehabbed could also be lumped into that group. But the kid who robs the corner market and kills the clerk might still lead a productive life (and many have), just as a mother who for reasons unknown just snaps and kills her children. Maybe she should not be around children again unsupervised, but keeping her in prison for the rest of her days is not productive either. Plus, most cases have proven to be uneventful for those who have reindtroduced to society. We have to ask ourselves what our true goal is,. Are we trying to punish people or are we trying to protect society? Which is the most important?

Do we say to the Darlie of this world, guess what you snuffed out the life of two little defenceless sleeping boys that trusted and loved you because you were their mother, you provided them with life and then you played "executioner" and took both of their lives away, but you made a mistake in stabbing them to death, show no remore, lied you face off and only thought of the pity party for Darlie.

But promise, scouts honor, not to do it again, and we wil reward you by giving you your liberty so you can go boozing at the local bar and party hardy, while the two little boys will never live another day.

What do you suggest we do to these people, throw them a ticker tape parade.......

NOOOOOOOOOO..............

LOL! Sorry I ruffled your feathers. No, I don't propose we throw any parades, and I don't think we would be rewarding anyone by giving them another chance to live productive lives. Let's face it, their lives will never be normal again, no matter what we do. In many countries 20 years is the maximuim sentence anyone can get. I am not sure I would want 20 years as our maximum, but short of LWOP, 20 to 30 would probably be about right.

Think about it. Why do we want to lock up a drug trafficker for 50 or 75 years? It is a non-violent crime , and while I don't support drug usage at all and wish we could stop it, I don't think prison deters anyone except maybe me.

I think the circumstances around the crime should have everything to do with what kind of sentence is given. I don't think some young mother being twisted by a hormone imbalance should be viewed in the same light as a serial killer or someone who breaks into someone's house and kills the family. It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the seriousness of the crime or the suffering of the victims. It just means that I have a hard time with wasting life or what is left of it just for the sake of punishment. There should be punishment and there should be harsh punishment. I just don't agree with neverending punishment unless there is no other choice, as in a sex offender who cannot stop himself no matter what we do.

But promise, scouts honor, not to do it again, and we wil reward you by giving you your liberty so you can go boozing at the local bar and party hardy, while the two little boys will never live another day.

I do think you are trivializing the seriousness of our discussion here. Inmates are never paroled simply because they promise to be good. They have to show a real effort in rehabilitating themselves while still on the inside. It is not an easy process, but it can be achieved by an inmate with serious aspirations of one day getting paroled. Those who haven't got what it takes to go thru the process don't make it. Still I would like to see our parole system improved, so that the Duncan's of this world do not slip through so easily.

 

[Goody]

Goody! I agree that people who kill their children do not deserve second chances, but I am not talking about what anyone deserves.

but you did say you thought somehwere down the road Darlie might deserve this, and you have said you dont consider her a threat to society....you state people shouldnt be locked away fro the rest of their lives.......

that is where my confusion comes in-- do you or dont you think darlie or other murdered like her deserve a second chance?

I don't think they deserve it; deserve being the keyword. I think the state's job is to stop the Darlie's of this world from getting away with murder and to punish them for their crime, so that hopefully they will learn not to reoffend in the future.

The question I run into at that point is how long is a sufficient punishment? Twenty years, thirty years, all of their natural lives, death?

I think it is wrong to waste a life that could be productive. So I am not in favor of LWOP except to protect society from someone who will reoffend violently. I don't think Darlie falls into that category; am not so sure about Andrea Yates; don't think Susan Smith falls into that category, not so sure about Diane Downs.

I think the state needs to do what the state feels is in the best interests of society without regard to who deserves what. Is it in society's best interests to lock up an 80 year old man dying of cancer? Is it in society's best interests to lock up kids on drug charges most of their natural lives, thus preventing them from any and all opportunity to ever be productive? Etc, etc. If the state decides to keep an inmate until well into old age, what are they protecting us from? Being run over by a speeding wheel chair? Yes, I am being flippant, but you get the picture, I think.

The Darlies of this world certainly are punished if they are locked up for 20 or 30 years. Who can argue with that? If we can't bring the victims back by housing them forever, why on earth do we want to do it? There are bigger and badder criminals that need our funds and attention. And don't forget that once we max out the space in our prisons, we are going to have to do something to make room for the newly convicted. I sure would not want to see sex offenders and other violent types to be suddenly up for parole to make room for the kids busted with too much pot, meth, and whatever else they can find to burn up their brains. Bad choices, yes, but it shouldn't be the state's priority to protect them from themselves.

I think we should punish them, rehab them, and put them back out while they can still be useful to society on whatever level they can. I don't think we should jam up our prisons with inmates who are rehabable until we are forced to let out the violent ones (as we have done in the past) without much screening so they can reoffend. The state is supposed to be an objective authority, not some mealy mouthed, ineffective body so caught up in misplaced emotion that it is always a day late and a dollar short. We are tired of excuses. We want results. At least I do. And I see no reason to waste Darlie's entire life. She has to live with her deed. It will forever haunt her in many, many ways. Prison is probably the least of her punishment, but it will certainly be a burden on the state if they keep her forever (which they won't because of that little date with the needle) But if they could......

 

[Goody]

I certainly HOPE that I am not the only person who feels this way.

Because I sure would like to see the face of the person who lives next door to the man who killed two kids because he did not want to leave any witnesses to the crime when he held them down, tortured them, sexually assulted them and then killed them. But first he shot their parents to death......

Go ahead invite him over for tea, intoduce him to your three kids........tell them that he made a mistake, but is rehabiliated, that he paid his debt to society, that prison is such an awful place to be.

Then go ahead let your kids outside, even if you watch them like a hawk, who is to say that you not be shot first and then he goes after your kids.

Hindsight is great, 20/20 hindsight is even better, but death is death and is permanent.......for eternity........ a mistake even a simple one can cost you the most valuable thing a person has - their existance on this planet.

Great speech but no one is supporting the Duncan's and Cooey's of this world to be eligible for parole. Even some politicians are beginning to realize that this is unacceptable.

But the Darlies and Susan Smiths are not sex offenders. They were very emotionally charged women in dire circumstances (at least to them) and unable to cope. They committed horrific acts against their own; acts that will probably never be repeated by them even if given the opportunity. In fact, I imagine both wish they had chosen a different path on those fateful days.

I agree with you 100% that stranger abductions/rapes/murders should almost always come with at least a LWOP sentence just by nature of the crime and the poor rehab rates. I don't think it will deter many, probably very few, but it would protect society against the repeat offenders.

 

[Goody]

Goody! I agree that people who kill their children do not deserve second chances, but I am not talking about what anyone deserves.

but you did say you thought somehwere down the road Darlie might deserve this, and you have said you dont consider her a threat to society....you state people shouldnt be locked away fro the rest of their lives.......

that is where my confusion comes in-- do you or dont you think darlie or other murdered like her deserve a second chance?

I don't believe I ever used the word "deserve."

 

[beesy]

And don't yell at me. (I'm sorry if I am upsetting anyone.) I have waffled on this many times myself. I'd be first in line to vote for execution of Samatha Runion's killer, but I would also be first to vote Andrea Yates into a mental institution and probably somewhere in the line to vote for parole for Susan Smith at some point. (I would also be first to vote for acquittal of Dixie S.) We can't bring back any of the victims. No one can do that. The only thing left to do now, as a responsible society, is to look at the killers to determine what should and can be done about them. Overburdening the state with people who could be rehabilitated but won't be doesn't make a lot of sense, esp if our only reason for not doing it is that we are outraged over the nature of their crime.

You're not upsetting me. Don't worry about it. This is why we're all here, to brainstorm about Darlie and the DP, etc. And yes, LWOP does sound like Hell on earth. I cannot imagine how horrible it must feel to hear the door slam shut. Perhaps the DP is better than that. I just don't think Darlie should be let out. DP should NOT be used as a punishment, but I don't trust Darlie. Maybe if she confessed, I don't know..to be so cold as to hang onto her lame story for all these years shows no remorse. I gotta give her and Dr. Mac credit though. Most people who claim they are wrongly convicted would have caved by now. Maybe all they have inside of them is the just the mechanics to live, like a computer.

 

[Goody]

You're not upsetting me. Don't worry about it. This is why we're all here, to brainstorm about Darlie and the DP, etc. And yes, LWOP does sound like Hell on earth. I cannot imagine how horrible it must feel to hear the door slam shut. Perhaps the DP is better than that. I just don't think Darlie should be let out. DP should NOT be used as a punishment, but I don't trust Darlie. Maybe if she confessed, I don't know..to be so cold as to hang onto her lame story for all these years shows no remorse. I gotta give her and Dr. Mac credit though. Most people who claim they are wrongly convicted would have caved by now. Maybe all they have inside of them is the just the mechanics to live, like a computer.

Darlie's claim of innocence is the only thing separating her from that needle. She has to continue the claim to prolong her life her on earth. It won't be until her fed appeals are over that we might get to see or hear what really happened that night. Once reality hits her and she realizes that she is going down for this alone, if she is truly not the only one involved, I think she will be angry enough to turn state's evidence. If there is anyway she make a deal, and as far as I know there is not, but if there is, I hope she does it. I would like to see her get off of death row.....alive.

 

[beesy]

Darlie's claim of innocence is the only thing separating her from that needle. She has to continue the claim to prolong her life her on earth. It won't be until her fed appeals are over that we might get to see or hear what really happened that night. Once reality hits her and she realizes that she is going down for this alone, if she is truly not the only one involved, I think she will be angry enough to turn state's evidence. If there is anyway she make a deal, and as far as I know there is not, but if there is, I hope she does it. I would like to see her get off of death row.....alive.

Bruno Hauptman never admitted to kidnapping and/or killing the Lindberg baby. He went to his death proclaiming his innocense. That always made me think he was innocent, even though his cover story was beyond lame. Recently they've used updated forensic tools and have tied him to the crime. Although they think the baby was accidently killed.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Is it possible for her sentence to be commuted to LWOP? Most likely she'd have to confess if it could? Her appeals are all based on "I didn't do it and I was screwed". Maybe by confessing she could get off DR and get LWOP?

Its almost impossible for her to win on any appeal. There's just nothing there. I think her only chance would be the governor and this being Texas, I doubt any politician is going to risk his or her career in order to commute Darlie's sentence.

 

[j2mirish]

I don't believe I ever used the word "deserve."

you said you didnt think there was any reason not to parole people like darlie.....
my mistake.....:bang:

i still dont understand your thoughts on what they might not do again, you dont seem to address my concerns about what they have ALREADY done.

i dont disagree with 1st time non-violent offenders.......but you seem to think people who kill family members are in a "different" catagory. what is the difference between scott peterson, darlie, susan, etc etc, or the scum back that killed samantha? i realize the sexual side, but they all have killed children....
why is killing someone you dont know worse than someone you do know?

 

[CyberLaw]

But the Darlies and Susan Smiths are not sex offenders. They were very emotionally charged women in dire circumstances (at least to them) and unable to cope. They committed horrific acts against their own; acts that will probably never be repeated by them even if given the opportunity. In fact, I imagine both wish they had chosen a different path on those fateful days

I am SURE that 4 young children WISH that their mothers choose a different path those fateful days, but unfortunately, they had no choice in the actions of their "loving mothers" who were emotionally charged, who choose to snuff out the lives of the people who loved and trusted them the most..........the most vulnerable members of society.

You see those kids will never live again, never play, never date, never go to college, never marry and never have kids. They will never do anything ever again......and you want sympathy because their mothers made the choice to kill their kids because of whatever reasons........people have the choice to kill or not to kill.......they make that choice.

The pain, suffering, terror that those children felt in their last moments on earth betrayed by the person who was surposed to love and protect them........Keep the Susan Smith's, Diane Downs, and Darlie Routiers of this world locked up........

They choose to solve their "perceived" problems with murder.........of little children............and then lie their faces off to protect THEMSELVES.

A women starts a fire. Opps every adult got out, including the womens' wheel chair bound mother, her ex-husband.....but low and behold, the most vulnerable person her 15 year old son, died.

He just happen to have a 250K life insurance policy......should we now "rehabiliate" this women by giving her a lesson in ethics. Now listen up - ETHICS 101- it is wrong to kill your own child for money, to sacrifice his life for your material comfort.

So as soon as you learn your lesson(because you killed your own child) we will let you walk out the door, because after all you did not kill a stranger, but your own child.

Talk about a betrayal of love and trust.......please.......killing your own child in my book is WORSE then killing a stranger.........because you had a duty to protect your child from harm......that would be from their own mothers.....

 

[Goody]

Bruno Hauptman never admitted to kidnapping and/or killing the Lindberg baby. He went to his death proclaiming his innocense. That always made me think he was innocent, even though his cover story was beyond lame. Recently they've used updated forensic tools and have tied him to the crime. Although they think the baby was accidently killed.

How do you accidentally smash a baby's skull in?

 

[Goody]

you said you didnt think there was any reason not to parole people like darlie.....
my mistake.....:bang:

No problem.

i still dont understand your thoughts on what they might not do again, you dont seem to address my concerns about what they have ALREADY done.

Sure I did. Punishment for what they have already done (assuming they were tried for all crimes in their past) would lie in whatever sentence they received...20, 30 years, whatever. The same way it is dealt with in other countries.

i dont disagree with 1st time non-violent offenders.......

Why only first time non-violent crimes? You want to throw the book at a habitual thief or drug offender? Some people never get their stuff together, but that doesn't make them a danger to society. Unless you place material things on the same level as human life.

but you seem to think people who kill family members are in a "different" catagory. what is the difference between scott peterson, darlie, susan, etc etc, or the scum back that killed samantha? i realize the sexual side, but they all have killed children....
why is killing someone you dont know worse than someone you do know?

It isn't. But usually in family situations there are mitigating factors. People get caught up in the drama and lose track of what is important to them. In order for them to reoffend, the same set of circumstances would almost have to duplicate. In sexual deviant crimes, the killer will create his own circumstances because he lusts for the kill. Reoffending is a certainity rather than an unlikelihood.

I am afraid I am biased when it comes to Peterson and probably most male killers. I don't see desperation in their acts but if all facts were known, I very well could in the Darlies and Susan Smiths, etc. Bottom line though, in respect to this discussion, the length of sentence and severity of it should depend on the convicted killer's ability to rehab, his willingness to do it, and the likelihood of reoffending if he were to gain his freedom again.

Take the Canadian killer Karla H. , for example. People are outraged that she is paroled, but there are some who believe she will not reoffend based on the influence Paul had over her. If she doesn't reoffend, the parole is probably fair and just, in spite of the lack of revenge in the sentence. If she reoffends violently, it will be a collassal offense.

 

[Goody]

So as soon as you learn your lesson(because you killed your own child) we will let you walk out the door, because after all you did not kill a stranger, but your own child.

Talk about a betrayal of love and trust.......please.......killing your own child in my book is WORSE then killing a stranger.........because you had a duty to protect your child from harm......that would be from their own mothers.....

I agree with you that emotionally all of these cases demand lifetime or death penalty sentences. I agree that these killers deserve the harshest of sentences. I just don't think the state should be an avenger.

Maybe I am just in a charitable mood this week. I think that we are putting too many in prison for too long, and that it is going to bite us in the butt. Then there will be a push to parole some of these lifers, and we will find them back out in the streets without having gone through any rehab programs.

I don't think harsh sentences deter crime. The only people truly afraid are those who wouldn't commit the crimes anyway.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I agree with you that emotionally all of these cases demand lifetime or death penalty sentences. I agree that these killers deserve the harshest of sentences. I just don't think the state should be an avenger.

Maybe I am just in a charitable mood this week. I think that we are putting too many in prison for too long, and that it is going to bite us in the butt. Then there will be a push to parole some of these lifers, and we will find them back out in the streets without having gone through any rehab programs.

I don't think harsh sentences deter crime. The only people truly afraid are those who wouldn't commit the crimes anyway.

Sentences aren't there to deter crime Goody. They're there to punish those who did the crime. The death penalty is NOT in place to be a deterrent. Its simply a punishment - the harshest that there is - for murderers like Darlie. I agree with the sentence and as a citizen of this state, I'm going to be pretty angry if its not carried out.

 

[j2mirish]

Goody

usually in family situations there are mitigating factors. People get caught up in the drama and lose track of what is important to them. In order for them to reoffend, the same set of circumstances would almost have to duplicate.

I am afraid I am biased when it comes to Peterson and probably most male killers. I don't see desperation in their acts but if all facts were known, I very well could in the Darlies and Susan Smiths, etc.

I am a mother of 2 children. and although I can see some folks feeling sorry for "woman" killers, I guess I go just the opposite--they make me madder than the opposite---how does a mother kill her own children?especially when they only kill the children...whatever the case may be that has brought them to this decision...they sure dont kill themselves along with the children..do they?

Why do you see such a diffence between peterson & darlie? I watched that trial until i think my husband thought I was going over the deep end!! still look here on the other forum..LOL He imo is no better...no any worse than Darlie? why are woman desperate when they kill, byut men arent?

guess this is a good point to just say it looks like we will have to agree to always disagree!!

 

[beesy]

How do you accidentally smash a baby's skull in?

Well, really my point was that Hauptman never confessed, so there is a big chance that Darlie won't either. Not "accidentally", but not planned either. They don't even know with what his skull was smashed.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Darlie's claim of innocence is the only thing separating her from that needle. She has to continue the claim to prolong her life her on earth. It won't be until her fed appeals are over that we might get to see or hear what really happened that night. Once reality hits her and she realizes that she is going down for this alone, if she is truly not the only one involved, I think she will be angry enough to turn state's evidence. If there is anyway she make a deal, and as far as I know there is not, but if there is, I hope she does it. I would like to see her get off of death row.....alive.

I've known you long enough to understand your feelings about this Goody, but you know there's absolutely nothing she can say about the involvement of any other person that will prevent her from being executed. The only thing that I can see that would have made the situation any different would have been had she spoken up about it sooner. There would most likely have been a second trial for that person, the outcome most likely would have been two individuals on death row instead of one. The testimony of one convicted murderer is not enough to put another person in prison or on the row.

 

[j2mirish]

Originally Posted by Goody
Darlie's claim of innocence is the only thing separating her from that needle. She has to continue the claim to prolong her life her on earth. It won't be until her fed appeals are over that we might get to see or hear what really happened that night. Once reality hits her and she realizes that she is going down for this alone, if she is truly not the only one involved, I think she will be angry enough to turn state's evidence. If there is anyway she make a deal, and as far as I know there is not, but if there is, I hope she does it. I would like to see her get off of death row.....alive.

to do what? spend the rest of her life in prison, which you dont agree with either?