Quoting from the beginning of this thread, a few years ago, I agree with this post. Someone asked me recently whether I would vote for death or life. I would vote for life.
My feelings like many are complicated. I believe that some people deserve to die. I do believe that. I just don't believe that the government should make that decision except in cases of war, for the most part. Or other situations like, for example, the case of Osama bin Laden.
We are the only western civilized, first world democracy, to continue using the death penalty. England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, Norway, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, none of them use the death penalty. Only we do and in that, we are comparable to Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc.
We also have very high per capita homicide rates compared to the countries that do not use the death penalty:
The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. There were 17,034 murders in the United States in 2006[28] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[29] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison
My point is that I do not believe it is a deterrent.
I also have a real problem with the fact that historically, more minorities, especially black people, have been sentenced to death and that the innocence project has found that many black people sentenced to death are actually innocent. I think that there remains a subconscious attitude
in a large portion of our population that black people are savage animals that are more capable of crime than others and the thought of one person being put to death who didn't commit the crime they were convicted of, makes me sick, especially if the judgment was partially based on race.
I find the death penalty to be a gruesome, methodical form of killing that is somewhat barbaric. That being said, if I was on a jury for joseph duncan or ted bundy, etc., I would set aside my philosophical beliefs and vote for death, as contradictory as it sounds. I guess that is because I do believe that some people deserve to die and I would hypocritically go against my aversion to a state-sponsored death penalty, using it to "punish" the worst of the worst.
I suppose I feel that if we are to use it, it should be used only for the worst of the worst, i.e., torture killers, serial killers, thrill killers, etc. People who enjoy killing and causing suffering.
Is that casey? Not IMO. I would be satisfied with life in prison. I do think she is a danger to society. She is a dog gone bad and will never be rehabilitated. We should be protected from her.
I also agree, sadly, that she will likely adapt to prison and work the system, which infuriates me to no end. But regardless of that, such sociopathic, adaptive criminals still are prohibited from the daily pleasures of life like a nice shower whenever you want it, soft toilet paper, sunshine, the beach, a glass of orange juice in the middle of the night, a private place to use the toilet, comfy jammies, a soft pillow and comforter, good, healthy and tasty food, going to the movies, having a glass of wine or a beer, etc. Sociopathic killers like casey and scott peterson dream about those things and long for freedom as a result, and that is consolation to me.
Finally, I do not believe she will be sentenced to death. It is very rare for a woman to be so sentenced in our country and the ones that have have been serial killers or black widows, for the most part. Mothers who are young and kill their small child, well I don't know of one in recent times who has been so sentenced. But, I am happy that we are to have a death qualified jury because they will be more likely to find casey guilty of first degree murder. :twocents:
