John David Battaglia will be sentenced soon for murdering his two daughters while their mother was on the phone with him. So what do you think, life or death? I have a feeling that Battaglia will get the death penalty. But is there a double standard, considering that Andrea Yates did not? I'd say that there is a double standard. If Mr. Yates had killed the children instead, he certainly would have received the death penalty. (Heck, if some people have their way, he'd get it and he didn't even commit the crime!)
While I might agree that it is probably the case that people, in general, believe women should receive lighter sentences for killing their kids than men for the same crime (though I've not looked at the stats on that), the facts of these two specific cases are vastly different as their reasons for killing their kids are as different as night and day. Mr. Battaglia appears to have killed his kids for revenge against his ex-wife and nothing more. Even seeing him talk about the crime recently, he seemed unrepentant at what he had done. Mrs. Yates quite obviously suffers from some form of mental illness, and while that does not excuse what she has done, it does, in my opinion, act as a mitigating factor against the death penalty. Mr. Battaglia has shown no mitigating factors to preclude giving him the death penalty, in my opinion. But I wouldn't give either one of them the death penalty if it was up to me. But that's just because there are very few people I believe are truly worthy of it. John Battaglia, while a horrible man who committed a very horrible crime, is not someone I would put on death row. Speaking of parents who get the death penalty, though, we could drag Darlie Routier into the discussion. When presented with an apparently heartless mother who killed her kids for financial reasons (at least that's the way it played at trial. People have obviously disagreed with that assessment and disagreed with Darlie's guilt altogether), a jury picked the death penalty as punishment.
That's why nobody should get the Death Penalty, it will always be unfairly handed out. Men have a greater chance than women, poor people will get it more often than rich people, and minorities more often than whites. "Can we get along?" - Rodney King
Statistically speaking, even when you adjust for brutality of crimes (men do commit more violent crimes) a man is much more likely to receive the death penalty. Juries don't like putting women to death. And they like putting white women to death even less than women at large. Andrea Yates was a protected subgroup of a protected group. Another reason why it should be banned... when justice is arbitrary, it's not justice.
Death to the death penalty. I hate it. It's unfairly applied, costs more money than life imprisonment, and has been shown not to deter. Although I do think we should keep it in a corner somewhere in the event that one day we find bin Laden.
It was 10 years ago today, wasn't it? I do agree King was not the guy to rise up from that mess and do something important. I think he's in rehab as we speak.
Well well well....look who's staring death in the face: http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/050102dnmetbattaglia.3927742a.html
Agree/disagree with the death penalty as you may - you have to agree that something's wrong when it costs more to kill a man than imprison him for life? How much does it cost to execute someone anyway?
yeah, i hate it when people who are put to death kill again, damn them!! if, maybe, you meant it doesn't deter other people from killing..... couldn't we say the same thing about life in prison? hell, for that matter, couldn't we say the same thing about the justice system as a whole? let's review: is justice arbitrary? yes. does it costs billions of dollars to maintain? yes. has it done anything to decrease crime in our society? no.
has it done anything to decrease crime in our society? no. How do you know this? If speeding resulted in a $50,000 fine or life-in-prison, I can guarantee you the number of people speeding would drop dramatically. Sentencing does have a deterrent effect. The real issue is whether the death penalty is any more effective than life in prison. At some point, nothing will deter someone because the punishment is irrelevent, and that's really where we might be when we get to the LIP / Death area.
The reason it costs more is because it is more costly to argue a case that ends in the death penalty - mainly because the trial is longer. Attorney fees increase because trial length increases. The reason that happens is because getting the death penalty as a verdict REQUIRES that it be far more difficult to prove. If it isn't harder to prove, it makes it easier to put innocent people on death row. The process that the state has to go through to get the death penalty is longer, slower and more arduous legally which is why it costs more. It has nothing to do with prison time, food or practical stuff of that nature. Setting aside my moral disagreements with the death penalty, there are too many mistakes in the death penalty system. A few facts: <i><b>Mistakes:</b> At least 23 innocent people have been executed in this century, and 99 innocent Americans have been exonerated from death row in just the last two decades, but not before losing a total of 800 years of their lives on death row for crimes they didn't commit. <b>Costs:</b> Various state governments estimate that a single death penalty case from arrest to execution ranges from $1 million up to $7 million. Cases resulting in life imprisonment average around $500,000 each, including incarceration cost. <b>Racism:</b> Over 82 percent of those on death row were convicted of killing a white person, though people of color make up more than 50 percent of all homicide victims in the U.S. In addition 43 percent of those on death row are black, though only 12 percent of the U.S. population is black. <b>Deterrance:</b> States that do not have the death penalty have an average murder rate that is actually lower than states that do have the death penalty. In 1995 the police chiefs across the United States were polled by a bi-partisan polling firm and ask to rank the ten things that reduce crime - the death penalty was almost unanimously ranked last. <b>Poverty:</b> The American Bar Association (ABA) has reported that over 90% of those on death row couldn't afford their own attorney at trial and were appointed counsel.</i>
That is a ridiculous sum of money to be spent on the dregs of society. The other points, such as deterrence, might be arguable, but I can't agree with spending $6 million to put a person, however deserving, to death. That $6 million would be much better spent in a program to give 100 kids a better chance of a life away from crime. And while I'm on topic about spending money uselessly: stop the freaking war on pot. I don't smoke it, but I suspect everyone smoking it, every day would do less damage to America than the war on it has. Save prison for criminals. Just for the record Jeff: assuming the numbers in the above quote are true, I've gone from pro to anti death penalty. I still agree with it in principle, just not in practice.
Gutter Snipe: you think the war on pot is something? Well, I heard a story on talk radio in San Antonio on my way home yesterday that a co-op in New York City has banned smoking in condo-type housing. I could not be more appalled that you can be told not to smoke in a residence that you're paying for. The war is about personal rights in my opinion...but that's another thread.
Wow, it's cool to see somebody change their minds about a topic that few people are willing to. Last year, some people in College Station protested the DP right before a big weekend protest in Austin. I remember getting on the bus the next day to go to my class at the Bush school, and everybody on that bus was talking about how stupid people are for not believing in the DP. My favorite quote was by this one guy who said, "Man, what I hate about thum people protestin', is that they don't know no one who got kilt' bafore'." As funny as that guy sounded, he did have a point though. I'm glad I've never had to test my conviction against a person who killed somebody I know. I heard a Federal Judge in New York is challenging the legality of the DP, let's hope that goes well.
Gutter: Generally, I would think $6 - $7 million is a little on the high side. I've read that, in general, it runs 4 to 5 times what life in prison runs, putting the figure more reasonably between $2 million and $4 million. Still, it is MUCH higher than life in prison.
Were they rentals or owned homes? I can understand like apartments. The cost to remove the smoke smell and tarnish to the walls could be costly to apartment owners. My wife and I moved into our house after two smokers had lived here for just under 5 years. We had to pull out all the carpet and paint all the walls just to get the smell out. In addition, when my wife cleaned the cabinets in the kitchen, it was like the clean one was painted white and the one that hadn't been cleaned next to it was painted pale yellow. Ick. One other thing to consider... because condos share a wall (and sometimes, ventilation), it might be because other owners have complained about sharing those spaces with smokers. The value of the condos might actually increase if it is non-smoking, but I don't know. If it is an owned property, I'm pretty much in agreement. I think you should be able to do what you want with and in your home. But, rentals, I understand.
Actually what I heard was that non-smokers were complaining that they could smell the smoke of their neighbors in their dwellings. Sounds like a ventilation problem to me. Instead of taking care of the problem they banned smoking. You would think that they would have at least made the tentants pay for humidifiers or something. You're right Jeff, those are apartments-condos.
This same apartment-condo has restrictions on stereos as well. Of course a tenant may play them only at a certain level (which I understand), but the speakers themselves have a SIZE LIMITATION!
