Eric Rudolph

So perhaps someone can explain this one to me.

Our current attorney general is of the opinion that the death penalty is not used enough. He interjected himself personally (and many in the legal community -- prosecutors and defense alike -- believe inappropriately) into the decision to seek the death penalty in a particular case, a decision that traditionally has been within the sole purview of the local US Attorney, regularly overruling the decisions of local prosecutors against seeking capital punishment in particular cases. He has made it harder for prosecutors to enter into plea agreements with defendants by mandating the pursuit of stricter sentences. He has instructed that judges that issue more lenient sentences be "monitored".

Yet this terrorist, Eric Rudolph, the olympic and abortion clinic bomber, is allowed to plead guilty and avoid the death penalty. I'm not aware of any significant weaknesses in the government's case against him (in any of the FOUR bombings of which he was accused, by the way) that would seem to weigh significantly in favor of a plea.

At first blush, this smells bad. I haven't figured out what the second blush is yet. Anyone?

[Dead]

It's not because Eric Rudolph is anti-abortion and anti-gay. I doubt it was even a decision that Gonzalez made. It was probably made by a subordinate.

[xadrez]

The thing I find strange about Eric Rudolph is that not once have I heard one person call him a "terrorist", which he most clearly is.

[Dead]

I've called him a terrorist before. Not on here, but he certainly is one- a domestic terrorist, to be exact. People who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists. They are trying to effect change through violent intimidation.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not because Eric Rudolph is anti-abortion and anti-gay. I doubt it was even a decision that Gonzalez made. It was probably made by a subordinate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I foolishly referred to our "current" AG in my original post. I was referring to John Ashcroft, who should have of course been identified as the predecessor to Mr. Gonzalez.

But the question still remains. Why was Mr. Rudolph allowed to escape death while this administration, through Mr. Ashcroft, required the pursuit of the death penalty in much less egregious cases? Why is he worthy of a lighter punishment than Timothy McVeigh, let alone the murderers and drug dealers that Mr. Ashcroft insisted get death?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is he worthy of a lighter punishment than Timothy McVeigh

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad argument, because I would guess that McVeigh would have voted Republican.

He detested Clinton and he detested big government. Lots of Republicans still gripe about Waco.

Bush didn't care bout his history. He didn't pardon him. he let the execution go through. I respect Bush for that.

Of course, Rudolph should die. It was good that McVeigh died. Terry Nichols should have to die as well, but he won't.

The death penalty is not used enough.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not because Eric Rudolph is anti-abortion and anti-gay. I doubt it was even a decision that Gonzalez made. It was probably made by a subordinate.

[/ QUOTE ]


I foolishly referred to our "current" AG in my original post. I was referring to John Ashcroft, who should have of course been identified as the predecessor to Mr. Gonzalez.

But the question still remains. Why was Mr. Rudolph allowed to escape death while this administration, through Mr. Ashcroft, required the pursuit of the death penalty in much less egregious cases? Why is he worthy of a lighter punishment than Timothy McVeigh, let alone the murderers and drug dealers that Mr. Ashcroft insisted get death?

[/ QUOTE ]

Niss,

MY understanding is that the death penalty was not sought in exchange for information on the locations of several large caches of explosives, some of which were apparently very close to some inhabited areas.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is he worthy of a lighter punishment than Timothy McVeigh

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad argument, because I would guess that McVeigh would have voted Republican.

He detested Clinton and he detested big government. Lots of Republicans still gripe about Waco.

Bush didn't care bout his history. He didn't pardon him. he let the execution go through. I respect Bush for that.

Of course, Rudolph should die. It was good that McVeigh died. Terry Nichols should have to die as well, but he won't.

The death penalty is not used enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not intended to be a referendum on the death penalty. Please don't turn this thread into that.

Nobody said McVeigh did or did not deserve the death penalty. The question is that, if McVeigh deserved it, and was not allowed to plead in order to avoid the death penalty, then why was Rudolph allowed to do so?

I think a reasonable question to discuss is whether the administration feared that his execution would alienate or offend a portion of its base constituency.

Thanks vulture, I hadn't heard that. If there's a legitimate reason for letting him escape the death penalty, then I've got no problem with letting him plead.

[Dead]

I hadn't heard that VR said, but I'm sure that he is correct.

I guess that I understand the logic behind a life sentence in this case, although that is very unfortunate.

Your comments that the administration didn't want to kill Rudolph because they feared alienating their constituency is ridiculous. Most anti-choice people did not support Rudolph and his extremism. Most realize that you cannot call yourself "pro-life" while supporting the bombing of clinics.

[ QUOTE ]

Your comments that the administration didn't want to kill Rudolph because they feared alienating their constituency is ridiculous. Most anti-choice people did not support Rudolph and his extremism. Most realize that you cannot call yourself "pro-life" while supporting the bombing of clinics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't bend over so far backwards to make yourself seem "fair and balanced". It's a completely reasonable question. I think it is reasonable to believe that there is undoubtedly a good chunk of anti-abortion folks who sympathize with Rudolph, while not agreeing with his tactics. Give me 10 minutes tonight to look on the internet and I would be surprised if I couldn't find something to back up this belief.

I wasn't saying the administration did this, by the way. I was raising the question in what appeared to be the absence of a legitimate reason for the administration to change course for this domestic terrorist.

[Dead]

I'm not bending backwards to be fair and balanced. I'm trying to be consistent.

Rudolph deserves the DP.

McVeigh did.

There is no proof that Bush or his subordinates decided against seeking the DP for Rudolph because they feared alienating the Religious Right.

VR probably has the right reason.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
The death penalty is not used enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG OMG you're not a true liberal!!! (see how foolish it is)

All kidding aside, how can you say this? What does killing him accomplish? It doesn't deter crime. It costs us more money. He will die eventually. The death penalty serves no rational or logical purpose.

I'm glad that scumbag gets to sit in prison the rest of his life. He will either be miserable from horrible treatment or be in solitary. Neither of those are much fun.

[kurto]

I still fantasize about penal colonies. The premise of "Escape From New York" had a charm to it. Drop the worst offenders on an island with the means to feed themselves and build their shelters... who knows... 200 years later we might have another Australia /images/graemlins/wink.gif

On a practical note, I too am a pro-death penalty liberal. And I actually think its less cruel then life in prison.

I do think that the Death Penalty is abused. And it who gets there, under what standard of proof and with what consistancy needs to be re-evaluated.

But, let's say a serial killer is caught in the act butchering his 40th victim. His guilt is incontrovertible. He can't be rehabilitated. I see no reason why the death penalty is inappropriate.

summary- Huge penal colonies are ideal, at least to the side of me that loved Early John Carpenter. I think the Death Penalty is reasonable, but the system now currently sucks.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why the death penalty is inappropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to prove that though, you have to prove why it is more appropriate than life in prison. That can not be done when it is considered rationally and logically.

[Daliman]

HAs anyone who ever plead guilty still gotten a death sentence?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The death penalty is not used enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG OMG you're not a true liberal!!! (see how foolish it is)

All kidding aside, how can you say this? What does killing him accomplish? It doesn't deter crime. It costs us more money. He will die eventually. The death penalty serves no rational or logical purpose.

I'm glad that scumbag gets to sit in prison the rest of his life. He will either be miserable from horrible treatment or be in solitary. Neither of those are much fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that a right-winger would accuse me of not being a liberal. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[kurto]

"you have to prove why it is more appropriate than life in prison."

I don't know that anyone could agree on the required criteria to make that determination. But here's my thoughts...
1) the ideal of prisons is supposed to punishment AND rehabilitation. Our system is almost a complete failure in terms of rehabilitation. There are certain psychosis for which we know there is no rehabilitation. Without the possibility of rehabilitation, a lot of the 'good' of prisons is gone.
2) At which point it becomes (completely practically speaking) a waste of money and resources. (I know some will counter that its more expensive to use the death penalty, but that is due more to court costs then the practical reality. I have a strong belief that this could be fixed.)
3) This is my own personal belief- A life spent doing hard time in a prison with no chance for parole is crueler then being 'put to sleep.' I recognize that this is my opinion and may not be shared by others.
4) If society needs to be protected from individuals, then having them incarcerated always carries some threat where there threat is entirely removed if they are dead.

At a simple pragmatic level... a serial killer who tortures and murders dozens of people has no value to a society by being kept alive (other then the study of such individuals). Keeping them alive means they are in some way still a threat to (1) other prisoners (2) the people who work at the prisons (3) the general populace should they escape. They are a burden as well as a threat to society.

I don't see how we as a society benefit by keeping them alive locked in a prison until they die.

* For the sake of this argument, let's be hypothetical and say that all the above happens in a world where we've fixed the system so that we are certain in each case that there has been a sufficient burden of proof about their guilt and that its doled out evenly and consistantly.

[thatpfunk]

Are you dillusional? Are you bi-polar or something?

What right-wing issues have I agreed with on this forum?

And address the question please.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you dillusional?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. But I am delusional.

[ QUOTE ]
What right-wing issues have I agreed with on this forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was sarcasm. Just like yours.

[ QUOTE ]
And address the question please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your mom. Kurto already addressed it fine.

[thatpfunk]

Your thoughts are all valid. I used to be very pro-death penalty, so I understand your beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
1) the ideal of prisons is supposed to punishment AND rehabilitation. Our system is almost a complete failure in terms of rehabilitation. There are certain psychosis for which we know there is no rehabilitation. Without the possibility of rehabilitation, a lot of the 'good' of prisons is gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may sound redundant: Even so, it does not give us the right to end the life of another human. As a living human being there is always the chance that an individual may contribute something to society (see the Death Row inmate, former gang member, who writes books now about the dangers of gangs).

[ QUOTE ]
2) At which point it becomes (completely practically speaking) a waste of money and resources. (I know some will counter that its more expensive to use the death penalty, but that is due more to court costs then the practical reality. I have a strong belief that this could be fixed.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If it does get fixed I think this becomes a very valid point. Until then I think it makes the anti death penalty argument very strong.

[ QUOTE ]
4) If society needs to be protected from individuals, then having them incarcerated always carries some threat where there threat is entirely removed if they are dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know of any statisitics, but I would be willing to bet the number of people hurt due to high-security prison escapees is a minute number.

When thinking rationally, I have a great deal of trouble believing that we have the right to kill someone. However, when I get emotional about things I very much understand a pro-death penalty stance.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a great deal of trouble believing that we have the right to kill someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that murderers have the right to kill their victims?

We certainly have the right to kill murderers.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
It was sarcasm. Just like yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Denote sarcasm with a /images/graemlins/tongue.gif or /images/graemlins/grin.gif or /images/graemlins/smile.gif or /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif indicates condescension.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
We certainly have the right to kill murderers.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does we have the right to end the life of another human being?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We certainly have the right to kill murderers.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does we have the right to end the life of another human being?

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you violate someone else's right to life, you've forfeited your own. And the state or federal government, working through the citizens of the state/country, should execute you.

[kurto]

Let me also say... I don't think the Death Penalty is ideal. I think we have to balance what we think is ideal with being practical.

Rehabilitation is ideal. But our nation doesn't have that mindset. There are other countries who handle it better and therefore have lower rates of recitivism (is that the right word? Too lazy to look it up-- they are better at real rehabiliation) We focus too much on punishment in our nation. We're not good at prevention... only how to attack the problems we've allowed to develop.

Since our system is not geared to making prisoners reform... if anything, it makes people worse. What are the practical realities?

Dangerous criminals will never, by our system, be returned into the public.

Our prisons are growing too large and becoming too expensive. They need to stop locking up people smoking joints... give counseling, job training and education to the people who can be rehabilitated... which leaves the tough question of what to do to people who have no hope.

To me, the practical reality is that there is little reason to incarcerate someone forever.

(The reason I liked the penal colony idea is the criminals are left to their own survival... they can learn to work together to survive, farm some land, etc., or perish if they can't... its their responsibility to work it out. Though if you know someone is a psychotic, he's going to just kill other people out of compulsion)

"If it does get fixed I think this becomes a very valid point." It won't get fixed without major reform... ie, it won't get fixed. GBt that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.

"I do not know of any statisitics, but I would be willing to bet the number of people hurt due to high-security prison escapees is a minute number." I understand prisoners kill and abuse other prisoners pretty consistantly. I'm not sure about prison guards but every couple of years you read about some prison riot where a few guards get killed or injured. The other question is... how minute is insignificant? If one person escapes and goes on a murderous rampage... is that minute to be insignificant?

The philosophical/optimistic side of me sides with you. The practical side of me says that right now, the death penalty makes more sense until they can fix a lot of other stuff that's wrong.

[thatpfunk]

Let me also say, I would be pro death penalty if it actually curbed crime. But it doesn't, hence my stance.

[Dead]

Who cares if it curbs crime? Deterrence is not the reason. Vengeance is.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Once you violate someone else's right to life, you've forfeited your own. And the state or federal government, working through the citizens of the state/country, should execute you.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) So who is guilty of violating the right to life of an innocent man who is put to death?

2) Every person who commits murder deserves to die? What about a 17 year old? What about a 14 year old? What about a 10 year old? Is there any difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder? What about manslaughter?

If only life was that easy Dead.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Every person who commits murder deserves to die? What about a 17 year old? What about a 14 year old? What about a 10 year old? Is there any difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder? What about manslaughter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really into executing juvenile offenders or the mentally retarded. Not juveniles because they can't vote to change the laws, so we shouldn't execute them. They should get life in prison though.

As for the mentally retarded murderers, they are already perpetual losers, so yeah.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Vengeance is.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is irrational. The State does not have the right to kill someone in the name of vengeance.

[Dead]

The State can do whatever the [censored] it wants.

It's the State.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We certainly have the right to kill murderers.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does we have the right to end the life of another human being?

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you violate someone else's right to life, you've forfeited your own. And the state or federal government, working through the citizens of the state/country, should execute you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So does whomever makes the decision to go execute a prisoner forfeit his own life?

[Dead]

Nope.

Because he's not committing murder.

[Voltron87]

He is taking someone else's life.

[Dead]

Yes he is. But he's not violating their rigt t life.

[thatpfunk]

So if their case is later overturned then we execute the person responsible?

Way to have an interesting discussion.