Jackson Free Press

As Earl Berry's attorneys continue their protests that the state's method for killing inmates is flawed, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed a motion this week to reset the execution of Earl Berry for the 1987 murder of Mary Bounds to May 5—incidentally Berry's 49th birthday.

The U.S. Supreme Court lifted Berry's stay of execution Monday after ruling last week that lethal injection is not unconstitutionally cruel. "The higher court's ruling has cleared the way for us to move forward in the Berry case," Hood said in a statement. "Our filing today will request that an execution be set to take place within 30 days."

Berry's attorneys, however, argue that the court's decisions does not render Mississippi's lethal-injection method constitutional, saying that will continue their lawsuit challenging Mississippi's procedure for lethal injection on behalf of the other prisoners on death row. "The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed only a procedural dismissal of Mr. Berry's challenge to lethal injection; it did not decide whether Mississippi's protocol for lethal injection is constitutional," Berry attorney Jim Craig said. "We intend to prove that Mississippi does not use the safeguards approved by the Court in the Kentucky case, and the higher risk of suffocation and internal burning during executions here is unacceptable."

Berry's attorney had previously filed a lawsuit on his behalf against the use of lethal injection in Mississippi. Jim Craig, David Voisin and Jamie Priest from Jackson and Jack Williams from Oxford issued a statement about the ruling in the case of Baze v. Rees, after filing a brief with the Court in response to the ruling:

"The Chief Justice's opinion said that Kentucky uses safeguards which reduce the risk that a prisoner will be consciously suffocated or internally burned by the chemicals used in lethal injection. These include the educational background required of the execution team, the training given those persons, and the way the drugs are administered. The Mississippi DOC has not produced any evidence that those kinds of safeguards are used in executions at Parchman."

Berry was convicted and sentenced to death by a Chickasaw County jury for the Nov. 29, 1987, murder of Mary Bounds. He later confessed to the murder. He is one of 63 inmates currently on Mississippi's death row.

Previous Commentsshow

No apologies for my opinion - strap him down & inject him. The sooner the better. Mr. Bounds has lost the love of his life & nothing can change that. This thug needs to pay for what he did.

sharon

May 5 2008

So, do we need to kill him to make a wrong a right?

golden eagle

May 5 2008

You can't make a wrong a right but people need to be made accountable for their actions. If not crime will continue to worsen - how much more can we stand?

sharon

May 5 2008

What would Jesus do? Also, do you know that states that have the death penalty have higher murder rates than the ones that don't? How does that make us safer?

golden eagle

May 5 2008

As a Christian, I remember four highly applicable words here. "Thou shalt not kill." Yes, he may have violated that law: but why should we turn around and do the same? His blood would be on our hands just like Mrs. Bounds' is on his. Two wrongs do not make a right. Murder is murder.

Lady Havoc

May 5 2008

I got a question for Sharon. Do you personally want mercy from the Lord and others or do you want tit for tat, an eye for an eye, or what you deserve for every action you undertake. The writers of New Testament knew vengeance could be a never ending quest with no one involved being righteous, following the commandments or teachings of Christ or ever winning. Someone will always be left angry and feeling they have been wronged. Forgiving allows one to move on. I haven't met anyone yet who wanted exactly what they deserve for every action they have undertaken. Everyone want some kind of sparring or forgiveness. You can punish severely without killing. Killing is a terrible response that most people would resist if allowed to cooly deliberate the choice.

Walt

May 5 2008

I think it is much easier to throw your opinion out there when you are a bystander. If you were in the Bounds' family shoes you may have a different point of view. Yes I believe in forgiveness & I can forgive but forgetting is another story all together. For me it's right or wrong - no gray area & no in between. There are plenty of ways to look at the situation & everyone has a different point of view. All I know is that if I had lost my Mother to a senseless act of violence I would want the law to act in MY favor.

sharon

May 6 2008

I am not a member of the Bounds family: true enough. I'm not for sure if you are, either: if you are, you have my deepest sympathies. I do not know what they are going through, thank God. I would want the law to act in my favor, too, if someone I loved was taken away by an act of senseless violence. I might even say I want them dead. But deep down, in my heart, I believe it is wrong. I'd prefer to leave that final judgement where it belongs: with God. What happens if the person is wrongly convicted? Look at the state of Texas, for example. How many people have been exonerated recently due to DNA evidence? Once the button is pressed, the drugs are a-flowing, and the death sentence is carried out, there is no turning back. We don't get a do-over.

Lady Havoc

May 6 2008

I lost 2 bothers, one to murder and the other one to a drunk driver. They were arguably my 2 favorite brothers. We didn't seek or want revenge (prosecution)in either case, so we live without any hatred of either person or their families. I know i'm better off without the anger, hate and attachment of my brothers' legacy to those persons who harmed them. No, I can't say i would feel this way in every case, but I hope I'm never fooled into thinking killing someone else will help me in any way.

Walt

May 6 2008

Thanks, Walt. It's so different, hearing from someone who has been there.

Lady Havoc

May 6 2008

I also lost a family member to murder almost two and half years ago. He was shot twice in the chest, dragged out of his jeep, and left to die in the middle of the road while the killer drove off in his jeep without looking back. His murderer was 18 at the time and will spend the rest of his days behind bars in Angola Penitentiary. I am fine with that because I know he will never be able to put another family through what he put our family through, and I know that he will have to think about what he did every day for the rest of his life. I also know that my loved one had found God, and I can only hope that his killer will do the same. He will meet his Maker soon enough.

ellen

May 6 2008

I have never understood how victims' family are supposed to find "comfort" because the state kills a murderer. It's not even logical to me. It seems like the people, such as several of you, who have found the most peace are the ones who do not feel that bloodthirst for revenge. We put victims through hell with our approach. They wait many years without "closure" for a killer to be executed (as a system of killing killers inevitably has to require), and then many say it doesn't bring closure, or peace, once the execution happens. But our culture makes them believe it's the way to move on. It's so tragic, and a real chink in America's armor that we take such a third-world approach to crime and punishment. Us and some of the most brutal countries on earth.

DonnaLadd

May 6 2008

I don't understand why this leads to religious contemplations. I mean the bottom line is the dude took a life. I think it is merely appropriate that he is taken on the date he enterred this world. I don't see what this has to do with religion....religion should have been a factor prior to him murdering someone. Stealing another life from an innocent person. He should have called upon religion at that point. It is not about an eye for an eye. It is about paying for your crimes. Just so happens that this fella's crime was murder....the confusion behind whether he should live or die is not easily seen for me. I mean it wasn't self defense. He wasn't insane. He was just one who deemed himself more powerful than GOD. And thus should be punished accordingly. Are there signs that he has been rehabilitated? Is there reason to believe that his life is better than the one he took. Why is it that he should be offered the luxury of breathing when he didn't respect her life, his Creator, or life in general enough to spare this woman's life?

Queen601

May 6 2008

Interesting comment, Queen. What is payment? If killing someone who killed someone else isn't an eye for an eye then what is it? I ask you the same thing I ask Sharon, do you think every one of us should be punished according to our deeds to others without exception? Do you not desire or believe in forgiveness or a lesser punishment at some level or for some indiscretions or crimes? Better yet, would your opinion be different if a close love one was the killer awaiting execution. If religion or the law isn't the guide then what is the guide. For capital murder, the State of Mississippi and all other states with the death penalty have declared life without the possibility of parole or death are appropriate punishments for capital murder. With this being the case why isn't life without the possibility of parole sufficient for Berry instead of death since the law and religion aren't against either? I can accept this hard stance you've taken if you can say you maintian it in every situation. At least you will be consistent. Most people with your position have it on a situational basis, and feel quite different when it's their love ones or friends. I appreciate your honest position though and hope you will tell the judge and lawyers exactly this if you're ever summoned to serve on a capital jury.

Walt

May 6 2008

He was just one who deemed himself more powerful than GOD. You are saying that he was playing God by taking the life of another human being, correct? How is it different for another human being to take his life in return? Is that not playing God as well?

ellen

May 6 2008

If not a religious question, Queen, it's certainly a moral one. I doubt that Berry, who is apparently retarded, had a rational thought of bettering the divine when he took a life. Mahatma Gandhi said: “If we practice an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the whole world will be toothless and blind.” Violence begets violence just as peace begets peace. As long as we--as a society--exact violent punishment equal to violent crimes, we remain a violent people. Obviously, that's a simplification, but like always attracts like. By the same reasoning for capital punishment, we should cut off the hands of people who steal, castrate those who rape and cut out the tongues of those who lie. There is not one shred of evidence that the death penalty reduces crime; in fact, the exact opposite seems to be true. There is also no evidence that revenge produces "closure" for loved ones affected by crime. It sems to me that we're putting our billions into the wrong end of the equation. We overspend for prisons and woefully underspend for education and training, which might actually make an impact on the crime problem. More prisons aren't doing much good.

Ronni_Mott

May 6 2008

Queen, Ray Carter told me that most of the people who commit capital murders are so strung out on drugs, alcohol or messed up by other circumstances that few of them do it calmly or while knowingly comtemplating the act fully. Many of the killers' backgrounds are so riddled with child abuse, sexual molestation, other abuse, violence, fear, heartache, mental deficiencies, etc, that even a killing machine prosecutor knows a jury would never vote to kill them. Nor would any appellate courts. Therefore they drop the death penalty.

Walt

May 6 2008

Excellent understanding and commentary, Ronni. Anti-death penalty lawyers would love to have you as a juror. Of course, after you spilled the beans above, you'd be the first one on their list to strike for cause, just as Queen and Sharon would be the first ones on the defense list to strike.

Walt

May 6 2008

It is funny to consider that only people who believe in the death penalty would be allowed on such a jury, huh? Wow. Tell Ray hey for us, Walt. Or should I say: The Scoundrel Formerly Known As Ray.

DonnaLadd

May 6 2008

Well, certainly taking into account that if it were one of my family members I would probably hate to face that situation. However, the fact of the matter is, I tend to be more concerned about the victim and the ones who have to live without their loved ones more so than the poor soul who committed this act. I actually do believe in rehabilitation. I feel that people can learn and deserve the chance to be afforded the opportunity to change. But my idea is that if the criminal has confessed to doing this crime then the punishment SHOULD INDEED fit the crime. This is where my confusion lies, law verses morality. Our laws aren't built on morality. And who decides the laws? Mere humans....who are certainly capable of being moraless!! The laws of this land are made to control. The authorities in this nation are not killing killers to envoke the necessary punishment, they are doing it to scare others out of committing these crimes -- and obviously isn't working. To me taking a life is not the same type of crime as getting busted with drugs in your possession. That you can be rehabilitated from. I believe that. Murder, calculated murder, is totally different. In that case, I suppose if my family member went out and shot a woman in cold blood for her hand bag or her car, then he/she deserves the same thing in turn. It's cold and it's ruthless. The punishment should fit the crime. Of course rehabilitation should be an option, but who's to say when rehabilitation has actually been successful? When will the victim's life have any value, any meaning? When will this be about their lives? Seems like, if I'm understanding this correctly, ellen, you're saying that no one has the right to take a life...okay....so in keeping with that, when it does happen, what should be done? Life in prison? Why is this killer being given an opportunity to live when he stole that opportunity from someone else? Everyone is playing God if you ask me. There's a flaw here somewhere...

Queen601

May 6 2008

I have never understood what a killers background has to do with anything. It's terrible for anyone to be a victim of child abuse,molestation, or grow up in a environment of violence, but everyone knows right from wrong. Killing is wrong, they know that no matter what their background is.

BubbaT

May 6 2008

Actually, many people do not know right from wrong—like all the Klansmen, Citizens Councilors, white juries and other enablers in our state who turned their heads on all the lynchings over the years. Have we ever sent a Killer Klansmen to be executed? Besides, even if the killer does know right from wrong, that doesn't change the fact that our government turns around and turns state employees into killers themselves. Two wrongs, or two killings, don't make a right.

DonnaLadd

May 6 2008

The only Klansman I know of that has been executed was Henry Hays in 1997 for killing Michael Donald in 1981.

BubbaT

May 6 2008

Queen, Let me suggest that there are always flaws in reasoning when it comes to human endeavors. Trying to determine a person's "value" through another's actions is a zero-sum game. My "value" isn't determined or affected by your "value." That doesn't make any sense. A person's life gains value in the way they live their life, and they can't be enhanced or diminished by the person who takes their life, regardless of what happens to that person after the fact. I'd also suggest that "life" in prison isn't anything like "normal life." I agree that some criminals can be rehabilitated. I also agree that harsh punishment is warranted in many cases. Violent, uncontrollable psychopaths should be permanently shut away from the rest of society. But taking a life is either morally wrong or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. We've been blessed with free will. How we use it surely determines our individual outcome in the end.

Ronni_Mott

May 6 2008

When will the victim's life have any value, any meaning? When will this be about their lives? Seems like, if I'm understanding this correctly, ellen, you're saying that no one has the right to take a life...okay....so in keeping with that, when it does happen, what should be done? Life in prison? Why is this killer being given an opportunity to live when he stole that opportunity from someone else? Everyone is playing God if you ask me. There's a flaw here somewhere... Queen, you answered my questions with questions. My loved one's life has no less value or meaning now that his murderer is locked up for life than it would have if his murderer was 6 feet under in the prison cemetery.

ellen

May 6 2008

As I've been told by lawyer friends who do this kind of work, a juror has to say they can consider the death and life options equally and listen to mitigation (it supports a life verdict) and aggravation (it supports the death verdict), and if you say you can never vote for death or you would always vote for death you're inelgible to serve. Of course, anti-death penalty lawyers and prosecutors biggest fear is that of jurors who know how to trick the lawyers and get picked despite their answers and undetected true feelings. Bubba I have been further told that the social history and background of the defendant is crucial to the second phase of the trial. Most jurors who are usually reasonable people say over and over again that they would like to know the backgrounds of the defendant before deliberating his fate. Bubba if you don't think background matters then tell me why do parents spend so much time loving and nurturing their children? They do it because they know good nurturing, training, provision, love, etc. make all the difference in how a cild turns out. Yeah, I know you can have a great upbringing and still turn out terrible, but bad backgrounds and upbringings very often lead to bad results. This can't be denied. Furthermore Bubba some people think mitigation should only be whether the killing happened in self defense, by mistake, or the defendant was insane. These are defenses to a conviction but not mitigation. Smart lawyers make sure jurors do not confuse these issue. Confusion will get your client executed.

Walt

May 6 2008

I have also been told that it's good idea to appear quite human before the jury, making it plainly clear that you understand the hurt and pain of the victims. Not doing this can also get your client executed. No matter the role you play in the litigation of these kinds of matters, you'd have to be quite inhuman yourself to not feel the victims' pain. Victims often cry a river while testifying. As a spectator I once saw a victim witness cause all 12 jurors to start crying. Those defense lawyers were sweating bullets while pretending to not notice it. They knew their behinds were in big trouble after seeing that.

Walt

May 6 2008

Walt- Bad backgrounds can lead to bad results but that's no excuse to ones actions. Donna has her answer then to why so few klansmen have been excuted. That's how they were raised so it not their fault they killed someone, they didn't know any better. That's pure BS. Everyone knows right from wrong you can't hide behind how you were brought up,whether you a racist or not,a klansmen or whatever.

BubbaT

May 6 2008

Bubba all the supreme courts including the U.S Supreme court has said this is mitigation. You may not like that it is, but it is! This isn't really hard to see. Social scientists, psychiatrists and psychologists disagree with you too.

Walt

May 6 2008

Bubba, I didn't say that the Klansmen didn't "know any better"—I said they did not know right from wrong. I also do not believe they should be executed—although I sure do wish more of them had seen the inside of a prison cell their entire lives to think about what they did. And everyone does NOT know right from wrong. The fact that you think so doesn't really change anything, as Walt points out. Thus, it might be good to take this conversation to, say, one higher level of inquiry. How are you comfortable with the death penalty in a world where so many people are wrongfully accused/prosecuted and probably executed? Is revenge worth that risk? Because that's all it is: revenge.

DonnaLadd

May 6 2008

Everyone is playing God if you ask me. Interesting thing to call having an opinion about something so important as our tax dollars being used to kill people, but hey. ;-) This "playing God" is not on a level playing field. By some versions, people end up dead, and government employees killers. But other versions, not. I'll go with the second. And it's cheaper to lock people up for life than to execute them. In more ways than one.

DonnaLadd

May 6 2008

Hey I apologize for not considering how much money this costs and for being more concerned about those families of who have lost their family members. The reason why you were answered with questions, is because I STILL have questions to ask. I'm offering my opinion on what these posts have made me feel. Which have lead to more questions. I wasn't offering you an answer. Obviously the idea here is that people who kill people should remain in jail for the rest of their lives because it costs money to kill them. WOW!!!! I have no words for that. As if it's cheap to keep a person who has no contribution to society locked up for 50 or 60 years. Hey take it how you want. I have no solid point to give you here and believe me I understand that I'm setting myself up for the wrath because I shouldn't have even commented unless I had something in writing to proove my feelings....some sort of document or something. I don't. I'm asking for an alternative and i just can't see how keeping someone locked up for life is the best way to fix this problem, to rehabilitate, or to contribute to the betterment of society.... but hey, I've never been in this situation....so, there you go....

Queen601

May 6 2008

Obviously the idea here is that people who kill people should remain in jail for the rest of their lives because it costs money to kill them. No, I didn't say that, and I don't think anyone else did. The whole point of mentioning that part is because many people say it is *cheaper* to execute them than leave them in prison for the rest of their lives. It's a false argument and needs to be treated as such. And frankly, I will say to that argument: Wow, I have no words for that. None of it is "cheap," Queen. That's why that argument shouldn't be used as an excuse in the first place. I'm not aiming "wrath" at you, but I believe to my core that killing citizens is one of the most immoral things we can do as a society. Therefore, I will keep saying that over and over and over again because I don't believe it's something you keep your mouth shut about. And when you present questions, which is good, people are likely to share their answers. It's not personal toward you just as I don't take it personally that you disagree with me. And never have. ;-)

DonnaLadd

May 6 2008

I have a question: If people commit suicide after killing someone to avoid prison, and people hang themselves while incarcerated to get out of prison, could the death penalty be considered another way to get out of prison? Please, be gentle. :-)

LatashaWillis

May 6 2008

So, then....I get your point Donna. Now, explain to me what else, in your opinion, should be done to these people. I mean lets take out the deaths by passion, or the moments of insanity....let's talk about serial killers. The ones who take dozens of lives. Or, how about terrorists who kill hundreds of people. What do we do with them? If the answer is not to lock them up for life, and the answer is not to kill them....what's the answer? And is your opinion based on your religious beliefs? Is it that you feel like we as human beings do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies? I mean what are you saying (and parton my tone)? Are you saying that no matter what the crime is, that the death penalty is never the answer? So, you don't believe in the death penalty, right...just flat out all together...no death penalty? I'm just trying to get this right in my head. If that is the case, do you believe that their is rehabiliation in everyone? And even if it is, what is the purpose of rehabilitation someone who will never have contact with the freeworld again? Why is it a better idea to lock them up for life and rehabilitate them IF they will never contribute to society again?

Queen601

May 6 2008

Easy answers here: No death penalty. No irreversible punishment, including cutting off hands, arms or any other appendages, either. It's not like it's a radical idea, Queen. Look here at who does and who doesn't. I believe many people can be rehabilitated, but I also believe in long/permanent prison terms for the worst offenders. I believe that it should be a federal decision—either every killer gets executed or they don't. And executions, if we're going to have them, should be on television so we can see where our tax dollars are going. Oh, and I believe in doing everything possible to stop the killing before it happens. Why is it a better idea to lock them up for life and rehabilitate them IF they will never contribute to society again? It's a better idea because we cannot trust humans to get it right, among other reasons. That's been shown over and over and over again. I shudder at the thought of the innocent black men who have clearly been executed in this state to date. I mean, lynchings were considered by many (white) people to be justifiable vigilante justice for obvious crimes. We're not that far off from that now, with a system that only targets a small number of killers and is rife with incompetent counsel. Also, we will outlaw capital punishment in this country in the not-so-far-off future. It's tragic that history will look back on executions on our watch. People have wanted to execute children in this country—including some who later turned out to be innocent, no thanks to the police. For instance. It's not a risk I'm willing to take, or not fight.

DonnaLadd

May 6 2008

LW, I'm told by some death penalty lawyers that many defendants declare they rather die or be executed than spend the rest of their lives in prison. They force lawyers to try impossible cases seeking a miracle and exoneration. Death row is full of the type who made this gamble and lost. I understand Queen to some degree. I have a hard time with serial killers, serial rapists, other violent repeat criminals, and people who kill multiple people in one incident. I don't know for sure that these situations alter my overall opinion concerning the death penalty. I'm basically against it, and I know killing the defendant likely won't do me any good; so, I doubt I could ever seek death on my behalf.

Walt

May 6 2008

I mentioned this before on another thread, but I think I would be for the death penalty if the perpetrator's death would bring the victim back to life. I used to be for it, but things like the Innocence Project and what happened to Cedric Willis had an effect on me. My younger brother has autism, and one of my family's worst nightmares is for him to be set up and falsely accused of a crime because he says yes to anything whether he understands the question or not, and I'm afraid the authorities would get a coerced confession out of him and he ends up being punished for something he didn't do. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to care about diminished capacity, so how would he get off? I can't stand the thought of it, so I'm not talking about it any more.

LatashaWillis

May 6 2008

I'm against the death penalty, or any kind of killing. I was mentored early in life by a fellow who killed a man and did hard time. He wasn't wrongly convicted because of being black. He did kill the guy, with his bare hands. I was a very young street kid who had the great fortune to fall in with a "bad" lot, mostly jazz musicians, ex-cons, and a few hookers and transvestites. This guy already had that past experience behind him when we met. He was one who accepted and looked out for me, and is my role model for strength and clarity of mind. Despite having once killed someone, he did a lot of good in the world and no harm to anyone that I ever saw or was aware of. Beside starting out as a street kid, I also taught art to inmates in a maximum security prison when I was in my 30's. I'm very aware there are some people who should not be out loose and walking the streets among us. No confusion there. When you teach art in a college, your students tell you about the great museums they've visited. When you teach art in a prison, your students tell you about the great museums they've burglarized. It's painful to realize that I've had an extraordinary kind of life and I won't ever get to be like most other people. But I'm truly blessed this guy, and a few other ex-cons, did so much for me and I wouldn't trade those experiences for anything. The men I see around me now pale in comparison. Sometimes people make mistakes and do bad things. I'm not condoning or making excuses, but if they're not killed for it, they might grab some at-risk kid by the collar and keep them on a better path.

willdufauve

May 6 2008

Donna, there are a few insane and diminshed capacity people don't know right from wrong but they were not who I was talking about. I just find it hard to believe there are sane,semi intelligent people in society that do not know right from wrong. They had to be taught or exposed to what is right or wrong sometime in their lives. Klansmen know right from wrong, I will never believe they don't/didn't.

BubbaT

May 6 2008

BubbaT, maybe they "know" what's right from wrong but it's a distorted sense of right and wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.

willdufauve

May 7 2008

LW the U. S. Supreme court does care about diminished capacity these days. It has to be plead and documented early and sufficiently. They didn't care in the past. It appears some less grand appellate courts don't care. Bubba we're not claiming they didn't know right from wrong in terms of knowing that killing was wrong. Like Will said they have a distorted sense of right and wrong.

Walt

May 7 2008

I don't think this one this will ever get a definete answer to should we or should we not. I don't think saying no one deserves the death penalty takes away from the magnitude of the crime. Not every situation deserves an eye for eye....but if the concern is for our tax dollars then it is perplexing to me why it would not be considered that providing room and board for a lifetime to a person who has killed in a serial manner would be a good idea. I mean, it should, in my opinion be on a case by case basis. We are human, people go to jail each and every day for things they don't do, in those cases it would be horrendous to place them on death row or even in jail. But it happens. We need to fix the justice system before we can figure out how to punish these people. If we had a sure fire way to guarantee that everyone charged with a crime committed it, then the foundation for finding an appropriate punishment would be easier. I just don't know that I can agree with a broadly generalized statement such as no one should receive the death penalty regardless of what theyve done. Someone rape and murder a kid...deserves to meet their maker...they've ruined several lives. Someone who bombs a school and kills hundreds of students...what can we offer this person by way of rehabilitation and even if we could make a determination, why is his life more valuable than the LiveS he stole? I certainly can see your point Donna and Walt. I do, really. However, I just think that breathing is a blessing, unfortunately some of us don't recognize that. Perfect example, what was the guys name that was once a gang leader (the one Snoop was trying to save from the chair)....he rehabiliated while in prison. He was in a position to be a benefit to society by the time it was time for him to die. But he was killed anyway. I feel like if we can rehabilitate people and they can contribute positively to society after their jail term (by getting out of jail and proceeding with their lives) maybe then it can be afforded....maybe. But I'm having trouble seeing how letting them rot in jail is beneficial. I don't see how it can help the criminal, the system or society. Might as well just let them out and tell them not to do it again.

Queen601

May 7 2008

We need to fix the justice system before we can figure out how to punish these people. Exactly, Queen. That and figure out how to prevent people from becoming criminals in the first place. That will take reshuffling of some priorities. I just find it hard to believe there are sane, semi intelligent people in society that do not know right from wrong. It's called ignorance, Bubba T, which is not the same thing as stupidity. If you want a graphic example of the difference, go rent the movie American History X.

Ronni_Mott

May 7 2008

Simplistic, black white thinking and approaches to social problems like the death penalty, the drug war, and zero tolerance concepts, don't work. Humans and societies are much more nuanced than that. When a politician addresses world problems with, "You're either with us, or against us" then obliterates an ancient culture, loots their museums and treasures, genocides their people, it's the same root mentality as the death penalty approach to local problems. The death penalty isn't effective, and it's too often used as a blunt instrument against poor and black. War isn't the best choice either, and the US mostly uses it against brown people around the world. War and justice systems aren't unrelated in root thinking, just on a different scale.

willdufauve

May 7 2008