I was a Parole office and later a Jail Supervisor for over 12.5 years. During that time I dealt with offenders of all sorts. I supervised Sex Offenders as a Parole Officer and provided for the care custody and control of all offenders at the Dallas County Jail.

Sex Offenders have almost 100% recidivicsm rates and are kept seperate from other offenders in the jails (for their safety). Having supervised these offenders both before conviction and after conviction I have often wondered why they are not executed or given life in prison. The risks of having such an offender run free after having once been caught convicted and released from prison far outweigh the remote potential of rehabilitating such an offneder. I firmly beleive that only way to ensure such an offender will never commit another offense of this sort again is to execute him/her.

Such an execution would not be out of revenge but rather to prevent the offender from committing another such offense. Since it is beleived most sex offenders were victims as children preventing future victims helps to break the cycle of such crimes.

While I agree with your points about recidivism and the need to keep child molesters in prison, you presume that every criminal who gets convicted is in fact guilty. How many people have been released from death row because they have been shown through DNA evidence to be in fact innocent--a couple of hundred? Most crimes don't involve DNA so god knows what percentage of the people in prison are in fact innocent (I would like to think less than 5%, but as incompetent as other branches of the government are, would it be a surprise if the number was closer to 20%?). However counterintuitive, eyewitness testimony has been shown scientifically to be very unreliable. And most people don't realize that many people are convicted--and even sent to death row--solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Is that level of proof enough to justify killing someone? I don't think so.

The unfortunate fact is that there are some prosecutors who seek to convict people whether they are guilty or not (remember the Duke lacrosse players' case and Dallas D.A. Henry Wade?), and, let's face it, lots of serious mistakes are made even when everyone acts with the best of intentions. Lastly, another fact people forget is that the cost to the taxpayers of executing someone is actually more than the cost of keeping him in prison for life.

Unfortunate bottom line: the government cannot be trusted with the death penalty.

My solution: one strike (i.e. life in prison with no parole) for cases involving acts of savagery and violence like stranger rape, intercourse with a child under 13, crimes involving deadly weapons (whether used or not), and three strikes for other felonies (except "crimes" which have no victims like drug possession, gambling and prostitution).

Epicurus - your points are very legitimate, and strong-arm prosecutors are something we should all be particularly on the look-out for. The problem, as always, arises when it's time to come up with solutions.

Before you start to rattle off solutions, you should start with this (undeniably true) premise: we, as a nation, do not have the will to put people in prison and leave them there for life. We just don't. I wish it were different, but even the most savage murderers and rapists usually get out once they get old.

If you doubt it, I could point to literally hundreds of examples. People who murdered others, often in the coldest and more savage ways, and were convicted on clear and obvious evidence. Many of them were sentenced to "LIFE WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE." [What?!?! Oh yes, there are plenty of them walking the streets.] As the years go by, the victim's friends and family die or move away. People get sad about the idea of some poor guy growing old and dying behind bars (his crime long forgotten). New Governors come in with the idea to look "compassionate" by giving furloughs, work-release, etc. And, of course, there is always the fact that it costs money to house inmates, and more money once they get old and have medical conditions (which, of course, we all pay for).

Right now, there are quite literally hundreds of convicted criminals who were sentenced to "LIFE WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE" who are currently walking the streets. This doesn't include the thousands and thousands who were given "LIFE (WITH POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE)" who are released within 10 years or less for good behavior. And this is just the murderers - it's even harder to keep rapists and armed robbers who haven't killed anyone (yet) behind bars.

My solution? I have no idea. I guess wait until crime gets bad enough that law abiding citizens agree to let the police bring in the killers and rapists in body bags, Judge Dredd-style. Or else we could stop being so freakin' soft.

Epicurus:

While I agree with your points about recidivism and the need to keep child molesters in prison, you presume that every criminal who gets convicted is in fact guilty. How many people have been released from death row because they have been shown through DNA evidence to be in fact innocent--a couple of hundred? Most crimes don't involve DNA so god knows what percentage of the people in prison are in fact innocent (I would like to think less than 5%, but as incompetent as other branches of the government are, would it be a surprise if the number was closer to 20%?). However counterintuitive, eyewitness testimony has been shown scientifically to be very unreliable. And most people don't realize that many people are convicted--and even sent to death row--solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Is that level of proof enough to justify killing someone? I don't think so.

The unfortunate fact is that there are some prosecutors who seek to convict people whether they are guilty or not (remember the Duke lacrosse players' case and Dallas D.A. Henry Wade?), and, let's face it, lots of serious mistakes are made even when everyone acts with the best of intentions. Lastly, another fact people forget is that the cost to the taxpayers of executing someone is actually more than the cost of keeping him in prison for life.

Unfortunate bottom line: the government cannot be trusted with the death penalty.

My solution: one strike (i.e. life in prison with no parole) for cases involving acts of savagery and violence like stranger rape, intercourse with a child under 13, crimes involving deadly weapons (whether used or not), and three strikes for other felonies (except "crimes" which have no victims like drug possession, gambling and prostitution).

With the appeals process for capital crimes and the standard for conviction in capital crimes I doubt any capital offenders actually executed are innocent.

Our system in the US may not be perfect but it beats Europe's system that has no death penalty. My German Cousins think we are rather crude here in the states and we think the German system is not strict enough.

I support Capital punishment for a multitude of reasons and the remote chance somebody could be executed, who is actually innocent, in Texas is not worth discussing.

I do know of cases in which offenders were inappropriately convicted and it has happened a time or two for capital crimes however, These cases are overturned on appeal.

Munich:

Epicurus - your points are very legitimate, and strong-arm prosecutors are something we should all be particularly on the look-out for. The problem, as always, arises when it's time to come up with solutions.

Before you start to rattle off solutions, you should start with this (undeniably true) premise: we, as a nation, do not have the will to put people in prison and leave them there for life. We just don't. I wish it were different, but even the most savage murderers and rapists usually get out once they get old.

If you doubt it, I could point to literally hundreds of examples. People who murdered others, often in the coldest and more savage ways, and were convicted on clear and obvious evidence. Many of them were sentenced to "LIFE WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE." [What?!?! Oh yes, there are plenty of them walking the streets.] As the years go by, the victim's friends and family die or move away. People get sad about the idea of some poor guy growing old and dying behind bars (his crime long forgotten). New Governors come in with the idea to look "compassionate" by giving furloughs, work-release, etc. And, of course, there is always the fact that it costs money to house inmates, and more money once they get old and have medical conditions (which, of course, we all pay for).

Right now, there are quite literally hundreds of convicted criminals who were sentenced to "LIFE WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE" who are currently walking the streets. This doesn't include the thousands and thousands who were given "LIFE (WITH POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE)" who are released within 10 years or less for good behavior. And this is just the murderers - it's even harder to keep rapists and armed robbers who haven't killed anyone (yet) behind bars.

My solution? I have no idea. I guess wait until crime gets bad enough that law abiding citizens agree to let the police bring in the killers and rapists in body bags, Judge Dredd-style. Or else we could stop being so freakin' soft.

In the US we have an adversarial system and the prosecutors, being human, sometimes do go too far. That is why we allow several appeals to Death penalty cases. Post Conviction hindsight or the election of a different DA even out the inadequatesays of the origional conviction process.

Rarely if ever is there a case where the wrong person was executed after all the appeals are exhausted.

TexasPete:

In the US we have an adversarial system and the prosecutors, being human, sometimes do go too far. That is why we allow several appeals to Death penalty cases. Post Conviction hindsight or the election of a different DA even out the inadequatesays of the origional conviction process.

Rarely if ever is there a case where the wrong person was executed after all the appeals are exhausted.

I agree with you entirely. It likely hasn't happened once in a century.

Did you even read my post that you quoted, past the first 2 sentences?

"With the appeals process for capital crimes and the standard for conviction in capital crimes I doubt any capital offenders actually executed are innocent."

NEWS FLASH: the standard for conviction in capital crimes is the same standard as that for conviction in all crimes: proof beyond a reasonable doubt--and, as I said before, that proof can be purely circumstantial. I thought most people knew that, but it surprises me somewhat (and my expectations are low) that someone who made a living in the criminal justice system would not know that.

Furthermore (and shouldn't you know this too even though you are not a lawyer), the appeals process is limited to review of procedural defects in the trial, not substantive issues of guilt or innocence or whether the jury made a mistake.

Evidently the fact that a couple of hundred people have been exonerated and released from death row, sometimes days or hours before a scheduled execution, doesn't make any impression on you. Nor apparently does the fact that the death penalty process was so flawed in Illinois that the Republican governor, acting on conscience, placed an indefinite moratorium on further executions. Of course since we are both from Texas, we know that Texans are so much smarter than people from Illinois and every other state in the country that we couldn't possibly have the same problems here. After all, isn't that what Texas is known for: our highly educated and brilliant citizenry?

"I do know of cases in which offenders were inappropriately convicted and it has happened a time or two for capital crimes however, These cases are overturned on appeal."

Think a minute, Bubba. How could you possibly know that all the cases where a capital defendant has been wrongly convicted were overturned on appeal? Are you omniscient? I will let this statement stand as the testament to your expertise and thoughtfulness on the issue of capital punishment in Texas.

First of all I am no longer involved in the Criminal justice system I am a Trial Paralegal in Civil cases.

Second you are mistaken that all appeals in Capital cases are for procedural defects only. In texas each convict in a capital case has 2 appeals automatically in which anything can be brought from procedural defects to questions of evidence. Other appeals may be granted for the procedural errors you mentioned. Routinely each Capital convict in Texas goes through at least 3 appeals.

Of course I know the standard for all criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt but in Capital Cases, at least in Texas, capital punishment is not automatic but decided after the Defendant is found guilty. There are so many hurdles to a capital case before execution occurrs that even if there is clear photographic evidence of the crime as it is committed and undisputable DNA evidence. A Capital convict is still afforded appeals no matter how good the evidence, no matter how thourough the conviction the convicted gets appeals.

The truth is I don't know but the probability of a bad conviction in a Capital case being upheld is exceptionally low. Since I have Judeo/Christian beleifs and know God proscribed capital punishment long before the US was even around I know with our system and my faith in GOD that an innocent being executed is remote to say the least.

Having worked in the prison industry does not make you an expert. Will you please source your statistics on recidivism? With just a little time spent googling this, I can find the very highest reported study, for opposite sex child molesters, as 53%, while other studies and other types of offenders appear to reoffend at much lower rates.

I can't agree with or consider seriously any of your proposals, since they seem to be based on biased personal thoughts or hearsay, and not on evidence.

The statistics you quote only take into account those that get caught re-offending.

I remember the text books in my college courses and at the Parole Officer's accademy as source material for my claims. The Textbook from my college days was called "Deviant Offenders" I used it in 1983 for a criminology course. Such claims are widely accepted as true in social services and is supported by annecdotal evidence.

I went from supervising offenders in the field to being a Jail supervisor in one of the largest jails inthe nation. I have hands on experience with offenders of all types and plenty of annecdotal evidence to support my claims....I never claimed to be an expert.

Your idea of victimless crimes is not true. Prostitution can involve human trafficing, abuse of minors, spread of disease, beatings by pimps, how are none of these people victims. Drug dealing has created crime by junkies against citizens, gang wars, drive-by shootings, intimidation of residents whose neighborhoods have been turned into open air drug markets.

This usually happens in poorer areas of the city. I guess the the lower middle class and the poor do not count and therefore cannot be victims in limosene liberal land.

Vegetable and fruit farming can involve human trafficking for seasonal labor. Meat processing can involve animal abuse and cruelty.

Automobile manufacture causes air pollution to which we are all victims.

Alcohol prohibition caused gang wars and drive-by shootings, usually in poorer areas of cities.

Any activity can have bad consequences for someone.

Many of the unfortunate effects of illicit activities like drug sales and prostitution are the direct result of criminalizing the activity.