Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rolling Stone)   "Dating Game" serial killer has a hot date with death   (rollingstone.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Murder, Rodney Alcala, Crime, Jim Lange, murder of 12-year-old Robin Samsoe, Dating Game Killer, Capital punishment, California Department of Corrections  
•       •       •

3290 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2021 at 11:50 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



64 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-07-24 8:28:10 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Now we won't have to worry that Weird Al might get executed by mistake.
 
2021-07-24 9:01:03 PM  
Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...
 
2021-07-24 10:10:41 PM  

Wendigogo: Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...


I wonder whether she was coerced by the producer to choose the creepiest guy.
 
2021-07-24 11:48:01 PM  
I think someone should have kept an eye on that host, too.

I thought guys who rape or kill children get shanked in prison.
 
2021-07-24 11:56:10 PM  

First New Username In Many Years: [Fark user image 425x283] Now we won't have to worry that Weird Al might get executed by mistake.


Damn. It's like Phil Spector and him had a silent bet of who could pull off the craziest courtroom hairstyle
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-24 11:58:00 PM  

Wendigogo: Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...


It was a different time.

Nowadays we have shows like the Bachelor where people actually pretend they're going to marry the douchebag they date on screen, and we watch them for months at a time, which is somehow much better than asking sexually suggestive questions in a studio.
 
2021-07-24 11:58:31 PM  
i.gifer.comView Full Size
 
2021-07-24 11:59:57 PM  

make me some tea: Wendigogo: Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...

I wonder whether she was coerced by the producer to choose the creepiest guy.


I'm guessing not.  Unless she was still sticking to the story about only realizing how creepy he was in person (when she could match the visual cues to the audio).  But then, I'm not about to watch that video.
 
2021-07-25 12:07:32 AM  
The phrase "And nothing of value was lost" was made for that guy.
 
2021-07-25 12:10:55 AM  
"I enjoy long walks on the beach, long walks in a forest, long walks anywhere secluded."

"Hehe, why is that?"

"Why is what.. oh, no reason..."
 
2021-07-25 12:11:36 AM  
I saw a crime scene photo of one of his victims that was pretty much impossible to look at

I don't think it was up on the internet for long

it was really truly horrid
 
2021-07-25 12:19:28 AM  

zepillin: I saw a crime scene photo of one of his victims that was pretty much impossible to look at

I don't think it was up on the internet for long

it was really truly horrid


I'll guarantee you it's still there.  I'd not want to go look for it, but the net has a slimy corner for death, mutilation, etc. pics.  You name it, it's available somewhere
 
2021-07-25 12:32:43 AM  

First New Username In Many Years: [Fark user image image 425x283]

Now we won't have to worry that Weird Al might get executed by mistake.


On the flip side, we now have one fewer opportunities to have Weird Al executed "by mistake".
 
2021-07-25 12:35:03 AM  
He used photography as a lure. Police found hundreds of photos of women and kids he had taken. Some in the photos have come forward to say they're alive but a lot haven't.  Police don't know how many victims he had.
 
2021-07-25 12:41:17 AM  

zepillin: I saw a crime scene photo of one of his victims that was pretty much impossible to look at

I don't think it was up on the internet for long

it was really truly horrid


Good.

Its good that you saw that. Its good that it made such an impression on you.

As men, its our job, its our biological mission to protect our tribe. Everything else is secondary to that. I feel like we have forgotten that.
 
2021-07-25 1:05:57 AM  

make me some tea: Wendigogo: Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...

I wonder whether she was coerced by the producer to choose the creepiest guy.



I believe after the program, she went to them and told them that she would not go with him.

Why was he still waiting on death row. If you have the death penalty and have people that have been given it, then use it. This piece of trash did not deserve to die at 77 of natural causes. If he were free, he would have been raping and killing. You can not fix these monsters. All he did was waste the taxpayers money. I am so sick of these states that think they have the right to circumvent the federal laws.
 
2021-07-25 1:31:41 AM  

daffy: make me some tea: Wendigogo: Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...

I wonder whether she was coerced by the producer to choose the creepiest guy.


I believe after the program, she went to them and told them that she would not go with him.

Why was he still waiting on death row. If you have the death penalty and have people that have been given it, then use it. This piece of trash did not deserve to die at 77 of natural causes. If he were free, he would have been raping and killing. You can not fix these monsters. All he did was waste the taxpayers money. I am so sick of these states that think they have the right to circumvent the federal laws.


The sad part is, he was given the death sentence three times... in three separate trials. Look at his wiki. He even goes as far as to represent himself, using different voices in addressing himself. It's insane.
 
2021-07-25 1:46:16 AM  

Wendigogo: Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...


He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.
 
2021-07-25 1:53:28 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Add this guy to the list of men who look like old lesbians...
 
2021-07-25 1:53:29 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: Wendigogo: Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...

He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.


Yes. I'm well aware.
 
2021-07-25 2:13:05 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.


Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/C​apit​al-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT​.html
 
2021-07-25 2:25:03 AM  
Hubby's in favor of the death penalty. I say just establish a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. A death sentence in CA automatically starts a process of endless appeals, which is expensive. Just remove the appeals, put a sign on the door that says "Do Not Open," and we'll save some treasure.
 
2021-07-25 2:26:04 AM  

tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html


Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.
 
2021-07-25 2:58:58 AM  
I don't care that he died in prison, I'm just glad they did catch him at all (many never get caught) and that he never got out. Probably over a hundred victims... It's horrific.
 
2021-07-25 3:00:12 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.


I share the sentiment that there seem cases that are clear-cut enough that we can just "put the mad dog down".

But who decides what's "clear cut"?

Even going so far as to say "we'll only execute criminals that ask to be executed", I can see situations where someone is innocent, but can't prove it -- and given the choice between "kill me now" and "let me sit in this box for 50 years", might choose the first option. (Even if there's a tiny chance that they might be vindicated in 40 years.)

I don't know, honestly. Maybe that's a more instructive example than I thought.

I do know that I don't trust the current system to decide who lives and who dies. Until we come up with a foolproof method, I'm much more comfortable with locking someone away. We can fix those mistakes; we can't fix executions.
 
2021-07-25 3:13:38 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html

Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.


I agree. I'd like to craft a rule that says execute them "only when we're absolutely totally unbiasedly positively sure that they really really did commit that terrible vile crime," not just, "Well, we got tired of looking at any other suspects, and we gotta execute SOMEBODY."
 
2021-07-25 3:35:40 AM  

tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html


Someone will see this and think, "We need to make executing someone easier and cheaper," completely missing the point.
 
2021-07-25 3:36:14 AM  

daffy: Why was he still waiting on death row. If you have the death penalty and have people that have been given it, then use it.


If I had to guess, he was still there because someone hoped he would talk and they would get more confessions. If there was a chance he might confess to even one more, give one more family that bit of closure; I don't know how to weigh that against the benefit of just removing the guy from life.
 
2021-07-25 3:36:38 AM  

Lurk Who's Talking: Hubby's in favor of the death penalty. I say just establish a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. A death sentence in CA automatically starts a process of endless appeals, which is expensive. Just remove the appeals, put a sign on the door that says "Do Not Open," and we'll save some treasure.


Very few countries on Earth still execute people. It's retrograde and barbaric and it's about time we stop pretending that the rest of the world is crazy about this. They're not. We're the savages.
 
2021-07-25 3:37:06 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html

Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.


No. There is no middle ground. Executions are horrendous.
 
2021-07-25 3:38:03 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Natalie Portmanteau: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html

Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.

I agree. I'd like to craft a rule that says execute them "only when we're absolutely totally unbiasedly positively sure that they really really did commit that terrible vile crime," not just, "Well, we got tired of looking at any other suspects, and we gotta execute SOMEBODY."


And how do we determine that? And why is it worth the expense?

Again, most countries do not do this. Their justice systems work well without it.
 
2021-07-25 4:08:12 AM  

daffy: make me some tea: Wendigogo: Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...

I wonder whether she was coerced by the producer to choose the creepiest guy.


I believe after the program, she went to them and told them that she would not go with him.

Why was he still waiting on death row. If you have the death penalty and have people that have been given it, then use it. This piece of trash did not deserve to die at 77 of natural causes. If he were free, he would have been raping and killing. You can not fix these monsters. All he did was waste the taxpayers money. I am so sick of these states that think they have the right to circumvent the federal laws.


You understand, I hope, that whether or not to execute someone is entirely the decision of the states? Unless it's a federal crime, like what McVeigh was executed for, there are no federal laws regarding the STATE'S decision to execute someone for a STATE crime.
 
2021-07-25 4:09:38 AM  
"and there are still over 100 photographs of unidentified women who may have been his victims."

That is more than a lot disturbing.
 
2021-07-25 4:28:11 AM  

Mock26: "and there are still over 100 photographs of unidentified women who may have been his victims."

That is more than a lot disturbing.


A lot of them were in the 60s and early 70s, and the police think most of them were either prostitutes or young women caught up in the hippie movement; girls who blithely told their families "Don't worry about me! I'm off to be a free woman!" Their families had lost contact with them long before this freak got his hooks into them, and never even knew they were missing, and maybe still don't.
 
2021-07-25 7:07:08 AM  

Gyrfalcon: It was a different time.

Nowadays we have shows like the Bachelor where people actually pretend they're going to marry the douchebag they date on screen, and we watch them for months at a time, which is somehow much better than asking sexually suggestive questions in a studio.


This points out just how absurd TV in general has become over the years. The rise of cable and satellite systems with 100+ channels accelerated this trend with a vengeance. The need to fill those hundreds of channels with content has given us quite a torrent of crap. Of course, the problem is that there's still hundreds of channels and nothing I want to watch.

When did TV itself jump the shark?

/cut cable long ago
 
2021-07-25 7:59:21 AM  
They should call life without parole the death penalty as well.  We are going to kill you only real slowly.
 
2021-07-25 8:16:40 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Mock26: "and there are still over 100 photographs of unidentified women who may have been his victims."

That is more than a lot disturbing.

A lot of them were in the 60s and early 70s, and the police think most of them were either prostitutes or young women caught up in the hippie movement; girls who blithely told their families "Don't worry about me! I'm off to be a free woman!" Their families had lost contact with them long before this freak got his hooks into them, and never even knew they were missing, and maybe still don't.


More than likely. It's a lot more common than people would think or want to believe that people just disappear and are never seen again. For example, my brother moved out to Phoenix in the early 90s. We didn't hear from him for almost 5 years, he could've been dead for all we knew. He didn't respond to calls or letters. In that time, he quit his job as an architect, joined a cult, left the cult, started working as a science teacher.

If he had disappeared or been killed, it would've been months to years before anyone in the extended family knew about it.
 
2021-07-25 8:22:13 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Natalie Portmanteau: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html

Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.

I agree. I'd like to craft a rule that says execute them "only when we're absolutely totally unbiasedly positively sure that they really really did commit that terrible vile crime," not just, "Well, we got tired of looking at any other suspects, and we gotta execute SOMEBODY."


I guess that's how it works in theory now. I mean this guy was sentences to death three times and never got executed. In practice, sure it's a failure in many instances. But any system with a death penalty is going to have false positives and false negatives.
 
2021-07-25 8:24:49 AM  

austerity101: Huck And Molly Ziegler: Natalie Portmanteau: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html

Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.

I agree. I'd like to craft a rule that says execute them "only when we're absolutely totally unbiasedly positively sure that they really really did commit that terrible vile crime," not just, "Well, we got tired of looking at any other suspects, and we gotta execute SOMEBODY."

And how do we determine that? And why is it worth the expense?

Again, most countries do not do this. Their justice systems work well without it.


And the ones that do we criticize all the time for human rights abuse (a lot of them anyway, some we turn a blind eye).
 
2021-07-25 8:36:31 AM  
media4.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2021-07-25 10:12:54 AM  

tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.

I share the sentiment that there seem cases that are clear-cut enough that we can just "put the mad dog down".

But who decides what's "clear cut"?

Even going so far as to say "we'll only execute criminals that ask to be executed", I can see situations where someone is innocent, but can't prove it -- and given the choice between "kill me now" and "let me sit in this box for 50 years", might choose the first option. (Even if there's a tiny chance that they might be vindicated in 40 years.)

I don't know, honestly. Maybe that's a more instructive example than I thought.

I do know that I don't trust the current system to decide who lives and who dies. Until we come up with a foolproof method, I'm much more comfortable with locking someone away. We can fix those mistakes; we can't fix executions.


The crimes that are so egregious that most people agree death is a fitting punishment (mass murders, serial killings, etc) where there are multiple, different evidentiary factors (DNA, video, and confession/manifesto) I think would be doable.

IIRC John Wayne Gacy was so proud of what he'd done, they could have walked him out back of the courthouse and shot him in the street with no qualms he might have been innocent.
 
2021-07-25 10:19:54 AM  

austerity101: Natalie Portmanteau: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html

Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.

No. There is no middle ground. Executions are horrendous.


I'd say imprisoning someone for the rest of their life with no hope of freedom is actually more farked up than just killing them. It's ultimately about the same result, but in one instance the person suffers isolation and confinement, and in the other they don't.

Particularly when the person knows that's the sum totality of their existence, imprisonment is pretty soul crushing.

Life sentences might as well be death sentences, is all I'm saying.

And I think we need far fewer of both.

But some.
 
2021-07-25 10:32:17 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.

I share the sentiment that there seem cases that are clear-cut enough that we can just "put the mad dog down".

But who decides what's "clear cut"?

Even going so far as to say "we'll only execute criminals that ask to be executed", I can see situations where someone is innocent, but can't prove it -- and given the choice between "kill me now" and "let me sit in this box for 50 years", might choose the first option. (Even if there's a tiny chance that they might be vindicated in 40 years.)

I don't know, honestly. Maybe that's a more instructive example than I thought.

I do know that I don't trust the current system to decide who lives and who dies. Until we come up with a foolproof method, I'm much more comfortable with locking someone away. We can fix those mistakes; we can't fix executions.

The crimes that are so egregious that most people agree death is a fitting punishment (mass murders, serial killings, etc) where there are multiple, different evidentiary factors (DNA, video, and confession/manifesto) I think would be doable.

IIRC John Wayne Gacy was so proud of what he'd done, they could have walked him out back of the courthouse and shot him in the street with no qualms he might have been innocent.


"most people agree"? So we determine if you deserve to live by social vote? Gross.
 
2021-07-25 10:33:24 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: austerity101: Natalie Portmanteau: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html

Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.

No. There is no middle ground. Executions are horrendous.

I'd say imprisoning someone for the rest of their life with no hope of freedom is actually more farked up than just killing them. It's ultimately about the same result, but in one instance the person suffers isolation and confinement, and in the other they don't.

Particularly when the person knows that's the sum totality of their existence, imprisonment is pretty soul crushing.

Life sentences might as well be death sentences, is all I'm saying.

And I think we need far fewer of both.

But some.


You could say that, and you'd be wrong.

Again, false positives are inevitable. You're willing to let innocent people die simply because you really, really want to watch people you hate die. That's not justice.
 
2021-07-25 10:37:06 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: Life sentences might as well be death sentences, is all I'm saying.


I know I'd rather be dead than spend the rest of my life in prison. Except every method of execution has their own horror stories. The electric chair is particularly farked up. People have caught on fire in the thing. Lethal injection is pretty barbaric too. The firing squad is the only sure...fire way to drop someone without much chance of "complications".

Still, as long as there's a non-zero chance of an innocent person being executed, I don't think we should be doing it. I also don't know if the State should be murdering (let's call it what it is) its own citizens.
 
2021-07-25 10:47:36 AM  

daffy: make me some tea: Wendigogo: Good riddance. People like that should be put down, they have no ability to be rehabilitated.


Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well. I'd say the dating shows of yore were disgusting, but nowadays we basically show people farking on screen, so...

I wonder whether she was coerced by the producer to choose the creepiest guy.


I believe after the program, she went to them and told them that she would not go with him.

Why was he still waiting on death row. If you have the death penalty and have people that have been given it, then use it. This piece of trash did not deserve to die at 77 of natural causes. If he were free, he would have been raping and killing. You can not fix these monsters. All he did was waste the taxpayers money. I am so sick of these states that think they have the right to circumvent the federal laws.


He may have been innocent.
 
2021-07-25 10:49:15 AM  

austerity101: Natalie Portmanteau: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: Yeah, but like, and hear me out here, what if we had the death penalty, but saved it for like Tim McVeigh and this asshole.

You know, maybe just not let texas execute mentally disabled people, or randomly pick a minority to blame a crime on and execute.

There is a middle ground.

I share the sentiment that there seem cases that are clear-cut enough that we can just "put the mad dog down".

But who decides what's "clear cut"?

Even going so far as to say "we'll only execute criminals that ask to be executed", I can see situations where someone is innocent, but can't prove it -- and given the choice between "kill me now" and "let me sit in this box for 50 years", might choose the first option. (Even if there's a tiny chance that they might be vindicated in 40 years.)

I don't know, honestly. Maybe that's a more instructive example than I thought.

I do know that I don't trust the current system to decide who lives and who dies. Until we come up with a foolproof method, I'm much more comfortable with locking someone away. We can fix those mistakes; we can't fix executions.

The crimes that are so egregious that most people agree death is a fitting punishment (mass murders, serial killings, etc) where there are multiple, different evidentiary factors (DNA, video, and confession/manifesto) I think would be doable.

IIRC John Wayne Gacy was so proud of what he'd done, they could have walked him out back of the courthouse and shot him in the street with no qualms he might have been innocent.

"most people agree"? So we determine if you deserve to live by social vote? Gross.


Well, in a nutshell, yeah. We live in a democracy that has capital punishment. If most people want to stop capital punishment, then we can stop. But we haven't, so, I don't know what to tell you.

For what its worth, I don't think the current incarnation of the American justice system can be trusted with people's lives. But, it appears we fundamentally disagree on what to do with people who have proven they have no desire to live in society, and they wish to actively harm those around them. I think its less cruel to remove them from the equation entirely than it is to put them in a box for the rest of their life to punish them.

Now, if you want to redesign the prison system to follow the Scandinavian model, I support that. They have much better results. But they also have to deal with Anders Brevik when he gets out of prison in 15 years. And he has repeatedly said if they let him out of prison, he will kill again. They have 15 more years to fix him. Maybe they will. I'd love to be proven wrong here.
 
2021-07-25 10:50:42 AM  

Wendigogo: Watching that video made my skin crawl. And not even just because of Alcala. That woman seemed creepy as well.


Pretty sure that that was Stephen Frey in drag.
 
2021-07-25 10:50:58 AM  

tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html


I could raise that cell per year cost if we built an entire legal ecosystem dedicated to endlessly appealing every life sentence.

Your apples v. oranges comparison isn't consistent.
 
2021-07-25 10:56:19 AM  

austerity101: tkil: Natalie Portmanteau: He died of an illness in a taxpayer funded hospital waiting 20+ years to die for his crimes.

Still a bargain compared to executing an innocent person.

And not just in a monetary sense, either, although our still-not-rigorous-enough system makes the appeals process cost way more than simple incarceration.)

"According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million-less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her."
-- https://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Ca​pital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHM​ENT.html

Someone will see this and think, "We need to make executing someone easier and cheaper," completely missing the point.


What was the point? That executions are more expensive than life time of storage?

Why not ask why the appeals process has made it more expensive to execute someone within 7 -12 years than storing them in a prison for 20 or more years?
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.