I live in Texas, the death penalty capital of the United States. And for the most part, I support the death penalty (I know...that's not very characteristic of my otherwise Liberal philosophy). Child molesters, for example, should either be executed (in my opinion) or locked up forever. They can't be rehabilitated and every time the state releases one, they are gambling with the safety of our children, and against very poor odds, I might add.

But all that aside, in this morning's paper there was a story about a man who has been on Texas' death row for 31 years. Not just in prison - he has been in lock down on death row for over 3 decades. He killed a young man in the commission of a felony (armed robbery). Maybe he deserved the death penalty, or maybe he should have received life in prison. What he got was both.

I think that after 31 years, this man has paid his debt. He is not in some "country club prison" where he can play golf and surf the 'Net. He is not allowed TV (he has a radio). He gets one 5 minute phone call every 3 months. He has no cell mate....no contact with other human beings except the guards and an occasional visitor, viewed only thru thick, bullet-proof glass.

Rick Perry is not going to commute this man's sentence, but if I were governor of Texas, I would.

And as far as those innocent people who get executed go - life can suck.

I found this remark grossly offensive. I suppose the really important part, for you, is getting paid. If your client gets the death penalty, but happens to be innocent....oh, well. Guess you could say he had a bad day, huh?

I have very mixed emotions about the death penalty, but I do think it should exist for the worst of the worst. I totally agree with Carole about the Darlie Routier case. She murdered her poor children and they didn't get to grow up and live nearly as long as she has.

How do you know she murdered her children? Because a jury said so? How many juries have been wrong? Wasn't the OJ Simpson Jury wrong? Or do you only think juries are wrong when they acquit?

Back during the early 70's when the US did away with the death penalty, people like Charles Manson and his "family" had their death sentences reduced to life in prison. These people still get parole hearing approximately every 2 years. The scariest thing is they expect Leslie Van Houten to be released in the next few years. Did Sharon Tate or Abigail Folger get a chance to come back to life. What about that poor baby Susan Atkins wanted to cut out of Sharon Tate. These people are monsters and should have been executed years ago, but the families of these victims still have to attend parole hearings trying to keep them behind bars.

Are they people or monsters? Make up your mind.

Will Sharon Tate or Abigail Folger get a chance to come back to life if their killers are executed?

And, I have to add a few more death penalty cases in here. Did Laci and Conner Peterson deserve to die so Scott Peterson could get out of the responsibilty of having a wife and child? They expect it to be at least 25 years before he's executed. That is a crime in itself. Her family and friends have to live with her death everyday and will have to know he is still alive probably after her parents are dead.

Scott Peterson was convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. Will you change your tune if someone else is found to have been the killer prior to Scott Peterson's execution?

You also need to think about the cases that have never been solved, like the JonBenet Ramsey case, which by the way, the parents are no longer suspects. Just because the Boulder police department messed up the case, someone is walking free and has probably killed again.

Who should we execute in those cases? Should we pick someone at random?

And the most notorius of all, O J Simpson. It should be a crime that he is playing golf everyday and not paying 1 penny to the familes of Nicole's and Ron's families. And this joke of a book he recently wrote, he was paid a million dollars for it, but he laundered the money through fake companies and will not have to pay a dime. Now that is injustice!

So you not only wanted people on death row executed, but also people who were found innocent? You claim the opposite in your last paragraph. Should I be executed for pointing out these faults?

The list goes on and on, but I think you get my point. Do I believe innocent people should be executed? Absolutely not, but I do think those who are guilty deserve to die and quickly. This man in Dallas had his death penalty over turned on technicalities. That in no way means he's innocent of the crime. His victim doesn't get a second chance, and neither should he!

And many people have had their death penalty overturned because they were 100% innocent and it took many years in many cases. One, I believe took 18 years before the death row inmate was proved to be 100% innocent. Would you care if he had been put to death for the crime he didn't commit so that you could have your "die and quickly" wish?

The scariest thing is they expect Leslie Van Houten to be released in the next few years.

Leslie Van Houten has been in prison for 37 years - almost half her life. She is far from "the worst of the worst" and may not actually have killed anyone. Mrs. LaBianca's was the only murder Van Houten was accused of. Linda Kasabian, who received immunity in exchange for her testimony, admitted to being present at both the Tate and the LaBianca murders.

Van Houten was actually expected to get the lightest sentence of any of the Manson devotees, but her behavior at the trial inflamed the jury. She was the ultimate example of being your own worst enemy.

How do you know she murdered her children? Because a jury said so? How many juries have been wrong? Wasn't the OJ Simpson Jury wrong? Or do you only think juries are wrong when they acquit?

The reason I know Darlie Rutier is guilty is I follow criminal cases very closely. The blood that dripped off of the knife on the floor next to her dead son's body was DNA tested and belonged to the mother. So yes, I do my homework. As I said, I have followed all of these cases that I mentioned very closely. Lumiol was used in the kitchen and she had cleaned up a tremendous amount of blood from the floor and counter top close to the sink. Very sad case.

Yes, I do believe the O J Simpson jury was wrong. Not because he wasn't convicted, but because of the evidence in the case the jury chose to ignore. He got off because he had money and he was a celebrity. The jury dismissed every bit of the DNA evidence. And no, I don't believe juries are wrong just because the aquit. I believe they are wrong when they ignore the evidence in the case like they did in the O J case.

Will Sharon Tate or Abigail Folger get a chance to come back to life if their killers are executed?

No, Sharon Tate nor Abigail Folger will come back to life if the killers are executed, but their families would not have to relive their murders every few years by having to go to the parole hearings tryin to keep them in prison. And, if you have ever seen an interview with Charles Manson, you would absolutely believe he was a monster. They all were at the time.

Scott Peterson was convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. Will you change your tune if someone else is found to have been the killer prior to Scott Peterson's execution?

NO, Scott Peterson was not convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. You should read the book A Deadly Game and I think you might change your tune on that one. I watched that trial, and the testimony was given out almost word for word using a Blackberry on Court TV, and it was very convincing evidence. The problem Peterson had was he had a flamboyant attorney that had absolutely no believable defense at all. They couldn't even get his former friends to testify in his defense.

Who should we execute in those cases? Should we pick someone at random?

In cases like the JonBenet Ramsey case, absolutely no, we shouldn't just pick someone at random, but the police department and district attorney's offices should be held accountable for the errors that were made. In other words, heads should role there.

So you not only wanted people on death row executed, but also people who were found innocent? You claim the opposite in your last paragraph. Should I be executed for pointing out these faults?

No, I don't believe we should be executing people who were found innocent, but O J Simpson was not found innocent. He was found not guilty because the jury had reasonable doubt. Plus, some of the jurors said they walked into the case knowing they were going to aquit, so I absolutely believe he is guilty of murder. He was found guilty in a civil court for causing their deaths and ordered to pay $36,000,000, which he has not paid a dime of.

And many people have had their death penalty overturned because they were 100% innocent and it took many years in many cases. One, I believe took 18 years before the death row inmate was proved to be 100% innocent. Would you care if he had been put to death for the crime he didn't commit so that you could have your "die and quickly" wish?

No, I don't believe people who are innocent should be executed. I just believe with people who are convicted and there is no doubt they are guiltym they should be executed more quickly. And yes, I would very much care if someone who was innocent was put to death. But, our judicial system does work most of the time. 12 jurors are chosen from the community where the crime occurs, so people like myself and mousecrazy have just as much right to be on a jury as you do. I believe having the 12 people ends up making the jury balanced.

"12 jurors are chosen from the community where the crime occurs, so people like myself and mousecrazy have just as much right to be on a jury as you do. I believe having the 12 people ends up making the jury balanced."

I am not allowed to be on the jury, because I do not believe in the death penality, so the jury is already stacked (because my disqualification means it is not a jury of peers).

"He was found guilty in a civil court for causing their deaths and ordered to pay $36,000,000, which he has not paid a dime of."

OJ was not found quilty in a civil court. Civil courts do not have guilt or innocent verdits. Civil courts are not set to the same standards as criminal court. If the standards for criminal court were lowered to that of civil court, you would be living in Nazi America.

"He was found not guilty because the jury had reasonable doubt."

That is all that is required. That is all that is ever required in this country.

"And, if you have ever seen an interview with Charles Manson, you would absolutely believe he was a monster."

No. He is a human being that belongs in a mental institution.

We, from the community of fat people who can not control our emotions and who get angry because people make fun of us because that emotional disorder manifests itself as over-eating, should realize that not only physical illness is beyond the control of human beings.

I am not taking pity on Mr. Manson, but he is truly sick just as (though not like) I am sick. We both know better (the only legal definition), but we are unable to control ourselves.

Maybe someday mental illness including may be cured. Maybe the Charles Manson's of the world can be cured before they act in their depraved way. Maybe that research will help those like me, who can not control eating and/or others who can not control gambling, wife beating, etc. Or maybe it will be the other way around; the cure for over-eating, gambling, wife beating, etc. will lead to a cure for the mental illness that Charles Manson is a poster boy for.

Either way, Charles Manson is no monster. He is a human being.

"No, Sharon Tate nor Abigail Folger will come back to life if the killers are executed, but their families would not have to relive their murders every few years by having to go to the parole hearings tryin to keep them in prison."

The families do not need to keep going back for parole hearings, they want to. Their need for vengeance is keeping them in Hell and ruining their lives, and is self destructive

You may have noticed how the Amish welcomed the family of the killer of the 7 school children into their homes. They could have acted like most Americans and shunned them, but they forgave. Forgiveness is too often preached, but very seldom practiced.

The families who dedicate their lives to parole hearings are killing themselves in a possibly subconscious attempt to join their deceased love ones.

I watched a documentary once about a family in which a little girl watched a family friend kill her mother in their home. The other children and their father were not home. The man was sentenced to life in jail. The two other children and their father dedicated their lives to making sure the murderer would never be paroled, while the girl who was the witness moved away and flushed vengeance (and hate) from her mind.

She is living a descent life. The father and her two sibling have all had bouts of alcohol and drug related problems including multiple failed marriages. Hatred truly harms the hater, while the hated is not effected.

@Wootsie: In fact Karla Homolka is living in the Province of Quebec under the informal scrutiny of both the local police and the media. It would be impossible for her to cross the border unless one of your border guards was extremely inattentive. Where did you get your info from? I am curious.

TOM, you seem to be making personal atttacks to Wootsie as if her opinion is wrong rather than just be opposite yours. It's rude.

"I am not allowed to be on the jury, because I do not believe in the death penality, so the jury is already stacked (because my disqualification means it is not a jury of peers)."

Wrong. You won't be allowed on that jury because you're not open minded enough to consider death as an option. You wouldn't be on a DWI jury if you don't drink. The point is to get as many fair minded people out of the hundred or so that are called in.

"A person executed has no recourse."

neither does a person who's been murdered.

"If your post is consistent with the feelings of defense attorneys for their defendant clients which they represent, then there is no wonder we have so many innocent people on death row."

Grow up. I'm expressing an opinion that you don't agree with. That doesn't make you right. I wouldn't lower myself to launch a personal attack on you.

"Are they people or monsters? Make up your mind."

They are people who act and think like monsters. Satisfied?

TOM, you seem to be making personal atttacks to Wootsie as if her opinion is wrong rather than just be opposite yours. It's rude.

I didn't mean to be rude.

"I am not allowed to be on the jury, because I do not believe in the death penalty, so the jury is already stacked (because my disqualification means it is not a jury of peers)."

Wrong. You won't be allowed on that jury because you're not open minded enough to consider death as an option. You wouldn't be on a DWI jury if you don't drink. The point is to get as many fair minded people out of the hundred or so that are called in.

Or not barbaric enough.

"A person executed has no recourse."

neither does a person who's been murdered.

Not relevant, because neither execution nor life imprisonment can bring the victim back to life, but killing an innocent second person is wrong, barbaric and evil.

"If your post is consistent with the feelings of defense attorneys for their defendant clients which they represent, then there is no wonder we have so many innocent people on death row."

Grow up. I'm expressing an opinion that you don't agree with. That doesn't make you right. I wouldn't lower myself to launch a personal attack on you.

When you wrote, "Grow up", you already did.

"Are they people or monsters? Make up your mind."

They are people who act and think like monsters. Satisfied?

On that, totally.

Leslie Van Houten has been in prison for 37 years - almost half her life. She is far from "the worst of the worst" and may not actually have killed anyone. Mrs. LaBianca's was the only murder Van Houten was accused of. Linda Kasabian, who received immunity in exchange for her testimony, admitted to being present at both the Tate and the LaBianca murders.

Van Houten was actually expected to get the lightest sentence of any of the Manson devotees, but her behavior at the trial inflamed the jury. She was the ultimate example of being your own worst enemy.

There is a huge difference in being present at both of the crimes and actually being accused of murdering someone. Linda Kasabian was present, but was never thought to have been involved in the actual killings. She was just the driver of the vehicle.

I am well aware that Leslie Van Houten has been in prison for almost half of her life, but that's where she belongs, along with the others in that group. Just because she was only accused of killing one person dosen't mean she should get out of prison. How many people do you think she, or anyone else for that matter, should have to kill to get the death penalty? Just curious.

Joan

Green,

I got my information from Court TV and the national news channels. Karla Homolka is a very evil and demented individual who should still be in prison.

I just wanted to add to Tired_Old_Man, in the state of Texas, there is no life in prison without parole, at least there wasn't until a few months ago. So, if someone was sentenced to life in prison, they would always be eligible for parole. I believe a new law went into effect recently changing that, which I think is a good thing. I don't necessarily believe everyone should be executed who commits murder, but I do believe they should never be able to get out of prison.

Joan

There is a huge difference in being present at both of the crimes and actually being accused of murdering someone. Linda Kasabian was present, but was never thought to have been involved in the actual killings. She was just the driver of the vehicle.

Linda Kasabian WAS accused of "murdering someone". She was indicted for both the Tate and Labianca murders. She turned State's Evidence and received immunity in exchange for her testimony. Had she not done so, she surely would have received the death penalty herself, if convicted.