Hope this doesn't turn controversial - just something casual I'm wondering.

Personally I'm a moderate liberal and usually against stuff like the death penalty and retribution, and I'd rather focus on helping crime victims and (when it's possible or safe) rehabilitation.

Yet I'd make an exception to some of the UM fugitives. Like Paul Stamper or (I'm sure) Mark Nichols and any other scumbag men who abuse women. Same with anyone who commits cold blooded first degree murder.

Like I said, I usually am opposed to the death penalty and "Texas justice" type of punishment, but I wouldn't feel sorry for Adam Emery if he got the chair (assuming he's still alive). He's probably one of the UM criminals that angered me the most. The worst part was that he killed Jason and tried to justify it, and didn't even seem to phase him. His lack of remorse ticked me off more than anything probably!

Hmm, I would not say the show has really changed my views on politics. I am overall conservative but have long been opposed to the death penalty. Of course naturally it might be more tempting to support it for certain people but in the end the system is just too flawed for me to support it. Regardless of how much people may dislike the appeals process, that is how we are because we are a country of laws. We do not do vigilante justice in this country and we do not do martial law. If that is what you want, go over to Iran or North Korea or China or something.

Well, I will say, I imagine UM has contributed to the change of some laws. However when people get outraged about people like Paul Stamper, who I believe was sentenced to almost 30 years in prison yet paroled after serving less than 10, that was not unusual for that period of time. It happened and still happens everyday where people get wrist slaps, 99.99999 percent of the cases you never hear about. Plea bargaining happens A LOT, I would say it happens in 95 percent of cases. That would be because basically all prosecutors care about is winning and getting a conviction and not really ensuring justice for all like they are supposed to do.

In regards to Adam Emery, well, one must remember, that he was actually allowed to continue to be free on bail AFTER his conviction. He was facing twenty years to life, so if he went on the run that is really not surprising to me. I am not sure if Rhode Island law has been changed or not since then, but actually in many states even in the early 90's that was not uncommon to be allowed to remain free on bond even after you were convicted in a murder case. In Rhode Island, I do not think you were allowed to remain free after a first degree murder case but in any other case you could be allowed to remain free on bond at least until sentencing and even then you could get an appeal bond.

I remember hearing about a case that was on AMW and while I have mixed feelings on John Walsh's stance on issues, he has done some good work. There was a guy that killed a guy in a bar fight in Connecticut. The killer was from a well to do family. So they were able to post his bond. Well at trial he was convicted of first degree murder however in 1988, 1989 in Connecticut you could get an appeal bond for any case including first degree murder. So the guy's family posted the appeal bond so instead of going to prison to start serving his 20 year to life sentence he was free on bond.

Well surprise, surprise within months, probably because he knew the chances of winning his appeal were slim, he jumped bail and disappeared. He has been on the run for almost twenty years now. However even though AMW has not yet caught the guy, John Walsh himself went up to Connecticut and urged them to change the law to restrict who and on what cases one was eligible for appeal bond and I know he was successful in getting the law changed so that anyone convicted of first degree murder has to be taken immediately into custody if they are out on bail and that they must pursue their appeals from behind bars. Walsh said this law change really came in handy as a few years later when Michael Skakel was convicted of murder, he had to go to prison and pursue his appeals there, whereas had Skakel been convicted under the old law he would have been able to post an appeal bond and probably would have fled the country.

There have been a few other cases where that has been seen. Remember John Branion? I am not 100 percent convicted of his guilt, but clearly him fleeing did not look good. Anyway, he was convicted and he stuck around for the first couple of years after his appeal bond was posted, however after 3 years, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld his conviction and ordered him to report to prison within days and so he jumped on the plane and fled.

I don't let TV shows, movies, or celebrities dictate my political or personal views. If anything, however, certain segments on UM might add weight to my views. (For example, I cite the Kenneth McDuff case as one of my arguments in favor of the death penalty.)

Well keep in mind, for a lot of us, we are watching this show the second time around in our lives. We were aware of a lot of the cases.

For me my political views have not changed.

The show itself hasn't changed my political views, but this board has actually changed my thinking on some issues.

And Kadrmas is probably going to fall out of his chair when he reads this, but arguing with him about death penalty issues has actually softened my cold, black, vindictive heart a wee bit, and he's brought me around to his way of thinking on certain cases.

In terms of my views of death penalty, as long as the criminal has a chance to plead out to life in prison and have an appeal process, I am fine with having the death penalty.

I am not in favor of Texas-style death penalty.

I don't believe in that garbage that the death penalty reduces crime, because in most cases the criminal has calculated death as being the end result of his criminal career.

Do people really think the drug dealer who shoots rivals is going to stop just because he might get the death penalty. He could die anytime on the streets at any given second! :rolleyes:


People also seem to think that your average criminal knows his state laws by heart. With the exception of Texas, how many people really know what the death penalty of their given state. I live in Connecticut and frankly, I had to stop and look up whether's their death penalty in my state!

Good post, Kadrmas - I totally agree.

As contradictory as it seems, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to people who COULD be rehabilitated, but more Republican on felons.

I mean... just like you said, I totally agree the death penalty and vengeance/tough love justice doesn't usually work. If it did, wouldn't Texas have the lowest crime rate, lol. I think the best answer is to recognize and fix the problems that make people criminals in the first place, as opposed to just punishing and forgetting about them.

On the other hand though, I get as outraged as anyone when HARDENED, dangerous criminals who should never be in society again (I think everyone would agree on that much) get a slap on the wrist, or transferred to a lower security prison for "good behavior", only to later escape. David Harry Fisher, Adam Emery and tons of UM felons are a perfect example. Or the Connecticut bank robbers in 1985 that escaped police custody while they were being transported by marshalls (when they TOOK precautions).

On the other hand though, I get as outraged as anyone when HARDENED, dangerous criminals who should never be in society again (I think everyone would agree on that much) get a slap on the wrist, or transferred to a lower security prison for "good behavior", only to later escape. David Harry Fisher, Adam Emery and tons of UM felons are a perfect example. Or the Connecticut bank robbers in 1985 that escaped police custody while they were being transported by marshalls (when they TOOK precautions).

That reminds me of some comments that economist Thomas Sowell made about crime and punishment. This includes a remark about how people tend to ignore a few important things when claiming that "life without the possibility of parole" protects society from murderers as well as the death penalty. And those those things are, as Sowell put it, "(1) life without the possibilty of parole does not mean life without the possibility of escape or (2) life without the possibility of killing while in prison or (3) life without the possibility of a liberal governor being elected and issuing a pardon."

Thomas Sowell's comments on the topic carry a lot of weight with me. Besides, in my home state of Massachusetts, there used to be a time when "life without the possibility of parole" didn't mean (1) life without the possibility of furlough or (2) life without the possibility of then-Gov. Michael Dukakis commuting the sentence.

As a moderate myself, I always leaned towards the "fry 'em" view of the death penalty. But then I started watching UM in high school and I realized things weren't always so cut-and-dried.

When I went to college, I minored in Criminal Justice. One of the classes I took was on crime and punishment. Now this wasn't taught by a hemp wearing, hippie lettuce smoking liberal prof, but rather by an older conservative white male. I thought for sure when we started talking about the death penalty that he would reaffirm my idea of "kill the guilty who deserve it." But he didn't. He said that we are (I think) the only civilized industrial nation that still has the death penalty (think Europe here). He made some good arguments about how "sure" we can ever be with evidence, that frying one innocent man is worse than letting the guilty go free, and that when you think of it, if we kill the killers, are we any better than them?

Anyway, not here to argue. Just food for thought and a little bit on how my views changed. I respect those who do see a need for the death penalty but my opinion has changed since I was younger.

Now the one case that did irk me so bad that I almost wrote my senator was the Sacramento rapist case. I don't want to go off on a rant, but the fact that the ACLU fights taking DNA from those in prison is beyond me. Yes, there could be innocent people behind bars, but DNA testing has gotten to the point that it is very accurate. The thought that we could be solving hundreds of cases with a database of DNA from convicted offenders is pretty sick.

I'm not saying we take DNA from every newborn baby, but if you have been convicted of a crime, you lose a few rights. And one of those should be giving up a sample to help get justice for people who have long gone without it. I'm just sayin'....

Hey Todd, well, I like the way you stated your views. Well, eventually that injunction did get lifted, at least for death row, they were all tested and none of the people on the row were the guy. In many states, prisoners are only required to give DNA when they are going to be released or in the last few years they have started taking it if someone is convicted of a felony.

The problem I begin to have with these DNA taking laws is when they start taking your DNA before you are even convicted of something. This year in California, if you are arrested for a misdemeanor you are required to give a DNA sample.

This might sound good to some people but to me this reminds me of George Orwell's 1984. I mean to me, it just violates the mantra of presumption of innocence to take someone's DNA before they are even convicted of a crime.

It is almost like saying, oh, well because you were arrested, there for sure is going to be a next time and you probably have been arrested several times before so we are going to take your DNA just in case regardless of how your case pans out. I mean even if you are acquitted or the charges are dropped, your DNA sample would remain in the state's database, there is just something about that, that rubs me the wrong way.

Now, when someone goes to prison, yes a DNA sample should be required. Or when a person is convicted of a felony level crime they should have to give a DNA sample too. However like I said, the part about samples being taken before a person is even convicted of the crime bugs me. There is just something about that, that does not sit right.

In terms of only a liberal Governor commuting a sentence, frankly that is bunk. I know you did not say only liberal's Kane but you implied it. Yes Michael Dukakis was forever known for the whole Willie Horton scandal. However I will say, Dukakis in some ways got an unfair shake. While it was true that he supported the furlough program as a method of rehabilitation, he was not the one that started the program. In fact, under the program originally, people convicted of first degree murder were not even eligible for the program. However the Massachusetts Supreme Court reared its ugly head and said that first degree murderers had to be eligible too otherwise it would be biased against them.

However Dukakis or any other liberal are not the only Governors to commute sentences. George W. Bush commuted Henry Lee Lucas's death sentence to life in prison in Texas. Governor Rick Perry commuted a death sentence to life in prison. Then Missouri Governor Matt Blunt commuted a life without parole sentence to time served in a controversial murder case and the woman was freed. Perry, Bush and Blunt, three guys that are hardly liberal.

I will agree that the death penalty is archaic, my state did away with it in 1911 after a bungled public hanging. I mean it is just incredible to me I guess that basically every state that has the death penalty or had the death penalty bungled an execution at one time or another. The electric chair is a particularly vile contraption, watching flames shoot out of someone's head and smelling burning flesh, not exactly something I would care to witness. Or the gas chamber, another vile thing too.

I will agree on one thing, yes it is bad when the slap on the wrist plea deal happens. Washington State is a liberal state although at the time David Harry Fisher committed his crime it was more conservative than now. However I can guarantee you if that crime happened today, he would not have been pled out to a lesser charge. By the way, it was not 2nd degree manslaughter he was pled out to as UM said but 2nd degree murder and he was sentenced to 20 years. However at that time 20 years hardly meant twenty years, in fact even if Fisher had not escaped he probably would not have stayed in prison much longer before being paroled anyway. But at that time, they had good behavior, eventually his sentence was reduced by several years do that and because his sentence was reduced he got moved to a minimum security facility with only a handful of officers and no fencing or gates.

You see this in other cases too. Jon Young, a life prisoner allowed to work outside the prison fence without having guards in the vicinity the whole time. James King who escaped and he too was serving a life sentence and was allowed to work outside the prison fence. John Mooney who was serving a life sentence and was transferred to a minimum security facility. In fact, William Jordan who along with Anthony Prevatte kidnapped and killed that guy, well Jordan actually escaped from the same prison that Mooney escaped from (Jordan escaped 4 years after Mooney) Jordan like Mooney was serving a life sentence. Prevatte actually got paroled from his life sentence only to kill again a couple years after his release and get sentenced to death in North Carolina. David Gordon Smith who was allowed to work and live outside the hospital fence unsupervised and was even allowed to go into town on unsupervised furloughs despite serving a life sentence and escaped.

Of course those are just a handful of the escapes shown at UM but it shows you that they were really asking for trouble with these guys. I mean they were serving life sentences and frankly really had nothing to lose by making an escape attempt. Of course you do see some more ingenious escape attempts that even with tight security were still pulled off, Mark Adams escape from San Quentin, Steve Wilson and Glen Godwin's escapes from Folsom, Richard McNair's escapes, first from the North Dakota State Penitentary and later from a U.S. Federal Prison in Louisiana, Patrick Michael Mitchell when he escaped from prison in Arizona, those are a few that come to mind.

However getting back to plea bargaining, if David Harry Fisher committed the crime today that he committed in 1970, no way would he get pled out to 20 years, not even in a liberal State like Washington. Or Dale Hyde who got pled out to manslaughter despite the fact that he killed his own child. That was in Texas that that happened too. He was originally charged with murder but they pled him out to the lesser charged. He was later sentenced to 10 years but released after 3. Or Art Silva who raped his own daughters and got pled out to an 11 year sentence. Of course he was originally charged with child rape but he got pled out to the lesser charges of lewd and lacavious acts with a child. He got 11 years but under California law at that time was released after serving half his sentence, so he was let out after 5 and a half years.

Basically, what the plea bargaining process shows is that prosecutors just want a conviction. That is why 99.9 percent of the time they offer a plea bargain. Usually the only time they do not offer one is in certain Capital Murder cases. They offer them because 95 percent of the time, the defendant takes the plea deal. They also know if you go on trial, the odds of you getting acquitted are slim.

They also go after you big time if you do not take the deal. Tony Miller was offered a plea deal, he turned it down, went to trial, got convicted, and got 20 to 40 years for armed robbery and aggravated assault. They offered Thomas Drake a plea deal, he turned it down, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for armed robbery (he got 30 years for attempted murder). There is a guy I write in prison in Florida, he was offered a plea deal for five years PROBATION, no jail time, he told them to take the offer and stuff it, he admitted doing the crime but said it was not a crime, he was defending his home and his family and he shot a gun at his daughters boyfriend although it did not hit him and the boyfriend did not even report the incident for weeks afterwards, anyway, the guy was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and was sentenced to 20 years in prison!

Of course that 20 years is mandatory under Florida's ridiculous 10-20-life law. Basically what it says is, if you pull a gun out during the commission of a felony that is 10 years, firing a gun is 20 years, shooting someone (if they are not killed but if a bullet hits them) is 25 to life. That law was meant to target armed robbers and armed burglars, not someone protecting their home. So it cuts both ways.