He fucking argues that he didn't actually kill someone when he slit someone's throat. He has not changed, he thinks his sentence is an injustice. His argument is actually insulting as he tries to place himself with other people who are unjustly imprisoned when he completely deserves to be locked away. He is not rehabilitated if he is arguing semantics when he slit someones throat.
Letter from man on death row
- Thread starter Vermillion
- Start date
- Status
He fucking argues that he didn't actually kill someone when he slit someone's throat. He has not changed, he thinks his sentence is an injustice. His argument is actually insulting as he tries to place himself with other people who are unjustly imprisoned when he completely deserves to be locked away. He is not rehabilitated if he is arguing semantics when he slit someones throat.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
But he's talking about legal definitions which are relevant in this case. The legal system and the way people are convicted is fucked. His behaviour not withstanding, he was not found guilty of the murder and that seems to be a legal fact.
The way people are convicted are fucked but saying that he didn't kill no one as a defense when he did everything he could to kill someone and his accomplice ended up giving the deathblow is fucking insulting and paints himself as an unsympathetic piece of shit.
So in a nutshell, you are unable to separate HIM from the things he is saying. Good.
Remember that every time you meet people who offer sweet deals to you that are built on slavery, death or abuse.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
Or how about no death penalty at all?
Laws aren't there to carry medieval punishment towards those who commit criminal acts; they're there to protect those who follows those rules. I don't see how spending tons of money and time in a bureaucratic manner to execute someone protects anyone outside of it.
Innocent until proven guilty, then put into a rehabilitating prison that can make sure they can maybe one day serve the community in a helpful manner. If they can't be rehabilitated, let them stay there in the name of civility and human rights.
Oh I can separate his message from him just fine.
That doesn't change the fact that he has absolutely no right to be preaching about the virtues of empathy and compassion when he's shown absolutely none to those around him. It's insulting to those who actually ARE capable of empathy and compassion. It'd be like Hitler preaching about the importance of pacifism.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
Again, no scope for personal change and growth in your jaundiced and cynical worldview? Who's to say that a criminal facing death can't be empathetic or wise? One thing does not negate the other.
SillyEskimo
Member
His words make his heinous crime even more of a tradgedy. What a waste. If there is a hell, he will be going there.
quantumnerd
Member
To be honest, Hitler on his deathbed preaching the values of empathy (learned too late) would make one hell of an Oscar-winning performance.
What are you talking about? I agree with most of his points but I am calling him out on his belief that his sentence is an injustice. His argument is that the fact his throat slash didn't actually lead to death he should have a lighter sentence. That is completely asinine. He might have some points but that doesn't mean he can't still be scum. Are you saying that no one can label another person as scum?
It's already been established in earlier posts that he hasn't changed at all, so don't give me any of that "he's become wise" crap. He's an unrepentant shithead, plain and simple.
Besides, why should he have to undergo "personal change" simply to realize that slitting a dude's throat is wrong to begin with?
Asking for empathy... isn't necessarily asking for mercy or forgiveness.
Only an attempt at understanding the circumstances that caused him to act in such a way - and in doing so, understand the factors that contribute towards a culture with seemingly little internal direction.
If we only have contempt for wrong doers... we'll never come to understand why they do wrong - we'll never come to understand that we are all in the wrong set of situations and circumstances, be capable of heinous misdeeds of our own - and not come to guard against it, nor warn others of the signs that lead up to it.
In the long run... a society that practices empathy more and contempt less is a society that is better equipped to proactively deal with the problems that are part and parcel of human nature - and the misdeeds that emerge from it. In the long run, it's a society that leads to less loss of human life, less loss in human potential and less suffering for all.
But we can't apply empathy selectively - if we do, we feel disinclined to apply it to those unlike ourselves - and what can be less unlike ourselves than people that commit crimes?
Except those people are still human, embodied of human qualities and human traits - we can't and shouldn't ignore their life lessons and wisdoms just because we so thoroughly want to rinse our hands of their misdeeds.
And if we only apply empathy to people like ourselves - is it even empathy anymore?
Only an attempt at understanding the circumstances that caused him to act in such a way - and in doing so, understand the factors that contribute towards a culture with seemingly little internal direction.
If we only have contempt for wrong doers... we'll never come to understand why they do wrong - we'll never come to understand that we are all in the wrong set of situations and circumstances, be capable of heinous misdeeds of our own - and not come to guard against it, nor warn others of the signs that lead up to it.
In the long run... a society that practices empathy more and contempt less is a society that is better equipped to proactively deal with the problems that are part and parcel of human nature - and the misdeeds that emerge from it. In the long run, it's a society that leads to less loss of human life, less loss in human potential and less suffering for all.
But we can't apply empathy selectively - if we do, we feel disinclined to apply it to those unlike ourselves - and what can be less unlike ourselves than people that commit crimes?
Except those people are still human, embodied of human qualities and human traits - we can't and shouldn't ignore their life lessons and wisdoms just because we so thoroughly want to rinse our hands of their misdeeds.
And if we only apply empathy to people like ourselves - is it even empathy anymore?
Always-honest
Banned
Not sure about the empathy thingy being expressed in all cultures. Real empathy that is. Not dictated by religion.
Anyway, good letter.
Anyway, good letter.
ElRenoRaven
Member
You know what keeps me from being a "slave" of the state? Not being a criminal scumbag. You know what keeps me from having a "200" year sentence? Not committing the damn crime. He reaped what he sowed. You murder someone you deserve to die. You help murder someone you might as well have done it. I feel nothing for him or anyone in prison. It's prison not a daycare.
If someone is not undoubtedly guilty he should not get sentenced guilty in the first place, it's the basis of every first world country legal system.
It does not matter, if you can't address his points and just point at his crimes it just shows you can't be pragmatic so you shouldn't be anywhere near a legislative position.
chicko1983
Member
Good letter, crazy Texas law though.
So he was a party to a robbery where a guy was shot and killed by someone else, the shooter gets life, but the other party member, presumably the one that took the money (as that is the felony) gets the death penalty? Crazy!
So he was a party to a robbery where a guy was shot and killed by someone else, the shooter gets life, but the other party member, presumably the one that took the money (as that is the felony) gets the death penalty? Crazy!
thecouncil
Banned
chicko1983
Member
So he still slit the guys throat!?! The letter sounds like he had very little to do with they guys death and that the amount he was stealing was in the order of $500.
That excert sounds like he was the instigator of the murder, probably planned it due to his knowledge of the studio, and slitting someone's throat almost always kills someone (from the movies I've seen).
It sort of sounds like he had/has no remorse of what he did and blames someone else for killing someone!
No I read the letter like he had no empathy for that man whose throat he slit, so why should I give him my empathy?
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
No it hasn't. All we know is that he's on death row. We know the details of the crime he was convicted of. And we have his words in this letter. I'm saying that it's possible that the same man could have committed a heinous crime, serve time for it and become a more reflective and thoughtful man.
To dismiss his very valid points and observations because he's a criminal is myopic. His comments about the justice and sentencing system are very interesting and valid, and the crime he committed has nothing at all to do with these observations.
He doesn't HAVE to undergo it (the way you've phrased that is odd), but the fact that he HAS managed to change his worldview and become a more thoughtful man is commendable, regardless of his circumstances. And again, in the letter he is not talking about his crime - he is talking about the injustice of capital punishment and the illogical ways the verdict is arrived upon. He's talking about the injustice of the vast racial disparity of America's prisons, their for-profit nature, the failings of US culture to properly integrate and enfranchise black people, the condemnation of a generation of black men.
Oh no wait, but he's a fucking scumbag so fuck him, right? Sounds like you have a failure of empathy tbh
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
this conversation reminds me somewhat of an anecdote I heard about a police convention on psychopaths: throughout the speeches and what have you they're stressing how psychopaths are incapable of empathy which can lead to their terrible crimes - not necessarily excuses but a rationale at least. So the reporter (I think it may have been Jon Ronson) asks whether locking these people up as criminals is a good idea since they're sick, shouldn't we be trying to help them? To which the answer he received was "They don't care about us, why should we give a fuck about them?"
Failures in empathy all across the board.
Failures in empathy all across the board.
He does talk about his crime as an example of the injustice in the system when his sentence is probably the first one the state of Texas has got right. His points are goodbones but they are also not really new. There is an injustice happening to predominantely black Americans but his case doesnt fall into that. I also dont know why you cant say for sure he hasnt changed or been rehabilitated when hetries to downplay his crime as undeserving of severe punishment.
^ wait hes from the Netherlands?!
that don't make sense lol
in his letter he stated growing up in California.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
His point is that he received the death penalty because of how the law is constructed - a murder alone wouldn't attract the death penalty, but it does if you steal something as well. Why is the 'actual' murderer (and IMO both parties should be held fully responsible for the murder) not on death row too? Because he didn't receive the stolen goods? It's inconsistent.
You're becoming hung up on one detail and ignoring the man's words. The letter was not about his crimes because he had not been specifically asked to write about his crimes. We don't know how he feels about them now. His writing is eloquent and shows significant thought however, and I don't think that 'murderer' and 'worthy of listening to' are mutually exclusive ideas.
UncleSporky
Member
No, it's not true. We were taught all of this stuff in great detail, three-fifths compromise and everything. In elementary school we were taught about Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass and MLK. In middle school we read The Glory Field. In high school we read Roots, A Lesson Before Dying, and others. Racial history in the US is taught very thoroughly.
Mammoth Jones
Member
And yet in his own letter there isn't any mention of his victim or the victims family. Just "me me me". I feel bad that his choice led him there and he makes some valid points about the prison-industrial complex. But none of that absolves him.
I'll save my bleeding heart for non-violent drug offenders.
Because one should be able to show empathy to all their fellow humans, not just those that they feel deserve it.
However, I'm not going to excuse him, or his crime. I'm of the opinion that, assuming everything I have read is correct, he should stay in prison for life for a planned and attempted murder, even if he did not directly cause a fatal wound.
But I will listen to his words, and consider his opinions on the system as it stands. To do otherwise would be a failure on my part.
UncleSporky
Member
To be fair, that wasn't totally the subject of conversation in this letter. True, there were good opportunities to bring it up when he was talking about empathy, but maybe the person who wrote to him specifically asked for "me me me," that is, his view of himself and his opinions.
Does he need to apologize for his crimes in every communication he sends, in the off-chance that someone will read it standalone and assume he is not remorseful?
Mammoth Jones
Member
When he's spending so much time feeling sorry for his own circumstances I think it'd be prudent to acknowledge what he did to land himself there. Instead of pouting about the man and the system.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
Y'know what? I think when you're scheduled to die NEXT MONTH, you can pretty much think about whatever you like. If his thoughts are currently on his own circumstances I can't really say I blame him.
IISANDERII
Member
All students across the US get the same curriculum?
chicko1983
Member
I live my life by one simple rule - treat others how you want to be treated. It's pretty simple and has kept me in very good stead for my life so far.
He thinks he can slit someone's throat without remorse and still get some empathy from me? He doesn't fit into my rule so I'll happily forget about him, just like he wasn't thinking about the guy whose life he helped take.
I agree with you, I don't think he should die, and I think the law in which he was given the death penalty is stupid/crazy under some circumstances, and the death penalty should not be used ever, but I won't be empathetic for this guy one bit sorry.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
treat others how you want to be treated / fuck this guy though
I don't think you got that right, mane. The biblical proverb you're looking for is "an eye for an eye" I think.
lets not exaggerate here. Very little is taught about post civil war. Reconstruction to be exact. Even during slavery a lot of detail is glossed over. Redlining and other racist laws are not even brought up.
It's not a deterrent.
entremet
Member
It is definitely is not. There's no data backing this up.
nah, the feeling of shame is the most important thing in the world. Without shame society would collapse, even if empathy is strong.
chicko1983
Member
Yeah when you put it like that I guess my rule is really "fuck those who deliberately cause harm to others".
Yeah, that's more like how I like to live my life. Fuck him.
As I said, I don't think he should die and I don't agree with the death penalty.
UncleSporky
Member
I don't think that's how the rule works.
In fact, saying you treat others the way you want to be treated requires empathy for all people at all times, since you have to put yourself in their shoes to see how it would feel being treated the way you're treating them.
For example, you see somebody stuck at the side of the road with a broken down car, and they flag you down. How would you like to be treated if you were in their situation? You imagine what it would be like if you were stuck at the side of the road, desperately trying to get some help from someone. You'd want someone else to stop, and so that's what you do for that person.
You don't get to say the guy doesn't fit into your rule, your rule applies to everyone. If you were in his exact situation, how would you want to be treated? You're sitting on death row for slitting a man's throat and a guy asks you to write about your thoughts and experiences, and whether you feel remorse for your actions or not, you neglect to mention it in your reply letter. How do you want others to respond?
Maybe your answer would end up being the same, but that's how the golden rule works. You put yourself in their shoes. Nobody's exempt.
Shame is basically irrelevant. It hardly serves any good purpose. I would like you to explain your view more.
Kenshin001
Member
He has never apologised. When he got the chance to speak to the victim's relatives he said he wanted them to know he didn't kill Alejandro because you know, he just cut the guy's throat and it wasn't the fatal blow. I think that was a great consolation to the family and I bet they really empathised with him.
I disagree, if you are going to kill someone as a deterrent make it as painful, humiliating and prolonged as possible. Also make it mandatory to be shown statewide on TV and radio. Killing someone shouldn't be easy and forgatable.
Pollux
Member
I fail to see the problem with either of these two things you mentioned.
entremet
Member
I don't feel sorry for the his actions. They're are consequences. And I am against the DP personally.
However, as a society, we haven't looked long and hard at our criminal justice system and its inherent class and race biases. It's well documented and studied so I'm not going to post any research here. You can easily find it.
When you have more inmates than math teachers, there's a problem. When prisoners, who have served their time, are ostracized from integration into society, there's a problem. When you're jailing hundreds of thousands of minority youth for non-violent drug offenses, handicapping them in them job market, there's a problem.
And let's not forget the huge prison rape epidemic, the use of prisoners as cheap or free labor for corporations, the proliferation of private prisons, the high school to prison feeding system, and on and on. It's a huge problem, but hey we've got to be tough on crime.
Because the whole point of the jury system is to ensure a trial of your peers. How are you going to get impartiality if your jury pool is based on a population that has no correlation of experiences that the defendant may have had. The criminal justice system is incredibly biased on the prosecution. Police testimony is gold, even though police have lied many times in court. And as time has shown police have gotten away with murder without recourse. Police testimony is not gold, just as much as defense testimony is not. By design, however, it is skewed and The State gets the benefit of the doubt in criminal cases.
Additionally prosecutors have tons of resources, compared to a lowly and overworked public defender. Quality legal services are not available the majority of the population in prison. Why? Because quality legal services are expensive and prison is filled with low to lower middle class populations.
However, as a society, we haven't looked long and hard at our criminal justice system and its inherent class and race biases. It's well documented and studied so I'm not going to post any research here. You can easily find it.
When you have more inmates than math teachers, there's a problem. When prisoners, who have served their time, are ostracized from integration into society, there's a problem. When you're jailing hundreds of thousands of minority youth for non-violent drug offenses, handicapping them in them job market, there's a problem.
And let's not forget the huge prison rape epidemic, the use of prisoners as cheap or free labor for corporations, the proliferation of private prisons, the high school to prison feeding system, and on and on. It's a huge problem, but hey we've got to be tough on crime.
Because the whole point of the jury system is to ensure a trial of your peers. How are you going to get impartiality if your jury pool is based on a population that has no correlation of experiences that the defendant may have had. The criminal justice system is incredibly biased on the prosecution. Police testimony is gold, even though police have lied many times in court. And as time has shown police have gotten away with murder without recourse. Police testimony is not gold, just as much as defense testimony is not. By design, however, it is skewed and The State gets the benefit of the doubt in criminal cases.
Additionally prosecutors have tons of resources, compared to a lowly and overworked public defender. Quality legal services are not available the majority of the population in prison. Why? Because quality legal services are expensive and prison is filled with low to lower middle class populations.
UncleSporky
Member
Regardless of what the data shows, there are a lot of things I won't do specifically because of the risk of death, and there are a lot of things I won't do specifically because of the risk of punishment. Whether the actions are against the law or not, the risk of experiencing negative consequences deters me from doing a ton of things. I suspect I am not alone in this.
I'm not even necessarily in favor of the death penalty, but I am recognizing the fact that stopping bad things from happening to me is indeed a motivator.
entremet
Member
Are we going to base our laws on whims or on carefully researched data? Additionally, what happens when you kill a defendant that was found not guilty after new evidence is discovered? This has happened, by the way. Oops! Our, bad!
You can't go back. That alone is worth abolishing the barbaric practice.
- Status