Serial Killer Gets Life

[twyrch]

WICHITA, Kansas (CNN) -- Self-described BTK serial killer Dennis Rader Thursday was sentenced to 10 consecutive life terms after the court heard emotional statements from his victims' families and listened to Rader himself express remorse.

With a minimum sentence of 175 years, Rader, 60, will spend the rest of his life at the maximum-security El Dorado Correctional Facility near Wichita.

I don't know if any of you have read about this or not... I won't post any more of it because the news release comes with a disclaimer...

"Editor's Note: The following report includes graphic content that some readers may find disturbing. Reader discretion is advised. "

Here's a link to the story if you wish to read it... Linky

Here's my beef (for those of you who read this article)...

Why are we going to keep this creep alive on death row? Why not just kill him? Here's the answer...

"Rader could not face the death penalty because Kansas did not reinstate capital punishment until 1994, three years after his last killing."

OMG! Why can't they make an exception for this guy? This is just insane.

[dinadan]

That seems strange. The convictions came after the reinstatement--what does it matter when the crime was committed?

Someone with more legal knowledge, fill me in.

[Lady Bookwyrm]

Because of the Ex Post Facto law...which is in place for a good reason. It is there to protect the American people...and I would rather see a beepity-beep-beep like BTK get off on life than see it bent or broken.

Essentially, if a law is made that makes something you did/owned/supported illegal, you cannot be prosecuted for what you did when it WAS legal. For example, say tomorrow, a law was made saying that it was illegal to own dogs. If you owned a dog and got rid of it to comply with the law, you could not be arrested for owning it prior to the law's enactment. This law helps protect the interests of all people...minority and majority groups alike.

[dinadan]

Well, the crime he comitted was still illegal when he comitted it. (Actually, I should be using the purals, but anyway...) I am aware that Ex Post Facto keeps you from getting in trouble for things you did before they were illegal...but it seems mind boggling to me to say "You were a horse theif before hanging horse theives was the standard punishment, so, therefore, you don't get hanged."

A non-sequitur if ever there was one.

[twyrch]

ladybookwyrm said:

Because of the Ex Post Facto law...which is in place for a good reason. It is there to protect the American people...and I would rather see a beepity-beep-beep like BTK get off on life than see it bent or broken.

Essentially, if a law is made that makes something you did/owned/supported illegal, you cannot be prosecuted for what you did when it WAS legal. For example, say tomorrow, a law was made saying that it was illegal to own dogs. If you owned a dog and got rid of it to comply with the law, you could not be arrested for owning it prior to the law's enactment. This law helps protect the interests of all people...minority and majority groups alike.

I can see your point... but this guy is worse than any I've seen... worse than Jeffrey Dahmer... Worse than John Wayne Gacey... He does not deserve to live on tax-payer dollars for the rest of his life.

There are homeless and poor my money would be better served going to than this creton.

[dinadan]

I appreciate your sentiment, twyrch, but I must say that I think that it is poor rational for demanding his death. I don't believe in the death-penalty, per se (actually, my stance on this issue is very unclear, even to me, but..). My previous post was just to clarify the fact that I don't see the logic in it, or even--dare I say it--the Justice.

Of course, I've given up hope that such a far-gone machine as our justice system can still turn out even mediocre results. I think its time for an overhaul.

[Lady Bookwyrm]

Think of it this way...You get caught littering on Monday, and you are fined $100. You send in the check on Wednesday, only to be informed that Tuesday, the fine went up to $200, and you are being charged an additional $100. Would you pay? Would you feel that is fair?

Granted, a littering fine and a peice of scum like BTK are hardly comparable...but it's the best I can do with getting my point out.

I don't like it...I think he should be slowly tortured to death. But I agree with the system.

[dinadan]

ladybookwyrm said:

Think of it this way...You get caught littering on Monday, and you are fined $100. You send in the check on Wednesday, only to be informed that Tuesday, the fine went up to $200, and you are being charged an additional $100. Would you pay? Would you feel that is fair?

Actually, here is where I think a weakness in our justice system lies. If you are caught breaking the law, your punishment should be immediate. Waiting only brings trouble, waste, expense, and sticky comparisons between minor misdemeanors and major felonies like the one you just employed.

But I agree with the system.

I think this is where we disagree fundamentally.

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

[Lady Bookwyrm]

lol, Nope! Nothing wrong at all...differences make the world go round, after all... ;D

[dinadan]

Well, this is by far the most interesting discussion (with the exception of the terrorism one) that I've had on here in a long, long time.

[twyrch]

dinadan said:

I appreciate your sentiment, twyrch, but I must say that I think that it is poor rational for demanding his death. I don't believe in the death-penalty, per se (actually, my stance on this issue is very unclear, even to me, but..). My previous post was just to clarify the fact that I don't see the logic in it, or even--dare I say it--the Justice.

Of course, I've given up hope that such a far-gone machine as our justice system can still turn out even mediocre results. I think its time for an overhaul.

While I appreciate your position, I do believe there are cases where Capital Punishment is a necessary part of our lives. This case is one of them, in my opinion... Susan Smith was another... Anyone who can kill without regret does not deserve to be kept alive on death row.

Now, as I say this, I am reminded of Gandalf in LOTR. "Many people live who deserve death, while many others die who deserve life. Can you give life to them Frodo? Then do not be quick to deal out death, because even the most wise can't see all ends."

Or something to that effect... My point is... I can see where you are coming from, but I feel that this case warrants it, regardless of pre-existing law. Hopefully, he'll be taken care of in prison.

[twyrch]

dinadan said:

Well, this is by far the most interesting discussion (with the exception of the terrorism one) that I've had on here in a long, long time.

I think we should have more thought provoking discussions like this. As long as they don't turn into flame wars, I really love a good discussion. Makes me think.

[Lady Bookwyrm]

But Twyrch...You have to be a semi-intelligent being to have thought...

[twyrch]

ladybookwyrm said:

But Twyrch...You have to be a semi-intelligent being to have thought...

*runs off and cries in the corner*

[dgan]

I agree with everyone. (How diplomatic is that?)

Booky is right - you can't change the law (including the maximum sentence allowed by the law) to be retroactive toward previous crimes, no matter how repulsive they may be. I also agree with Twyrch - It is a shame that he stayed within Kansas (most serial killers range through several states), because then each state gets a crack at him - hopefully one with the death penalty, which he has so richly earned.

I also agree with Din - our Justice system is bound by laws in areas where there should be room for judgment, yet in other areas give justices free reign to be as crack-brained as possible. I mean, this guy that killed the kid in Utah - how the **** did that sex offender get released? ARGH! Overhaul is the perfect word.

The death penalty - my two cents: (I'm going broke, two cents at a time, lately!) Imprisonment is best suited for individual reform. It is a deterrent as well, but it's main intent is to house a dangerous person until they can be made to live safely within society. Execution is a deterrent - how effective is debatable - but a deterrent nonetheless. So why keep a person alive who, believed to be beyond help but even if 'reformed', will never live in society again? Especially, if the execution of that person might deter someone else from doing the same crime. If we're not trying to reform him, and we're not deterring other potential murderers, what's the point? Oh yeah, we don't execute because every life has value. Riiiiiiiiight.