Bruises

[beesy]

We are having a good discussion on another board about the bruises. Yes, I know we've talked about on them here too, but we have some new people so let's start it again....
So what do you think caused the bruises? Darlie did it? If so, how and when? Darin did it? How and when? Devon or Damon did it? Frightening with a blur? If you think it was done during a struggle with her intruder, what did he hit her with?

[CyberLaw]

The bruises were fabricated.........Darlie "apparently" slammed her arm or had the door slammed on her arm to "fabricate" the bruises.

IF, the bruises were from the intruder it would have had to have been a type of solid "planK, hitting her like a bat.

IF she "grappled" with the intruder, the bruises would have been more like finger and hand prints.

The bruises were dated to after the murders.

[beesy]

[QUOTE]The bruises were fabricated.........Darlie "apparently" slammed her arm or had the door slammed on her arm to "fabricate" the bruisesI believe she did it too. I can't figure out how though. Would slamming your arm in a doorway cause bruising nearly to your armpits. Probably took several times, I guess. Why didn't she seem to be in pain in the photos though? She had to lift her arms up and turn them around. Even creating the bruises herself, doesn't mean they would be pain free.

[Goody]

I believe she did it too. I can't figure out how though. Would slamming your arm in a doorway cause bruising nearly to your armpits. Probably took several times, I guess. Why didn't she seem to be in pain in the photos though? She had to lift her arms up and turn them around. Even creating the bruises herself, doesn't mean they would be pain free.
I don't think we can tell if she was in pain in the photos. Ever heard of grin and bear it? Looking at those bruises in the pics on the 10th, what do you think those bruises would look like on the 18th? Then go back and look at that silly string video again.

[justice2]

OK, may be way out there, but those bruises appear to be from Darlie wrapping herself around something. A person maybe. Do know what "thing" it could be. The slamming her arm in a door just doesn't make sense to me. The bruises look like they were made at one time. If she did the door thing they would look inconsistent from top to bottom. The bruises kinda "flow" from top to bottom so that is why I think they were made at one time. Wrapping around somebody while they are fighting or moving and holding on. Anybody else see this.

No wat what point they were made I don't know. I bruise weird and I can see the bruises showing up days later. I've never "timed" any of my bruises but I sure have ones that show up later.

[Goody]

OK, may be way out there, but those bruises appear to be from Darlie wrapping herself around something. A person maybe. Do know what "thing" it could be. The slamming her arm in a door just doesn't make sense to me. The bruises look like they were made at one time. If she did the door thing they would look inconsistent from top to bottom. The bruises kinda "flow" from top to bottom so that is why I think they were made at one time. Wrapping around somebody while they are fighting or moving and holding on. Anybody else see this..
I don't think you could get severe bruising from wrapping around someone. Blunt force trauma is caused from a hard flat surface. The human body is pretty soft and definitely not flat. I don't know why you think a door wouldn't work. Stick you arm in one and close the door on it (softly so you don't bruise) and you can get the injury pretty high up. Bruises spread out a little so you wouldn't have to get it all the way up to get the desired effect.

Another way it might have happened was if Darin caught her with the knife and beat her arm against a countertop trying to disarm her. The only problem with that is there is no blood spatter to support it, so maybe it happened before the murders, like maybe she was threatening to hurt herself as she had done only a month previous (with pills that time).

No wat what point they were made I don't know. I bruise weird and I can see the bruises showing up days later. I've never "timed" any of my bruises but I sure have ones that show up later.
Severe bruises like this should show up pink or rosy the first day, but it might take a couple of days or more for them to go real blue.

I get bruises that show up a couple of days later too, but it is usually from something I walk into. A real hard hit starts showing up right away. It just doesn't get dark for a couple of days.

[beesy]

[QUOTE]I don't think you could get severe bruising from wrapping around someone. Blunt force trauma is caused from a hard flat surface. The human body is pretty soft and definitely not flat. I don't know why you think a door wouldn't work. Stick you arm in one and close the door on it (softly so you don't bruise) and you can get the injury pretty high up. Bruises spread out a little so you wouldn't have to get it all the way up to get the desired effect. No, I don't think wrapping yourself around somebody could give blunt force trauma either...unless it's Twiggy..heh heh. I stuck my arm in the doorway last night. Started with the pit and worked down. I was amazed how well it would work. As you pull your arm up and continue slamming the door, by the time you hit your wrist, the backs of your hands get bruised too. Sound familiar?
Another way it might have happened was if Darin caught her with the knife and beat her arm against a countertop trying to disarm her. The only problem with that is there is no blood spatter to support it, so maybe it happened before the murders, like maybe she was threatening to hurt herself as she had done only a month previous (with pills that time)

Well remember there was some evidence that blood had been wiped up from that area so..maybe

[HeartofTexas]

I think Darin probably gave Darlie the bruises, in one of their many concocted stories and cover-ups, following the actual murders. He possibly administered them while she was still in the hospital (towards the end of her stay). I'm not sure how he would have done them, other than with his hands, but I can't imagine anyone else in the family, other than Darin, having done them and her still having the family support she has.

[justice2]

Do Darlie and/or Darin either one give an long or elaborate reason how they think she got the bruises. They seems to stay away from the subject. Most stuff I've heard was from the supporters after the trial was over.

[Dani_T]

Do Darlie and/or Darin either one give an long or elaborate reason how they think she got the bruises. They seems to stay away from the subject. Most stuff I've heard was from the supporters after the trial was over.

She can't say how she thinks she got the bruises (beyond them being a result of an intruder attack) because of her 'traumatic amnesia'. The minute she says 'I got the bruises as a result of him doing xyz' she's saying that she remembers something about the attack. The bruises were supposed to speak for themselves. Unfortunately for her their link to the attack was made very tenuous by the nurses testimony.

[Goody]

Do Darlie and/or Darin either one give an long or elaborate reason how they think she got the bruises. They seems to stay away from the subject. Most stuff I've heard was from the supporters after the trial was over.
At the trial, Darlie said it was obvious she had been attacked because of the bruises and her other injuries. Beyond that she has never elaborated that I know of. I don't believe Darin has ever said anything about the bruises specifically.

[justice2]

OK, just off the top of my head ... If they had staged it, seems like they would have an elaborate story to go with it, just going from all the other stuff. If the nurses kept repeatedly checking her at the hospital that could have easily given them the idea not realizing that it was too late. So that may have been what kept them pretty quiet about it (the not realizing it was too late). I hope I'm making sense.

Which book has the best photos of the bruises. The ones of the web aren't very clear. I'll try to look at those before I mull over this anymore.

[Goody]

OK, just off the top of my head ... If they had staged it, seems like they would have an elaborate story to go with it, just going from all the other stuff. If the nurses kept repeatedly checking her at the hospital that could have easily given them the idea not realizing that it was too late. So that may have been what kept them pretty quiet about it (the not realizing it was too late). I hope I'm making sense.

Which book has the best photos of the bruises. The ones of the web aren't very clear. I'll try to look at those before I mull over this anymore.
Media Tried Justice Denied by Christopher Wayne Brown (you might have to buy it on ebay or from a fellow poster...Darlie Kee was selling them but I don't know if she still is....I have a feeling Darlie's attys put a stop to it as it is out of print supposedly) As far as I know, it is the only book with the crime scence photos in it and it does not have them all, just a sampling of them.

[justice2]

Media Tried Justice Denied by Christopher Wayne Brown (you might have to buy it on ebay or from a fellow poster...Darlie Kee was selling them but I don't know if she still is....I have a feeling Darlie's attys put a stop to it as it is out of print supposedly) As far as I know, it is the only book with the crime scence photos in it and it does not have them all, just a sampling of them.
Thanks Goody. Does look like it will be hard to find. Nothing on ebay right now. I'll try my library.

Any details on why Darlie attorney's didn't want it published. Just guesses?
The thought had entered my mind that Momma Darlie headed up the prosecution and not the lawyers, but that's just a guess. She does appear to be overbearing, how much behind close doors I don't know.

[Jeana (DP)]

Thanks Goody. Does look like it will be hard to find. Nothing on ebay right now. I'll try my library.

Any details on why Darlie attorney's didn't want it published. Just guesses?
The thought had entered my mind that Momma Darlie headed up the prosecution and not the lawyers, but that's just a guess. She does appear to be overbearing, how much behind close doors I don't know.


You mean she headed up the defense? Believe me, the prosecutors wanted nothing to do with "Mama Darlie." ;)

My guess is that at first they thought the book was a good idea. However, after hearing more often than not that it took people who were on the fence and dropped them squarely on the "guilty" side made them think differently about the book.

[Goody]

Any details on why Darlie attorney's didn't want it published. Just guesses?
The thought had entered my mind that Momma Darlie headed up the prosecution and not the lawyers, but that's just a guess. She does appear to be overbearing, how much behind close doors I don't know.
I think that book was creating too much of a controversy, even among her own camp. The writer and publisher lives with Darin's parents or did the last time I looked up his address. I could be wrong, but I think her attys would want the internet discussions to go away and that is why we have seen so many changes of late, including the forum for her supporters drying up. Also over the years websleuthers have buddied up to people in her camp and betrayed them, probably causing some leaks that the attys did not like. It seemed like shortly after this new team came on board, the Darlies started drying up. The forum closed down, the webmaster of her site started another one and the family took over Darlie's site. Can't get any of the videos anymore. At least not on her site. I am surprised the attys let them keep any of the crime scene photos up, blown up or not, and the trial transcripts. But so far they are still available.

I don't think Mama Darlie had much to say about Darlie's defense at all. She is outspoken and defends her daughter pretty vocally, but I think she relies on Darin's lead in that dept. Or at least she did thru the trial. Just my impression though, but I wasn't there and don;t know anyone in either family or any of the LEs involved. So take it for what it is worth. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee in some places today. LOL!

Personally I think Mama Darlie knows in her heart of hearts that Darlie is guilty but is driven to save her life. I don't blame her. I would do the same thing if it was my daughter. I can't imagine a worse position for any mother to be in and I don't envy that poor woman at all. How does she choose between her grand children and her first born? She can't, so she can only focus on Darlie right now. The boys are gone. She can't help them, but she can help Darlie. Besides helping Darlie is probably the only thing that keeps her from falling apart emotionally. Keeping her on the fight to save Darlie helps her put everything else on a shelf somewhere where she doesn't have to deal with them on a daily basis. Every strike against Darlie by the law, by the media, by the public is a strike against Mama Darlie, too. She can't help but wonder what she did so wrong to cause this. At least that is what I would do...eat that guilt up like it was my last meal.

[beesy]

[QUOTE]I think that book was creating too much of a controversy
I was watching one of the A&E programs and it said most women stab overhanded, while men usually stab underhanded. That doesn't show us much about Darlie's guilt, but it knocks out yet another of crazy Chris' theories. He believes that Devon got up to help his mother, was stabbed while standing up, fell backwards onto that dang glass table with the intruder on top of him and was stabbed again. If most men stab underhanded, at least one of Devon's wounds would not have been so high on his chest. Just one more thing to show how nuts Mr. Brown is.
Personally I think Mama Darlie knows in her heart of hearts that Darlie is guilty but is driven to save her life. I don't blame her. I would do the same thing if it was my daughter. I can't imagine a worse position for any mother to be in and I don't envy that poor woman at all. How does she choose between her grand children and her first born? She can't, so she can only focus on Darlie right now. The boys are gone. She can't help them, but she can help Darlie. Besides helping Darlie is probably the only thing that keeps her from falling apart emotionally. Keeping her on the fight to save Darlie helps her put everything else on a shelf somewhere where she doesn't have to deal with them on a daily basis. Every strike against Darlie by the law, by the media, by the public is a strike against Mama Darlie, too. She can't help but wonder what she did so wrong to cause this. At least that is what I would do...eat that guilt up like it was my last meal
No, I cannot imagine the pain and trauma that woman has been through. I'm a little more cynical about her role however. Whether she believes Darlie or not, she's horrified to have a killer in the family. Now that's white trash.:twocents: Clearing Darlie's name also clears the Routier name and Mama Darlie's name. You're from the South Goody, names mean alot. That was all many Southerners had after the War.

[Goody]

[/color]
I was watching one of the A&E programs and it said most women stab overhanded, while men usually stab underhanded. That doesn't show us much about Darlie's guilt, but it knocks out yet another of crazy Chris' theories. He believes that Devon got up to help his mother, was stabbed while standing up, fell backwards onto that dang glass table with the intruder on top of him and was stabbed again. If most men stab underhanded, at least one of Devon's woulds not have been so high on his chest. Just one more thing to show how nuts Mr. Brown is.


That goes hand in hand with the forensic evidence against Darlie. She had to be stabbing overhanded.

BRW, I have a bunch of good detective techniques from Mark Furhman out of the Terri Schiavo case. Darlie is almlost textbook. I will share them with you when I get a chance to type it all up. Great stuff in that book.



No, I cannot imagine the pain and trauma that woman has been through. I'm a little more cynical about her role however. Whether she believes Darlie or not, she's horrified to have a killer in the family. Now that's white trash.:twocents: Clearing Darlie's name also clears the Routier name and Mama Darlie's name. You're from the South Goody, names mean alot. That was all many Southerners had after the War.
[/color]
Mama Darlie is a Yankee, transplanted to Texas. I am sure that it bothers her knowing that people believe she is the mother of a baby killer, but I don't think that is her first concern. Her first concern had to be to save Darlie's life, keep her off of death row. Mama Darlie wanted to take the blame all on to herself. She testified that Darlie had to grow up too fast, said that she herself had not been a very good mother because she had let Darlie raise her little sisters more or less, that Darlie didn't get much time to herself as a teen, etc, etc. She was hoping for leniency at that point.

I think Darlie Kee is a good woman who is in a horrible situation, not of her own doing. I don't think my daughter could do anything to cause me to turn against her, not even kill her own children. I would be devastated if she ever did anything like that, but my love for her would always be there. I don't think I could tell the truth if I knew the truth would end her life. If I didn't know what the truth was but only suspected it, I sure wouldn't try to find it out. Would you? Is there anything your children could do that would make you turn against them or say they deserved to die or would cause to not to help them if you could? Even if it meant you had to deny the obvious?

I think most mothers would do what Darlie Kee is doing. I don;t think that makes her white trash. I think it makes her a strong woman.

[Becba]

Just wanted to bring up something about bruises.

When you bruise the blood drains into the soft tissue. It is easier to bruise in certain areas than others.
I never bruise on my stomache as it has a nice layer of fat lol and the skin seems to be thicker. But my thighs and arms bruise easily. The skin under the arm is actually kind of delicate and I can see blood traveling to those spots pretty easy.
I don't find it suspicious to have bruising show up the next day or two. I don't find it suspicious the nurses did not notice the night she arrived.
I do think if the bruises were from a door she would have a mark that night.
The bruises may very well have been caused by one of the kids kicking up with bare feet attempting to fend her off.
Or her reaching over the couch and attacking.
So at one time I thought the bruises stood to be testimony of an attacker and now I think it is more like testimony to her being the attacker.

[Jeana (DP)]

I also don't blame Darlie Kee for wanting to save her daughter's life. However, her gestapo tactics turn a lot of people off (including one-time supporters). There are ways of getting people to listen to you and to want to help. Unfortunately for her daughter, Darlie Kee hasn't learned that lesson yet.

[Goody]

Just wanted to bring up something about bruises.

When you bruise the blood drains into the soft tissue. It is easier to bruise in certain areas than others.
I never bruise on my stomache as it has a nice layer of fat lol and the skin seems to be thicker. But my thighs and arms bruise easily. The skin under the arm is actually kind of delicate and I can see blood traveling to those spots pretty easy.
I don't find it suspicious to have bruising show up the next day or two. I don't find it suspicious the nurses did not notice the night she arrived.
I do think if the bruises were from a door she would have a mark that night..
I think she would have had a big rosy or pink area covering most of where the purple would later be. She didn't,so that is suspicious. Any kind of forceful injury that would create such horrific bruising should have left the very beginnings of bruising right away. Maybe the nurses would not have noticed the reddness immediately but as the day wore on they should have, At least by the second day, which should have had the redness/pinkness turning to a very rosy color preparing to go purple/blue on the third day. The fact that they didn't is suspicious, either on them or on Darlie. The fact that none of the medical people, doctors and nurses a like, and there were several, didn't notice anything happening in the coloring of her arm is even more suspicious, with most of the suspicion pointing at Darlie. Let's face it. It is not likely that every single nurse and every single doctor would band together to lie about her,and that is pretty much what it would take not to see the bruises at all for all three days. Sometimes I get distracted by that fact, but when you start picking it all apart again, it leads you right back to that point.

Would a door have left marks? Maybe it did. There are those three strange looking marks near her elbow bend. Some have called them fingernail marks but I think they are probably too small. Those photos give a distorted view of the size, esp after they have been enlarged. The question I have about my own theory of the door (and I know I am not the only one who has come up with it) is that I cannot account for how the upper portion of the arm is injured and not the lower part. I know Mary has said that the lower part has bruising also, but as I recall the lower portion of the arm is not bruised nearly as massively as the upper. If the upper arm took the most impact, you would think the marks, if there were any, would be on or near the shoulder area, not the bend of the elbow. Unless the door used was a closet door that allowed the body to stand outside it while arm wrapped around the door frame into the closet area. We don't have photos of the arm in the area where the door edge would have impacted it. Maybe there were slight marks that faded quickly or just weren't noticed by the photographer. If the arm was bent around the door frame, the bend of the elbow might have been pushed against the latch area, hence the little marks in the elbow bend area. Hmmm.......


The bruises may very well have been caused by one of the kids kicking up with bare feet attempting to fend her off..
Devon would not have been awake long enough to be able to fight back enough to cause that much bruising. His stab wounds penetrated too many major organs. If he was lucky, he might have gotten in only two or three good kicks. If he did, you't think he would have hit her torso a time or two and not just the arm every single time. You can tell by the blood around him that he was not up or moblle or moving and thrashing about much. He was in one position pretty much all the time.

Or her reaching over the couch and attacking..
Damon was on his stomach both times he was attacked so he could not have kicked anyone.

So at one time I thought the bruises stood to be testimony of an attacker and now I think it is more like testimony to her being the attacker.
They are certanily testimony that an attacker did NOT put them there. Unless people want to believe the guy had a fetish for arms, I can't think of even one explanation that allows them to be the result of an attack on her person, esp by a stranger.

However, there is still an element of mystery about them. As long as that mystery exists I can't say the bruises prove she attacked the boys. The blood and fiber evidence, the vacuum cleaner evidence, the sink clean up evidence, and lack of Devon's blood on the knife, lack of blood splatter on the floor where she said the knife was thrown down, etc....all of that is evidence that she is the attacker.

[justice2]

[QUOTE=Jeana (DP)]You mean she headed up the defense? Believe me, the prosecutors wanted nothing to do with "Mama Darlie." ;)

Yes, defense. Sorry, brain fart.

[justice2]

I think that book was creating too much of a controversy, even among her own camp. The writer and publisher lives with Darin's parents or did the last time I looked up his address. I could be wrong, but I think her attys would want the internet discussions to go away and that is why we have seen so many changes of late, including the forum for her supporters drying up. Also over the years websleuthers have buddied up to people in her camp and betrayed them, probably causing some leaks that the attys did not like. It seemed like shortly after this new team came on board, the Darlies started drying up. The forum closed down, the webmaster of her site started another one and the family took over Darlie's site. Can't get any of the videos anymore. At least not on her site. I am surprised the attys let them keep any of the crime scene photos up, blown up or not, and the trial transcripts. But so far they are still available.

Well, you know I did notice a "different" web presence than the last time I surfed for stuff on Darlie, probably about 4 years ago. What are the videos you are referring to.



I don't think Mama Darlie had much to say about Darlie's defense at all. She is outspoken and defends her daughter pretty vocally, but I think she relies on Darin's lead in that dept. Or at least she did thru the trial. Just my impression though, but I wasn't there and don;t know anyone in either family or any of the LEs involved. So take it for what it is worth. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee in some places today. LOL!

Now that's interesting. I haven't noticed that before but I think you maybe onto something, her following Darin. I still think if we could figured out all the weird interpersonal relationships we would figure a lot out.



Personally I think Mama Darlie knows in her heart of hearts that Darlie is guilty but is driven to save her life. I don't blame her. I would do the same thing if it was my daughter. I can't imagine a worse position for any mother to be in and I don't envy that poor woman at all. How does she choose between her grand children and her first born? She can't, so she can only focus on Darlie right now. The boys are gone. She can't help them, but she can help Darlie. Besides helping Darlie is probably the only thing that keeps her from falling apart emotionally. Keeping her on the fight to save Darlie helps her put everything else on a shelf somewhere where she doesn't have to deal with them on a daily basis. Every strike against Darlie by the law, by the media, by the public is a strike against Mama Darlie, too. She can't help but wonder what she did so wrong to cause this. At least that is what I would do...eat that guilt up like it was my last meal.
No kids, so I can't really say what I would do, well I can, but not really qualified to.

[beesy]

][/color]That goes hand in hand with the forensic evidence against Darlie. She had to be stabbing overhanded. Yeah, I was going under the assumption that since there is no evidence Devon stood up at any time, that he had to be stabbed overhanded. And despite one of Darlie's stories, Damon did not get up and walk behind her.:twocents: The most he could have done was crawl to the sofa, where the invisible handprint showed up thru Luminol, and along the floor. So he would have to be stabbed overhanded too, no matter the gender of the killer. Mainly I was just shooting down another of Chris' moronic theories i.e. Devon stood up and was stabbed by a man overhanded, unlikely
BRW, I have a bunch of good detective techniques from Mark Furhman out of the Terri Schiavo case. Darlie is almlost textbook. I will share them with you when I get a chance to type it all up. Great stuff in that book Just give me the name. I might buy it.


Mama Darlie is a Yankee, transplanted to Texas. Oh yeah, I forgot, bless her heart
I think Darlie Kee is a good woman who is in a horrible situation, not of her own doing. I don't think my daughter could do anything to cause me to turn against her, not even kill her own children. I would be devastated if she ever did anything like that, but my love for her would always be there. I don't think I could tell the truth if I knew the truth would end her life. If I didn't know what the truth was but only suspected it, I sure wouldn't try to find it out. Would you? Is there anything your children could do that would make you turn against them or say they deserved to die or would cause to not to help them if you could? Even if it meant you had to deny the obvious
I would still love my child and I'm sure I'd work to get him/her off of DR However, if my child would be a danger to society, like a Jeffrey Dahmer or somebody, I'd tell what I knew.
I think most mothers would do what Darlie Kee is doing. I don;t think that makes her white trash. I think it makes her a strong woman.
I meant Mama Darlie and the rest consider it white trash to have a baby killer in the family, not that Mama Darlie is supporting her.

[Goody]

Well, you know I did notice a "different" web presence than the last time I surfed for stuff on Darlie, probably about 4 years ago. What are the videos you are referring to..
The TV and radio interviews after the murders. The silly string video and the TV interview made directly after it, the radio show where Darin talks about regretting their living large lifestyle. He made some comment that sounded like he either knew she was guilty or regretted his part in what happened. I wish I could listen to that one again. Apparently there were a lot of TV interviews that I missed on shows like Montel, etc. I did see Leeza. I think the justicefordarlie website might still have that one available. Not sure though.



Now that's interesting. I haven't noticed that before but I think you maybe onto something, her following Darin. I still think if we could figured out all the weird interpersonal relationships we would figure a lot out..I agree. I would love to hear what her high school friends have to say to about her now, what the neighbors who weren't loyal to her think, and what some of her friends who are loyal have to say about the evidence against her. If they can honestly say they believe her to be innocent and why.

[Goody]

Just give me the name. I might buy it.

Silent Witness. Mark Furhman goes into detail about how a police investigation should be worked, step by step, and why.




I would still love my child and I'm sure I'd work to get him/her off of DR However, if my child would be a danger to society, like a Jeffrey Dahmer or somebody, I'd tell what I knew.

I don't think Darlie is a danger to society. If we knew why she did what she did, it would be easier to feel confident with that...or not, depending on what the reason was.


I meant Mama Darlie and the rest consider it white trash to have a baby killer in the family, not that Mama Darlie is supporting her.
Well, it certainly could be a modern scarlet letter carved in someone's forehead, that is for sure.

I guess I misunderstood your meaning because so many have called them white trash. I don't see them in that light at all. I think they are just typical working joes in non-management positions, probably leaning a little on the poor side until Darin made more money than any of the rest of them.

I can't count how many times I have heard "trailer trash" from upper middle class folks who think anyone who lives in one is a low life, regardless of their moral attitudes. It sort of ruffles my feathers.

[j2mirish]

[QUOTE=Goody

I don't think Darlie is a danger to society. If we knew why she did what she did, it would be easier to feel confident with that...or not, depending on what the reason was.


WHO CARES IF SHE IS A DANGER AT THIS POINT--- SHE WAS CONVICTED OF STABBING TO DEATH HER 2 CHILDREN--WHY SHOULD WE CARE IF SHE CAN BE REHABILITATED???? QUITE FRANKLY--IN MY OWN MIND----IT DOESNT MATTER "WHY" SHE DID IT-------HOW CAN ANYONE FEEL "CONFIDENT" WITH UNDERSTANDING WHY SHE DID IT?????????????---THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDABLE "WHY" imo

[Goody]

[QUOTE=Goody

I don't think Darlie is a danger to society. If we knew why she did what she did, it would be easier to feel confident with that...or not, depending on what the reason was.


WHO CARES IF SHE IS A DANGER AT THIS POINT--- SHE WAS CONVICTED OF STABBING TO DEATH HER 2 CHILDREN--WHY SHOULD WE CARE IF SHE CAN BE REHABILITATED???? QUITE FRANKLY--IN MY OWN MIND----IT DOESNT MATTER "WHY" SHE DID IT-------HOW CAN ANYONE FEEL "CONFIDENT" WITH UNDERSTANDING WHY SHE DID IT?????????????---THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDABLE "WHY" imo

I guess that depends on how you define "understand."

[j2mirish]

goody:
I don't think Darlie is a danger to society. If we knew why she did what she did, it would be easier to feel confident with that...or not, depending on what the reason was.

J2m
WHO CARES IF SHE IS A DANGER AT THIS POINT--- SHE WAS CONVICTED OF STABBING TO DEATH HER 2 CHILDREN--WHY SHOULD WE CARE IF SHE CAN BE REHABILITATED???? QUITE FRANKLY--IN MY OWN MIND----IT DOESNT MATTER "WHY" SHE DID IT-------HOW CAN ANYONE FEEL "CONFIDENT" WITH UNDERSTANDING WHY SHE DID IT?????????????---THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDABLE "WHY" imo
Goody:
I guess that depends on how you define "understand."



J2m--I still dont understand what there is that needs to be UNDERSTOOD- all the why's, reasons, etc..etc..etc.. dont change the fact she killed her children, then denied it. Insane, depressed...financially strapped....tired....whatever anyone wants to apply--- it just doesnt matter, nor will it bring the children back if "they" figure it out.

[Goody]

J2m--I still dont understand what there is that needs to be UNDERSTOOD- all the why's, reasons, etc..etc..etc.. dont change the fact she killed her children, then denied it. Insane, depressed...financially strapped....tired....whatever anyone wants to apply--- it just doesnt matter, nor will it bring the children back if "they" figure it out.
As you know that are many different facets of this case that come up for discussion. Looking at motive is one. Nothing we discuss here will ever bring the boys back or get Darlie off of death row. That doesn't mean we can't dig around in any given area in a search for answers. At least it should not mean that.

[beesy]

As you know that are many different facets of this case that come up for discussion. Looking at motive is one. Nothing we discuss here will ever bring the boys back or get Darlie off of death row. That doesn't mean we can't dig around in any given area in a search for answers. At least it should not mean that. AHEM.......

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_109v.gif

[j2mirish]

[QUOTE=Goody]As you know that are many different facets of this case that come up for discussion. Looking at motive is one. Nothing we discuss here will ever bring the boys back or get Darlie off of death row. That doesn't mean we can't dig around in any given area in a search for answers. At least it should not mean that.

Goody- you are right==I'm not saying we shouldnt try to figure what happened or why-- I just dont think it should have any baring on what happens to the person who killed her own children......it just upset me when you stated you didnt think she was a threat to society at this point........that is what my posts were directly addressing--as I said before--- i dont care what happens to these people----I would rather see LWOP than the death penalty--- its not because I dont believe in the DP-- I just think that is an easy way out for people like her.

[beesy]

Goody- you are right==I'm not saying we shouldnt try to figure what happened or why-- I just dont think it should have any baring on what happens to the person who killed her own children......it just upset me when you stated you didnt think she was a threat to society at this point........that is what my posts were directly addressing--as I said before--- i dont care what happens to these people----I would rather see LWOP than the death penalty--- its not because I dont believe in the DP-- I just think that is an easy way out for people like her.[/color] Exactly right! I don't think TX has LWOP though. I'd rather see her get that than have her on DR. One of the reasons she has so many supporters is that so many people are opposed to the DP, especially for a woman.

[beesy]

AHEM.......

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_109v.gif Your improper use of my color has spread. You must be punished. :razz:
Meet me in GAC if ya dare!

[Jeana (DP)]

Exactly right! I don't think TX has LWOP though. I'd rather see her get that than have her on DR. One of the reasons she has so many supporters is that so many people are opposed to the DP, especially for a woman.



We do now. We didn't then.

[beesy]

We do now. We didn't then. Is it possible for her sentence to be commuted to LWOP? Most likely she'd have to confess if it could? Her appeals are all based on "I didn't do it and I was screwed". Maybe by confessing she could get off DR and get LWOP?

[CyberLaw]

The justice system is not going to change a sentence that has already been handed down.

I am sure the P said during neg. that if you "allocute" we will sentence you to LWOP, quid pro quo.

This for that.....

But not now, she was convicted, and sentenced the trial has been over.........done deal. There is no value in a confession, she has been convicted.

So there is not value in "after the fact" but only before trial, to avoid the uncertainty of a trial, and to save money for the public.

But "selfish, narcassict, arrogant, egotistical, weird and warped Darlie thought that she would prevail, after all some other people believe her about the "intruder".

You roll the dice..........l

[Goody]

[QUOTE=Goody]it just upset me when you stated you didnt think she was a threat to society at this point........that is what my posts were directly addressing--as I said before--- i dont care what happens to these people----I would rather see LWOP than the death penalty--- its not because I dont believe in the DP-- I just think that is an easy way out for people like her.
What good would killing someone like Darlie do? Someone like Bundy or Dahlmer or Radar even makes sense. They would always be a threat to society inside prison or out. We have to remember that not every inmate is a thug who deserves to get a shiv between the ribs while milling around the yard.

At most, the Darlie's of this world might pose a threat to their own children, but even that is a hit and miss guess and probably unlikely as it is probably unlikely that she would ever reoffend.

I think prison should be utilized to punish and to protect society. I see no reason to keep most convicts locked up for their entire lives, thus forcing the state to provide high cost nursing home care. I see no need to keep drug offenders locked up for half of their lives or more. I see no reason not to parole someone like Darlie out (and I know this is an unpopular view) at some point. Unfortunately, I am not ready to trust our current parole boards with the task of deciding who and when. However, I believe there is a solution if we would use a little common sense to find it.

Life without parole is not an easy way out. It is a horrible existence. Even worse it destroys any hope of any rehabilitation because there is no incentive to improve. Instead it promotes the opposite. Darlie's life on death row is much better than it would be in the general population.

We are constantly creating new laws with stiffer penalties in an effort to control those who don't want to conform, and the result is that we are just putting more and more people in prison. Texas and a couple of other states are executing them right and left and the result is that there are just more coming to death row. We have more of our population in prison today than any other country, I think. People who commit murders not at random on strangers but for more personal motives, and are not likely to reoffend should be given long prison sentences with some eventual hope of parole. It is horrible when the victims are children, and very very difficult to comprehend when they are the killer's own children, but those are the crimes that are less likely to reoccur than any other.

And don't yell at me. (I'm sorry if I am upsetting anyone.) I have waffled on this many times myself. I'd be first in line to vote for execution of Samatha Runion's killer, but I would also be first to vote Andrea Yates into a mental institution and probably somewhere in the line to vote for parole for Susan Smith at some point. (I would also be first to vote for acquittal of Dixie S.) We can't bring back any of the victims. No one can do that. The only thing left to do now, as a responsible society, is to look at the killers to determine what should and can be done about them. Overburdening the state with people who could be rehabilitated but won't be doesn't make a lot of sense, esp if our only reason for not doing it is that we are outraged over the nature of their crime.

[Goody]

Your improper use of my color has spread. You must be punished. :razz:
Meet me in GAC if ya dare!
I have already.......oops! I have already been there. hahahahahhhah. Wondered what that was about. Now I know, LOL!

Well, I guess it just goes to show that you can't own a color around here. Try as you might some poor unsuspecting poster will reach for it every time, hahahahahahahhahahha.

[Goody]

We do now. We didn't then.
That makes sense. I just read in jury selection (1996) that there was no LWOP in Texas. Well, glad to see you have it now, cause for some it is needed. The only problem I see with having it is that too many cases will end up with it when a long sentence would have sufficed. Then Texas will end up with a costly housing bill that will drive up taxes and gov services.

[HeartofTexas]

Goody, I wish they would drop a net over all of the sex offenders and let them rot in prison. That's a group that is never going to change their stripes. They will reoffend until the end of their days... except that after they are first released from prison, they tend to kill the ones they molest so that there are no eyewitnesses left to the crime. That Duncan fellow would be a good example. I would prefer the prisons empty out the drug users and replace them with the sex offenders, with LWOP for them.

[beesy]

The justice system is not going to change a sentence that has already been handed down.

I am sure the P said during neg. that if you "allocute" we will sentence you to LWOP, quid pro quo.

This for that.....

But not now, she was convicted, and sentenced the trial has been over.........done deal. There is no value in a confession, she has been convicted.

So there is not value in "after the fact" but only before trial, to avoid the uncertainty of a trial, and to save money for the public.

But "selfish, narcassict, arrogant, egotistical, weird and warped Darlie thought that she would prevail, after all some other people believe her about the "intruder".

You roll the dice..........l Ok, I asked because the Manson killers' death sentences were commuted to LWP because shortly after their trials, CA did away with the DP. I believe it has been reinstated, but the killers still have LWP. So I was thinking that since TX did not have LWOP when Darlie was tried, many her lawyers could fanagle some way of commuting it. But oh well, death it is then...SOL Darlie

[j2mirish]

What good would killing someone like Darlie do? Someone like Bundy or Dahlmer or Radar even makes sense. They would always be a threat to society inside prison or out. We have to remember that not every inmate is a thug who deserves to get a shiv between the ribs while milling around the yard.

bottom line is, they are INMATES


At most, the Darlie's of this world might pose a threat to their own children, but even that is a hit and miss guess and probably unlikely as it is probably unlikely that she would ever reoffend.


again I ask, why do we care if she is a possible Re-offender? she has already OFFENDED..killed 2 kids..oh yea, they just happened to be her own:banghead:

I think prison should be utilized to punish and to protect society. I see no
reason to keep most convicts locked up for their entire lives,

and do you really believe these people should just be let out- given another chance to see if they can live without killing again??? its not about if they will do it again...its about they ALREADY DID IT

thus forcing the state to provide high cost nursing home care. I see no need to keep drug offenders locked up for half of their lives or more. I see no reason not to parole someone like Darlie out (and I know this is an unpopular view) at some point. Unfortunately, I am not ready to trust our current parole boards with the task of deciding who and when. However, I believe there is a solution if we would use a little common sense to find it.

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY????????????????????


Life without parole is not an easy way out. It is a horrible existence. Even worse it destroys any hope of any rehabilitation because there is no incentive to improve. Instead it promotes the opposite. Darlie's life on death row is much better than it would be in the general population.

thats the point.......she does not deserve NICE treatment


We are constantly creating new laws with stiffer penalties in an effort to control those who don't want to conform, and the result is that we are just putting more and more people in prison.

I dont disagree...toooooo many convicts...so you just suggest they should be paroled based on their chance of RE-OFFENDINg??????????
Texas and a couple of other states are executing them right and left and the result is that there are just more coming to death row. We have more of our population in prison today than any other country, I think. People who commit murders not at random on strangers but for more personal motives, and are not likely to reoffend should be given long prison sentences with some eventual hope of parole. It is horrible when the victims are children, and very very difficult to comprehend when they are the killer's own children, but those are the crimes that are less likely to reoccur than any other.

And don't yell at me. (I'm sorry if I am upsetting anyone.) I have waffled on this many times myself. I'd be first in line to vote for execution of Samatha Runion's killer, but I would also be first to vote Andrea Yates into a mental institution and probably somewhere in the line to vote for parole for Susan Smith at some point. (I would also be first to vote for acquittal of Dixie S.) We can't bring back any of the victims. No one can do that. The only thing left to do now, as a responsible society, is to look at the killers to determine what should and can be done about them. Overburdening the state with people who could be rehabilitated but won't be doesn't make a lot of sense, esp if our only reason for not doing it is that we are outraged over the nature of their crime.
it seems....this will never change...sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh:banghead:

[CyberLaw]

Criminals inside, good honest law abiding people who don't kill, rape, maim, murder on the outside..........the good honest law abiding people value our lives, therefore keep the convict inside..........

Let me repeat that again, just in case there is a learning curve here, people who kill, will kill again, and again, there are on the inside as in Prison. Society needs to be protected from them...........

People who need to be protected from them, are on the outside........

If you 'choose" to kill anyone, anywhere you are a danger to the entire population.

Sure, have a murderer appear before the Parole board - I have been rehabiliated, sorry won't do it again, until someone crosses his path that should not have. Then we have another person dead and a a convict back in jail.....again......opps I thought he was rehabiliated.

If you kill, you forfeit your freedom, that was your choice, you ended another person enitre life and existance..........you have your life, but you robbed the person of their entire future life.........

You are choosing to play God with another person who values his/her life, but you do not value his/her life and not even your own.

At least with the death penalty and LWOP the public is assured that the person will not enter into society and kill again.

It is bad enough that there is Parole and probation, that is even no deterent, the person has no regard for the rules of society and the law.

Keep them caged. Protect the little kid down the street, the baby, the mother, the father, the son, the daughter, the Grandmother, the shop keeper, etc.......society needs to be protected.:doh:

Do we say to the Darlie of this world, guess what you snuffed out the life of two little defenceless sleeping boys that trusted and loved you because you were their mother, you provided them with life and then you played "executioner" and took both of their lives away, but you made a mistake in stabbing them to death, show no remore, lied you face off and only thought of the pity party for Darlie.

But promise, scouts honor, not to do it again, and we wil reward you by giving you your liberty so you can go boozing at the local bar and party hardy, while the two little boys will never live another day.

What do you suggest we do to these people, throw them a ticker tape parade.......

NOOOOOOOOOO..............:mad:

[j2mirish]

CyberLaw :

If you kill, you forfeit your freedom, that was your choice, you ended another person enitre life and existance..........you have your life, but you robbed the person of their entire future life.........

Makes alot o sense to me..

It is bad enough that there is Parole and probation, that is even no deterent, the person has no regard for the rules of society and the law.

Keep them caged. Protect the little kid down the street, the baby, the mother, the father, the son, the daughter, the Grandmother, the shop keeper, etc.......society needs to be protected.:doh:

what a concept !!

Do we say to the Darlie of this world, guess what you snuffed out the life of two little defenceless sleeping boys that trusted and loved you because you were their mother, you provided them with life and then you played "executioner" and took both of their lives away, but you made a mistake in stabbing them to death, show no remore, lied you face off and only thought of the pity party for Darlie.

But promise, scouts honor, not to do it again, and we wil reward you by giving you your liberty so you can go boozing at the local bar and party hardy, while the two little boys will never live another day.

I don't think so, I really don't...........

NOOOOOOOOOO..............:mad:[/QUOTE]

I am so glad I am not the only one who feels this way....right down to the nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooo!!!!! :D

[CyberLaw]

I certainly HOPE that I am not the only person who feels this way.

Because I sure would like to see the face of the person who lives next door to the man who killed two kids because he did not want to leave any witnesses to the crime when he held them down, tortured them, sexually assulted them and then killed them. But first he shot their parents to death......

Go ahead invite him over for tea, intoduce him to your three kids........tell them that he made a mistake, but is rehabiliated, that he paid his debt to society, that prison is such an awful place to be.

Then go ahead let your kids outside, even if you watch them like a hawk, who is to say that you not be shot first and then he goes after your kids.

Hindsight is great, 20/20 hindsight is even better, but death is death and is permanent.......for eternity........ a mistake even a simple one can cost you the most valuable thing a person has - their existance on this planet.

[j2mirish]

I certainly HOPE that I am not the only person who feels this way.

Because I sure would like to see the face of the person who lives next door to the man who killed two kids because he did not want to leave any witnesses to the crime when he held them down, tortured them, sexually assulted them and then killed them. But first he shot their parents to death......

Go ahead invite him over for tea, intoduce him to your three kids........tell them that he made a mistake, but is rehabiliated, that he paid his debt to society, that prison is such an awful place to be.

Then go ahead let your kids outside, even if you watch them like a hawk, who is to say that you not be shot first and then he goes after your kids.

Hindsight is great, 20/20 hindsight is even better, but death is death and is permanent.......for eternity........ a mistake even a simple one can cost you the most valuable thing a person has - their existance on this planet.
not gonna invite them to my house- a mistake like that is unaproachable.......:furious:

[Goody]

Goody, I wish they would drop a net over all of the sex offenders and let them rot in prison. That's a group that is never going to change their stripes. They will reoffend until the end of their days... except that after they are first released from prison, they tend to kill the ones they molest so that there are no eyewitnesses left to the crime. That Duncan fellow would be a good example. I would prefer the prisons empty out the drug users and replace them with the sex offenders, with LWOP for them.
I agree. Most of them (the drug abuse cases) are in there on non-violent charges. Sex offenders almost have to be given LWOP for the reasons you give. Esp when it is stranger to stranger. How does society control that? The problem we have is trying to make the laws balance all the way across the board so that anyone who breaks them gets the same basis sentence. That allows over zealous prosecutors to stretch the facts of a case to fit a crime the law was never intended to fit, and lenient judges to miss the warning signs of offenders who will reoffend, and do it violently. More needs to be done to support individualism, and at the same time, to do it fairly.

[Goody]

So I was thinking that since TX did not have LWOP when Darlie was tried, many her lawyers could fanagle some way of commuting it. But oh well, death it is then...SOL Darlie
Yep. Darlie's only hope is that the fed appellate judges see it her way and grant her a new trial. Anything less that leaves her on death row. Well, until the very end when she might win a state or federal pardon, but I would say that is amongst the lowest of low possibilities.

[Goody]

it seems....this will never change...sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh:banghead:
I am sorry, Irish, that you are so frustrated with my opinions. LOL! I agree that people who kill their children do not deserve second chances, but I am not talking about what anyone deserves. Victims don't deserve to be murdered either, but once the deed is done there is no turning back.

It's just when I look at other countries who seem to be satisfied with 20 year sentences for the same types of crimes, I wonder if we are not just so wrapped in revenge we can't see what the honorable thing to do is. You can't deal with an inmate or convicted killer while looking at the details of their crime. You have to separate the two. Deal with the crime at trial, deal with the person behind the face of the defendant after trial. Because there is a person, for better or worse, in every single defendant. Some are beyond saving but most aren't.

[j2mirish]

Goody! I agree that people who kill their children do not deserve second chances, but I am not talking about what anyone deserves.

but you did say you thought somehwere down the road Darlie might deserve this, and you have said you dont consider her a threat to society....you state people shouldnt be locked away fro the rest of their lives.......

that is where my confusion comes in-- do you or dont you think darlie or other murdered like her deserve a second chance?

[Goody]

Criminals inside, good honest law abiding people who don't kill, rape, maim, murder on the outside..........the good honest law abiding people value our lives, therefore keep the convict inside..........
I wish this were true.

Let me repeat that again, just in case there is a learning curve here, people who kill, will kill again, and again, there are on the inside as in Prison. Society needs to be protected from them...........
People who kill strangers at random will most likely kill again. People who kill family members and are caught the first time, usually do not kill again even when they receive very light sentences. You should check the stats on that.

People who need to be protected from them, are on the outside........ Again, I wish this were true. Unfortunately most of the criminals are on the outside walking amongst us because we only solve 35% of murders and I don't know what the stats are on other types of crime. Bottomline, we don't solve most crime committed and are always at risk of being a crime victim, no matter where we live.

If you 'choose" to kill anyone, anywhere you are a danger to the entire population.

Sure, have a murderer appear before the Parole board - I have been rehabiliated, sorry won't do it again, until someone crosses his path that should not have. Then we have another person dead and a a convict back in jail.....again......opps I thought he was rehabiliated.

If you kill, you forfeit your freedom, that was your choice, you ended another person enitre life and existance..........you have your life, but you robbed the person of their entire future life.........

You are choosing to play God with another person who values his/her life, but you do not value his/her life and not even your own.

At least with the death penalty and LWOP the public is assured that the person will not enter into society and kill again.

It is bad enough that there is Parole and probation, that is even no deterent, the person has no regard for the rules of society and the law.

Keep them caged. Protect the little kid down the street, the baby, the mother, the father, the son, the daughter, the Grandmother, the shop keeper, etc.......society needs to be protected.:doh:
There is a lot of truth in what you say, but locking most criminals up for their entire lives is not the answer. For one thing, the state can't afford it. For another, sentences like that are not divied up fairly. For another, those who kill family members are not going to go back home and bump off the rest of the family if they get out unless they are crazy, in which case they should be in an insane asylum where they can spend the rest of their days if necessary. Prison needs to be a temporary housing unit for those who will not conform to the law with the exception of the most violent offenders, who either need to be executed or locked up in special maximum security prisons. Those like rapists who cannot be rehabbed could also be lumped into that group. But the kid who robs the corner market and kills the clerk might still lead a productive life (and many have), just as a mother who for reasons unknown just snaps and kills her children. Maybe she should not be around children again unsupervised, but keeping her in prison for the rest of her days is not productive either. Plus, most cases have proven to be uneventful for those who have reindtroduced to society. We have to ask ourselves what our true goal is,. Are we trying to punish people or are we trying to protect society? Which is the most important?

Do we say to the Darlie of this world, guess what you snuffed out the life of two little defenceless sleeping boys that trusted and loved you because you were their mother, you provided them with life and then you played "executioner" and took both of their lives away, but you made a mistake in stabbing them to death, show no remore, lied you face off and only thought of the pity party for Darlie.

But promise, scouts honor, not to do it again, and we wil reward you by giving you your liberty so you can go boozing at the local bar and party hardy, while the two little boys will never live another day.

What do you suggest we do to these people, throw them a ticker tape parade.......

NOOOOOOOOOO..............:mad:
LOL! Sorry I ruffled your feathers. No, I don't propose we throw any parades, and I don't think we would be rewarding anyone by giving them another chance to live productive lives. Let's face it, their lives will never be normal again, no matter what we do. In many countries 20 years is the maximuim sentence anyone can get. I am not sure I would want 20 years as our maximum, but short of LWOP, 20 to 30 would probably be about right.

Think about it. Why do we want to lock up a drug trafficker for 50 or 75 years? It is a non-violent crime , and while I don't support drug usage at all and wish we could stop it, I don't think prison deters anyone except maybe me.

I think the circumstances around the crime should have everything to do with what kind of sentence is given. I don't think some young mother being twisted by a hormone imbalance should be viewed in the same light as a serial killer or someone who breaks into someone's house and kills the family. It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the seriousness of the crime or the suffering of the victims. It just means that I have a hard time with wasting life or what is left of it just for the sake of punishment. There should be punishment and there should be harsh punishment. I just don't agree with neverending punishment unless there is no other choice, as in a sex offender who cannot stop himself no matter what we do.

[QUOTE=CyberLaw]But promise, scouts honor, not to do it again, and we wil reward you by giving you your liberty so you can go boozing at the local bar and party hardy, while the two little boys will never live another day.

I do think you are trivializing the seriousness of our discussion here. Inmates are never paroled simply because they promise to be good. They have to show a real effort in rehabilitating themselves while still on the inside. It is not an easy process, but it can be achieved by an inmate with serious aspirations of one day getting paroled. Those who haven't got what it takes to go thru the process don't make it. Still I would like to see our parole system improved, so that the Duncan's of this world do not slip through so easily.

[Goody]

Goody! I agree that people who kill their children do not deserve second chances, but I am not talking about what anyone deserves.

but you did say you thought somehwere down the road Darlie might deserve this, and you have said you dont consider her a threat to society....you state people shouldnt be locked away fro the rest of their lives.......

that is where my confusion comes in-- do you or dont you think darlie or other murdered like her deserve a second chance?
I don't think they deserve it; deserve being the keyword. I think the state's job is to stop the Darlie's of this world from getting away with murder and to punish them for their crime, so that hopefully they will learn not to reoffend in the future.

The question I run into at that point is how long is a sufficient punishment? Twenty years, thirty years, all of their natural lives, death?

I think it is wrong to waste a life that could be productive. So I am not in favor of LWOP except to protect society from someone who will reoffend violently. I don't think Darlie falls into that category; am not so sure about Andrea Yates; don't think Susan Smith falls into that category, not so sure about Diane Downs.

I think the state needs to do what the state feels is in the best interests of society without regard to who deserves what. Is it in society's best interests to lock up an 80 year old man dying of cancer? Is it in society's best interests to lock up kids on drug charges most of their natural lives, thus preventing them from any and all opportunity to ever be productive? Etc, etc. If the state decides to keep an inmate until well into old age, what are they protecting us from? Being run over by a speeding wheel chair? Yes, I am being flippant, but you get the picture, I think.

The Darlies of this world certainly are punished if they are locked up for 20 or 30 years. Who can argue with that? If we can't bring the victims back by housing them forever, why on earth do we want to do it? There are bigger and badder criminals that need our funds and attention. And don't forget that once we max out the space in our prisons, we are going to have to do something to make room for the newly convicted. I sure would not want to see sex offenders and other violent types to be suddenly up for parole to make room for the kids busted with too much pot, meth, and whatever else they can find to burn up their brains. Bad choices, yes, but it shouldn't be the state's priority to protect them from themselves.

I think we should punish them, rehab them, and put them back out while they can still be useful to society on whatever level they can. I don't think we should jam up our prisons with inmates who are rehabable until we are forced to let out the violent ones (as we have done in the past) without much screening so they can reoffend. The state is supposed to be an objective authority, not some mealy mouthed, ineffective body so caught up in misplaced emotion that it is always a day late and a dollar short. We are tired of excuses. We want results. At least I do. And I see no reason to waste Darlie's entire life. She has to live with her deed. It will forever haunt her in many, many ways. Prison is probably the least of her punishment, but it will certainly be a burden on the state if they keep her forever (which they won't because of that little date with the needle) But if they could......

[Goody]

I certainly HOPE that I am not the only person who feels this way.

Because I sure would like to see the face of the person who lives next door to the man who killed two kids because he did not want to leave any witnesses to the crime when he held them down, tortured them, sexually assulted them and then killed them. But first he shot their parents to death......

Go ahead invite him over for tea, intoduce him to your three kids........tell them that he made a mistake, but is rehabiliated, that he paid his debt to society, that prison is such an awful place to be.

Then go ahead let your kids outside, even if you watch them like a hawk, who is to say that you not be shot first and then he goes after your kids.

Hindsight is great, 20/20 hindsight is even better, but death is death and is permanent.......for eternity........ a mistake even a simple one can cost you the most valuable thing a person has - their existance on this planet.
Great speech but no one is supporting the Duncan's and Cooey's of this world to be eligible for parole. Even some politicians are beginning to realize that this is unacceptable.

But the Darlies and Susan Smiths are not sex offenders. They were very emotionally charged women in dire circumstances (at least to them) and unable to cope. They committed horrific acts against their own; acts that will probably never be repeated by them even if given the opportunity. In fact, I imagine both wish they had chosen a different path on those fateful days.

I agree with you 100% that stranger abductions/rapes/murders should almost always come with at least a LWOP sentence just by nature of the crime and the poor rehab rates. I don't think it will deter many, probably very few, but it would protect society against the repeat offenders.

[Goody]

Goody! I agree that people who kill their children do not deserve second chances, but I am not talking about what anyone deserves.

but you did say you thought somehwere down the road Darlie might deserve this, and you have said you dont consider her a threat to society....you state people shouldnt be locked away fro the rest of their lives.......

that is where my confusion comes in-- do you or dont you think darlie or other murdered like her deserve a second chance?
I don't believe I ever used the word "deserve."

[beesy]

And don't yell at me. (I'm sorry if I am upsetting anyone.) I have waffled on this many times myself. I'd be first in line to vote for execution of Samatha Runion's killer, but I would also be first to vote Andrea Yates into a mental institution and probably somewhere in the line to vote for parole for Susan Smith at some point. (I would also be first to vote for acquittal of Dixie S.) We can't bring back any of the victims. No one can do that. The only thing left to do now, as a responsible society, is to look at the killers to determine what should and can be done about them. Overburdening the state with people who could be rehabilitated but won't be doesn't make a lot of sense, esp if our only reason for not doing it is that we are outraged over the nature of their crime. You're not upsetting me. Don't worry about it. This is why we're all here, to brainstorm about Darlie and the DP, etc. And yes, LWOP does sound like Hell on earth. I cannot imagine how horrible it must feel to hear the door slam shut. Perhaps the DP is better than that. I just don't think Darlie should be let out. DP should NOT be used as a punishment, but I don't trust Darlie. Maybe if she confessed, I don't know..to be so cold as to hang onto her lame story for all these years shows no remorse. I gotta give her and Dr. Mac credit though. Most people who claim they are wrongly convicted would have caved by now. Maybe all they have inside of them is the just the mechanics to live, like a computer.

[Goody]

You're not upsetting me. Don't worry about it. This is why we're all here, to brainstorm about Darlie and the DP, etc. And yes, LWOP does sound like Hell on earth. I cannot imagine how horrible it must feel to hear the door slam shut. Perhaps the DP is better than that. I just don't think Darlie should be let out. DP should NOT be used as a punishment, but I don't trust Darlie. Maybe if she confessed, I don't know..to be so cold as to hang onto her lame story for all these years shows no remorse. I gotta give her and Dr. Mac credit though. Most people who claim they are wrongly convicted would have caved by now. Maybe all they have inside of them is the just the mechanics to live, like a computer.
Darlie's claim of innocence is the only thing separating her from that needle. She has to continue the claim to prolong her life her on earth. It won't be until her fed appeals are over that we might get to see or hear what really happened that night. Once reality hits her and she realizes that she is going down for this alone, if she is truly not the only one involved, I think she will be angry enough to turn state's evidence. If there is anyway she make a deal, and as far as I know there is not, but if there is, I hope she does it. I would like to see her get off of death row.....alive.

[beesy]

Darlie's claim of innocence is the only thing separating her from that needle. She has to continue the claim to prolong her life her on earth. It won't be until her fed appeals are over that we might get to see or hear what really happened that night. Once reality hits her and she realizes that she is going down for this alone, if she is truly not the only one involved, I think she will be angry enough to turn state's evidence. If there is anyway she make a deal, and as far as I know there is not, but if there is, I hope she does it. I would like to see her get off of death row.....alive. Bruno Hauptman never admitted to kidnapping and/or killing the Lindberg baby. He went to his death proclaiming his innocense. That always made me think he was innocent, even though his cover story was beyond lame. Recently they've used updated forensic tools and have tied him to the crime. Although they think the baby was accidently killed.

[Jeana (DP)]

Is it possible for her sentence to be commuted to LWOP? Most likely she'd have to confess if it could? Her appeals are all based on "I didn't do it and I was screwed". Maybe by confessing she could get off DR and get LWOP?


Its almost impossible for her to win on any appeal. There's just nothing there. I think her only chance would be the governor and this being Texas, I doubt any politician is going to risk his or her career in order to commute Darlie's sentence.

[j2mirish]

I don't believe I ever used the word "deserve."

you said you didnt think there was any reason not to parole people like darlie.....
my mistake.....:bang:

i still dont understand your thoughts on what they might not do again, you dont seem to address my concerns about what they have ALREADY done.

i dont disagree with 1st time non-violent offenders.......but you seem to think people who kill family members are in a "different" catagory. what is the difference between scott peterson, darlie, susan, etc etc, or the scum back that killed samantha? i realize the sexual side, but they all have killed children....
why is killing someone you dont know worse than someone you do know?

[CyberLaw]

But the Darlies and Susan Smiths are not sex offenders. They were very emotionally charged women in dire circumstances (at least to them) and unable to cope. They committed horrific acts against their own; acts that will probably never be repeated by them even if given the opportunity. In fact, I imagine both wish they had chosen a different path on those fateful days

I am SURE that 4 young children WISH that their mothers choose a different path those fateful days, but unfortunately, they had no choice in the actions of their "loving mothers" who were emotionally charged, who choose to snuff out the lives of the people who loved and trusted them the most..........the most vulnerable members of society.

You see those kids will never live again, never play, never date, never go to college, never marry and never have kids. They will never do anything ever again......and you want sympathy because their mothers made the choice to kill their kids because of whatever reasons........people have the choice to kill or not to kill.......they make that choice.

The pain, suffering, terror that those children felt in their last moments on earth betrayed by the person who was surposed to love and protect them........Keep the Susan Smith's, Diane Downs, and Darlie Routiers of this world locked up........

They choose to solve their "perceived" problems with murder.........of little children............and then lie their faces off to protect THEMSELVES.

A women starts a fire. Opps every adult got out, including the womens' wheel chair bound mother, her ex-husband.....but low and behold, the most vulnerable person her 15 year old son, died.

He just happen to have a 250K life insurance policy......should we now "rehabiliate" this women by giving her a lesson in ethics. Now listen up - ETHICS 101- it is wrong to kill your own child for money, to sacrifice his life for your material comfort.

So as soon as you learn your lesson(because you killed your own child) we will let you walk out the door, because after all you did not kill a stranger, but your own child.

Talk about a betrayal of love and trust.......please.......killing your own child in my book is WORSE then killing a stranger.........because you had a duty to protect your child from harm......that would be from their own mothers.....

[Goody]

Bruno Hauptman never admitted to kidnapping and/or killing the Lindberg baby. He went to his death proclaiming his innocense. That always made me think he was innocent, even though his cover story was beyond lame. Recently they've used updated forensic tools and have tied him to the crime. Although they think the baby was accidently killed.
How do you accidentally smash a baby's skull in?

[Goody]

you said you didnt think there was any reason not to parole people like darlie.....
my mistake.....:bang: No problem.

i still dont understand your thoughts on what they might not do again, you dont seem to address my concerns about what they have ALREADY done.
Sure I did. Punishment for what they have already done (assuming they were tried for all crimes in their past) would lie in whatever sentence they received...20, 30 years, whatever. The same way it is dealt with in other countries.

i dont disagree with 1st time non-violent offenders.......

Why only first time non-violent crimes? You want to throw the book at a habitual thief or drug offender? Some people never get their stuff together, but that doesn't make them a danger to society. Unless you place material things on the same level as human life.

but you seem to think people who kill family members are in a "different" catagory. what is the difference between scott peterson, darlie, susan, etc etc, or the scum back that killed samantha? i realize the sexual side, but they all have killed children....
why is killing someone you dont know worse than someone you do know?
It isn't. But usually in family situations there are mitigating factors. People get caught up in the drama and lose track of what is important to them. In order for them to reoffend, the same set of circumstances would almost have to duplicate. In sexual deviant crimes, the killer will create his own circumstances because he lusts for the kill. Reoffending is a certainity rather than an unlikelihood.

I am afraid I am biased when it comes to Peterson and probably most male killers. I don't see desperation in their acts but if all facts were known, I very well could in the Darlies and Susan Smiths, etc. Bottom line though, in respect to this discussion, the length of sentence and severity of it should depend on the convicted killer's ability to rehab, his willingness to do it, and the likelihood of reoffending if he were to gain his freedom again.

Take the Canadian killer Karla H. , for example. People are outraged that she is paroled, but there are some who believe she will not reoffend based on the influence Paul had over her. If she doesn't reoffend, the parole is probably fair and just, in spite of the lack of revenge in the sentence. If she reoffends violently, it will be a collassal offense.

[Goody]

So as soon as you learn your lesson(because you killed your own child) we will let you walk out the door, because after all you did not kill a stranger, but your own child.

Talk about a betrayal of love and trust.......please.......killing your own child in my book is WORSE then killing a stranger.........because you had a duty to protect your child from harm......that would be from their own mothers.....
I agree with you that emotionally all of these cases demand lifetime or death penalty sentences. I agree that these killers deserve the harshest of sentences. I just don't think the state should be an avenger.

Maybe I am just in a charitable mood this week. I think that we are putting too many in prison for too long, and that it is going to bite us in the butt. Then there will be a push to parole some of these lifers, and we will find them back out in the streets without having gone through any rehab programs.

I don't think harsh sentences deter crime. The only people truly afraid are those who wouldn't commit the crimes anyway.

[Jeana (DP)]

I agree with you that emotionally all of these cases demand lifetime or death penalty sentences. I agree that these killers deserve the harshest of sentences. I just don't think the state should be an avenger.

Maybe I am just in a charitable mood this week. I think that we are putting too many in prison for too long, and that it is going to bite us in the butt. Then there will be a push to parole some of these lifers, and we will find them back out in the streets without having gone through any rehab programs.

I don't think harsh sentences deter crime. The only people truly afraid are those who wouldn't commit the crimes anyway.


Sentences aren't there to deter crime Goody. They're there to punish those who did the crime. The death penalty is NOT in place to be a deterrent. Its simply a punishment - the harshest that there is - for murderers like Darlie. I agree with the sentence and as a citizen of this state, I'm going to be pretty angry if its not carried out.

[j2mirish]

Goody

usually in family situations there are mitigating factors. People get caught up in the drama and lose track of what is important to them. In order for them to reoffend, the same set of circumstances would almost have to duplicate.

I am afraid I am biased when it comes to Peterson and probably most male killers. I don't see desperation in their acts but if all facts were known, I very well could in the Darlies and Susan Smiths, etc.

I am a mother of 2 children. and although I can see some folks feeling sorry for "woman" killers, I guess I go just the opposite--they make me madder than the opposite---how does a mother kill her own children?especially when they only kill the children...whatever the case may be that has brought them to this decision...they sure dont kill themselves along with the children..do they?

Why do you see such a diffence between peterson & darlie? I watched that trial until i think my husband thought I was going over the deep end!! still look here on the other forum..LOL He imo is no better...no any worse than Darlie? why are woman desperate when they kill, byut men arent?

guess this is a good point to just say it looks like we will have to agree to always disagree!!;)

[beesy]

How do you accidentally smash a baby's skull in? Well, really my point was that Hauptman never confessed, so there is a big chance that Darlie won't either. Not "accidentally", but not planned either. They don't even know with what his skull was smashed.

[Jeana (DP)]

Darlie's claim of innocence is the only thing separating her from that needle. She has to continue the claim to prolong her life her on earth. It won't be until her fed appeals are over that we might get to see or hear what really happened that night. Once reality hits her and she realizes that she is going down for this alone, if she is truly not the only one involved, I think she will be angry enough to turn state's evidence. If there is anyway she make a deal, and as far as I know there is not, but if there is, I hope she does it. I would like to see her get off of death row.....alive.


I've known you long enough to understand your feelings about this Goody, but you know there's absolutely nothing she can say about the involvement of any other person that will prevent her from being executed. The only thing that I can see that would have made the situation any different would have been had she spoken up about it sooner. There would most likely have been a second trial for that person, the outcome most likely would have been two individuals on death row instead of one. The testimony of one convicted murderer is not enough to put another person in prison or on the row.

[j2mirish]

Originally Posted by Goody
Darlie's claim of innocence is the only thing separating her from that needle. She has to continue the claim to prolong her life her on earth. It won't be until her fed appeals are over that we might get to see or hear what really happened that night. Once reality hits her and she realizes that she is going down for this alone, if she is truly not the only one involved, I think she will be angry enough to turn state's evidence. If there is anyway she make a deal, and as far as I know there is not, but if there is, I hope she does it. I would like to see her get off of death row.....alive.

to do what? spend the rest of her life in prison, which you dont agree with either?

[CyberLaw]

It is a done deal for Darlie, nothing and mean nothing is going to keep her from the needle.

Acomplice testimony(which she is, IF she acted in concert with Darin) is not going to be seen as credible.

Since all of her appeals have been turned down, I find it very unlikely that now at this stage she is going to confess.

There will be no purpose..........it won't keep her from the needle, that MAY have happened before the trial, but not now.........

It cost more money to sentence someone to death row then LWOP.

[Becba]

At one time the pics of the bruises swayed me into thinking she may have been innocent. But the fact that her cuts and injuries are so slight compared to the stabbing of the children lead me to believe otherwise.

I mean all an intruder had to do was stab her. Instead she got a swipe on the neck and a few poke marks on her arms.

[j2mirish]

At one time the pics of the bruises swayed me into thinking she may have been innocent. But the fact that her cuts and injuries are so slight compared to the stabbing of the children lead me to believe otherwise.

I mean all an intruder had to do was stab her. Instead she got a swipe on the neck and a few poke marks on her arms.

exactly....why would an intruder have to be so brutal & forceful with such young children..yet barley injure the older person who could fight back,run or scream the loudest & hardest. :waitasec: :waitasec:

even susan smith and andrea yates admitted their guilt........(wont even go there with those 2 either....but they did AT THE VERY FRICKING LEAST do that )

[Goody]

Sentences aren't there to deter crime Goody. They're there to punish those who did the crime. The death penalty is NOT in place to be a deterrent. Its simply a punishment - the harshest that there is - for murderers like Darlie. I agree with the sentence and as a citizen of this state, I'm going to be pretty angry if its not carried out.
Most people give the "detering crime" argument when this subject comes up. That is why I mentioned it.

When looking at the subject as a punishmen, I admit to being conflicted. I don't know if that is a just punishment in every case. Maybe I just have a soft spot for young women, but I have a hard time with the harshness of it. Esp when I imagine what it might be like for them to be paroled out and back to their families in 20 or 30 years. The person who committed the crime is not going to be the same person walking out. Losing one's freedom for most of their adult lives is pretty harsh, too. I just don't know if it is necessary to kill everyone who kills or to lock them up forever.

However, the nature of the crimes do have a push for revenge, I admit.

[Goody]

Goody

usually in family situations there are mitigating factors. People get caught up in the drama and lose track of what is important to them. In order for them to reoffend, the same set of circumstances would almost have to duplicate.

I am afraid I am biased when it comes to Peterson and probably most male killers. I don't see desperation in their acts but if all facts were known, I very well could in the Darlies and Susan Smiths, etc.

I am a mother of 2 children. and although I can see some folks feeling sorry for "woman" killers, I guess I go just the opposite--they make me madder than the opposite---how does a mother kill her own children?especially when they only kill the children...whatever the case may be that has brought them to this decision...they sure dont kill themselves along with the children..do they?

Why do you see such a diffence between peterson & darlie? I watched that trial until i think my husband thought I was going over the deep end!! still look here on the other forum..LOL He imo is no better...no any worse than Darlie? why are woman desperate when they kill, byut men arent?

guess this is a good point to just say it looks like we will have to agree to always disagree!!;)
You make very good points. I can't even honestly say I disagree with them. But there is a part of me that does distinguish between the Peterson types and the Darlie types. Maybe because I can relate to some of their issues behind the motives.

Don't get me wrong. I have never been in a place where murdering my children was ever an option or even a consideration, and I can't imagine picking up a knife and following through on even one stab wound, let alone all the many times it took to complete the job. I could not have done it, I have no doubt. But then again I look at Darlie and think what a shame that her life too must be wasted, even though she deserves it. I can't say I have the same empathy for Scott Peterson though, and I admit I would be uncomfortable to have either of them for neighbors.

It's for these reasons that I don't offen discuss punishment. I am satisfied to have them go down in history as the killers, and I want their story to be told, details exposed. I just don't need the punishment, too. Mostly, I suppose, because I know there are others who will take care of that. If I were a nun, I would probably fight to spare them, but I am not so I will only opine on occasion that killing most convicts does not appeal to me.

[Goody]

Well, really my point was that Hauptman never confessed, so there is a big chance that Darlie won't either. Not "accidentally", but not planned either. They don't even know with what his skull was smashed.
Lack of confession does not indicate innocence. At least it shouldn't. I went thru a period believing Hauptman myself but I was young and inexperienced then. Now I have so many years of web experience under my belt (hehe)and much knowledge gained from TH experts that I know better. The fact that Darlie won't admit she did it means nothing except that maybe she can't face people with the truth. However, if she is as self absorbed as most think, she will tell before she dies. Once all hope is gone,she is going to be angry that Darin got away and she didn't (unless he really didn't participate at all) that she will tell just to keep from going down in history alone for this. It will be her way of clearing her name, not taking all of the blame. That is what I think.

[Goody]

I've known you long enough to understand your feelings about this Goody, but you know there's absolutely nothing she can say about the involvement of any other person that will prevent her from being executed. The only thing that I can see that would have made the situation any different would have been had she spoken up about it sooner. There would most likely have been a second trial for that person, the outcome most likely would have been two individuals on death row instead of one. The testimony of one convicted murderer is not enough to put another person in prison or on the row.
Yes, I know that is true, but in this age of deals, one never knows. However, I expect the most she could gain from confessing after her appeals are gone is the satisfaction of not going down alone for it. A chance to tell what really happened so people won't think she is a monster. If he was involved too, the time to testify against him. That would give her a few more months of life on this earth.

[j2mirish]

You make very good points. I can't even honestly say I disagree with them. But there is a part of me that does distinguish between the Peterson types and the Darlie types. Maybe because I can relate to some of their issues behind the motives.
What is the distintiction in your mind? without asking about being able to relate to any issue, I am just curious as to what you think the difference is.
In my opinion they both had similar backgrounds--- nice homes, family and friends, financial problems-- I believe they both plotted, were both very sneeky and both denied...but the biggest similarity to me is their lack of emotion when it was all said and done...they both make me pretty sick in those regards! She posing in prison ( had to throw that it ! LOL ) and him in court with the smirks, and defing (sp) the police as they watched him.


Don't get me wrong. I have never been in a place where murdering my children was ever an option or even a consideration, and I can't imagine picking up a knife and following through on even one stab wound, let alone all the many times it took to complete the job. I could not have done it, I have no doubt. But then again I look at Darlie and think what a shame that her life too must be wasted, even though she deserves it.

I dont disagree her life was wasted, and I think I have seen a passion from you for the underdog woman. which is even understandable, I cant imagine how these single moms make it in this world today, especially the ones that really struggle. But I dont put Darlie in that light- I see her more a very selfish woman who just decided the kids were either an obstacle, or she used them as leverage. Susan I believe in my own mind may have been a little more delicate, but that still does not excuse her actions--- my god----- leave the kids with family, friends--- or even ex-husband.....

I can't say I have the same empathy for Scott Peterson though, and I admit I would be uncomfortable to have either of them for neighbors.

LOL..again- why a different empathy for
scott?


It's for these reasons that I don't offen discuss punishment. I am satisfied to have them go down in history as the killers, and I want their story to be told, details exposed. I just don't need the punishment, too. Mostly, I suppose, because I know there are others who will take care of that. If I were a nun, I would probably fight to spare them, but I am not so I will only opine on occasion that killing most convicts does not appeal to me.
I guess my reasons for punishment are the same but different--I do not believe prison is a deterent, and I even understand you opinion of the non-violent folks--- but where do we draw the line? it is not about materilasitic things to me--- its simply about the laws of our land-- where do we draw the line?? you rob, steal, caught for drugs 5-10 times...why should that be lessened because it was non violent? Just like the Darlies of the world, that you believe would not re-offend....and lets even say what if I didnt belive they would reoffend...... where do we draw the line on their punishment??

I have some personal ties to the issue myself- I have a brother in law that was killed by a drunk driver.... I am a drinker, so please keep thaat in mind! but my point is this-- he did not have any past violent convictions--- he was simply driving without a liscens or insurance...because of his previous dui's..... now- our family was devistated...but none of us felt he meant to do this--- he served 2 1/2 years....got paroled...and 3 months later was convicted of vehicular manslaughter again...

ok- sorry for the novel!!! I just got on a roll!!:blushing:

[Goody]

I guess my reasons for punishment are the same but different--I do not believe prison is a deterent, and I even understand you opinion of the non-violent folks--- but where do we draw the line? it is not about materilasitic things to me--- its simply about the laws of our land-- where do we draw the line?? you rob, steal, caught for drugs 5-10 times...why should that be lessened because it was non violent? Just like the Darlies of the world, that you believe would not re-offend....and lets even say what if I didnt belive they would reoffend...... where do we draw the line on their punishment??

I have some personal ties to the issue myself- I have a brother in law that was killed by a drunk driver.... I am a drinker, so please keep thaat in mind! but my point is this-- he did not have any past violent convictions--- he was simply driving without a liscens or insurance...because of his previous dui's..... now- our family was devistated...but none of us felt he meant to do this--- he served 2 1/2 years....got paroled...and 3 months later was convicted of vehicular manslaughter again...

ok- sorry for the novel!!! I just got on a roll!!:blushing:
Wow, Irish! That is some story, and a good one. It certainly hits home about the repeat offenders and is a good argument for longer prison terms. I can't help but wonder though if your brother-in-law and the community wouldn't have been better served to have him spend those 2.5 years in a special rehab facility where he could get a lot of heavy treatment, not only for his drinking problem but for the underlying causes of it. Many people who drink in excess are self medicating, and those who choose to drive must be trying to draw attention to themselves. I know there are so many like him, but it is a good point that even if rehab and heavy therapy were available, he might not be strong enough to stop anyway. And what do we do with those? Good questions there.

[beesy]

I guess my reasons for punishment are the same but different--I do not believe prison is a deterent, and I even understand you opinion of the non-violent folks--- but where do we draw the line? it is not about materilasitic things to me--- its simply about the laws of our land-- where do we draw the line?? you rob, steal, caught for drugs 5-10 times...why should that be lessened because it was non violent? Just like the Darlies of the world, that you believe would not re-offend....and lets even say what if I didnt belive they would reoffend...... where do we draw the line on their punishment??

I have some personal ties to the issue myself- I have a brother in law that was killed by a drunk driver.... I am a drinker, so please keep thaat in mind! but my point is this-- he did not have any past violent convictions--- he was simply driving without a liscens or insurance...because of his previous dui's..... now- our family was devistated...but none of us felt he meant to do this--- he served 2 1/2 years....got paroled...and 3 months later was convicted of vehicular manslaughter again...

ok- sorry for the novel!!! I just got on a roll!!:blushing: I'm sorry about your brother-in-law. I know that's a hard pill to swallow. You're doing a great job! Type away!

[j2mirish]

I'm sorry about your brother-in-law. I know that's a hard pill to swallow. You're doing a great job! Type away!
Thanks- I wasnt looking for a pitty party- like I said I just got on a roll and didnt know when to quit! glad I did when I did!! :angel:

[HeartofTexas]

j2, that wasn't a pity party... that was you telling how repeat offenders have affected your life adversely. That's so sad about your brother-in-law, and I know how devastating it is to lose any member of a family, let alone through something as senseless as being killed by a drunk driver. But your real point, IMO, is that we each bring to the forum our own viewpoint on the world, which has obviously been colored by our own personal experiences. And it has to be that way because personal experiences shape who we become. Thanks for sharing your story.

[IrishMist]

I don't believe in the death penalty. For anyone.
I DO believe in LWOP. And I do mean WITHOUT parole. Life. In. Prison.

That being said, I also think that there are too many people in our correction system that don't need to be there. I'm all for rehab/therapy idea for drugs or drinking offenses. Intensive rehab, not this "insurance will pay for 10 days then you're on your own" like we have now...

I think the non-violent criminals should be eased up on. We DO have alot of people in prison. And it seems that every day, we are passing more and more laws making more and more things illegal.

But violent offenders?? LWOP.
Do I think Darlie should ever get out? No way. While at the Darlie site looking at her "cupcake" poses, take a look at what she did to those boys, if you can stomach it. In my opinion, LWOP is the punishment that fits that crime.

Life is choices. And one MUST be responsible for their choices.

[Goody]

I don't believe in the death penalty. For anyone.
I DO believe in LWOP. And I do mean WITHOUT parole. Life. In. Prison.

That being said, I also think that there are too many people in our correction system that don't need to be there. I'm all for rehab/therapy idea for drugs or drinking offenses. Intensive rehab, not this "insurance will pay for 10 days then you're on your own" like we have now...

I think the non-violent criminals should be eased up on. We DO have alot of people in prison. And it seems that every day, we are passing more and more laws making more and more things illegal.

But violent offenders?? LWOP.
Do I think Darlie should ever get out? No way. While at the Darlie site looking at her "cupcake" poses, take a look at what she did to those boys, if you can stomach it. In my opinion, LWOP is the punishment that fits that crime.

Life is choices. And one MUST be responsible for their choices.
What if the victims had been adults? Would you still feel outraged? How did you feel about Karla Faye Tucker? Would you put Darlie and Karla in the same bag?

[j2mirish]

Wow, Irish! That is some story, and a good one. It certainly hits home about the repeat offenders and is a good argument for longer prison terms. I can't help but wonder though if your brother-in-law and the community wouldn't have been better served to have him spend those 2.5 years in a special rehab facility where he could get a lot of heavy treatment, not only for his drinking problem but for the underlying causes of it. Many people who drink in excess are self medicating, and those who choose to drive must be trying to draw attention to themselves. I know there are so many like him, but it is a good point that even if rehab and heavy therapy were available, he might not be strong enough to stop anyway. And what do we do with those? Good questions there.
although I appreciate the thought behind the rehab facility..and I know exactly what you mean- but why isnt 2.5 years behind bars, without a drink of any kind, talk about "on the wagon" reflecting on the death you caused to a man 2 days before Christmas, who left behind 2 children a wife and family...enough to say to yourself...damn I am going to get a second chance.....I dont know how much more attention someone would need drawn to themselves after this "mishap":boohoo: again--I truley dont care about WHY people do the things they doooo- they should get the help they need before it reaches the point of murder , whether intentional or not.

[j2mirish]

What if the victims had been adults? Would you still feel outraged? How did you feel about Karla Faye Tucker? Would you put Darlie and Karla in the same bag?
i cant speak for anyone else-- but I would still be outraged----what if it was her to olders siblings? What difference does it make?? I think the fact it was her own children, the BRUTALITY...and then the fricking DENIAL...is what makes this even more emotional than "JUST" (tongue in cheek) her having killed 2 adults...

[j2mirish]

j2, that wasn't a pity party... that was you telling how repeat offenders have affected your life adversely. That's so sad about your brother-in-law, and I know how devastating it is to lose any member of a family, let alone through something as senseless as being killed by a drunk driver. But your real point, IMO, is that we each bring to the forum our own viewpoint on the world, which has obviously been colored by our own personal experiences. And it has to be that way because personal experiences shape who we become. Thanks for sharing your story.
thxs :)

[j2mirish]

Life is choices. And one MUST be responsible for their choices.:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Imo --that is the biggest problem with society today.......we always have an excuse, or list of "reasons" for the choice someone has made...........

I will be the first to admitt the mistakes I make-- but I can aslo from the bottom of my heart say--I have never blamed anyone else or any "reason"....( ok...I'm not talking about when i was 10 years old- LOL)

[Cassata11]

Maybe we need a debate board of for/against the Death Penalty here on websleuths. I haven't found a good board yet.

Blessings!!
Cassata

[j2mirish]

What if the victims had been adults? Would you still feel outraged? How did you feel about Karla Faye Tucker? Would you put Darlie and Karla in the same bag?
At the very least tucker admiitted to the murders she and her boyfriend committed

[Goody]

although I appreciate the thought behind the rehab facility..and I know exactly what you mean- but why isnt 2.5 years behind bars, without a drink of any kind, talk about "on the wagon" reflecting on the death you caused to a man 2 days before Christmas, who left behind 2 children a wife and family...enough to say to yourself...damn I am going to get a second chance.....I dont know how much more attention someone would need drawn to themselves after this "mishap":boohoo: again--I truley dont care about WHY people do the things they doooo- they should get the help they need before it reaches the point of murder , whether intentional or not.
I agree and truly responsible people do. Unfortunately we are not all that strong. Some of us cannot fight a powerful addiction, sometimes because we don't try and sometimes because we just can't. Alcohol is a powerful addiction. A friend of my son's just got out of rehab and went out and got drunk the very first night. Mostly because his friends, my son included, were willing to drink with him. They don't understand why this man can't drink in moderation (as if any of them do!!!). I fear it will take something like you are talking about to get thru to these young men, although my son is very conscientious about not driving under the influence. Doesn't mean he refrains all the time though.

[Goody]

i cant speak for anyone else-- but I would still be outraged----what if it was her to olders siblings? What difference does it make?? I think the fact it was her own children, the BRUTALITY...and then the fricking DENIAL...is what makes this even more emotional than "JUST" (tongue in cheek) her having killed 2 adults...
I didn't mean "Just" two adults. It was a fair question. People are always more outraged and more inflamed when the victims are children. I just wondered if someone who killed adults would make you as angry as someone who killed defenseless children.

I really had mixed feelings about Karla Faye, too, but could care less about Tommy Lynn Sells or that Rader fellow. Don't you ever feel conflicted?

[Goody]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Imo --that is the biggest problem with society today.......we always have an excuse, or list of "reasons" for the choice someone has made...........

I will be the first to admitt the mistakes I make-- but I can aslo from the bottom of my heart say--I have never blamed anyone else or any "reason"....( ok...I'm not talking about when i was 10 years old- LOL)
We don't know if we offered Darlie an opportunity to get out of prison today as long as she told the whole truth, step by step, that she would blame anyone else for what happened. That is something we interject into it because she won't tell the truth.

And reasons are important because without them we learn nothing. Reasons do not excuse an act unless the listener chooses them to. I would be no more inclined to excuse Darlie this act of violence if I knew exactly why she did it than I am now without knowing. I might be more inclinded to lean more one way than the other on punishment, but I don't think that excuses anything.

[Goody]

Maybe we need a debate board of for/against the Death Penalty here on websleuths. I haven't found a good board yet.

Blessings!!
Cassata
I thought there was one here. There is one on Court TV and a place for one at GAC.

[Goody]

At the very least tucker admiitted to the murders she and her boyfriend committed
But did she deserve leniency/mercy because of her remarkable rehabilitation?

[Jeana (DP)]

But did she deserve leniency/mercy because of her remarkable rehabilitation?


Not in my opinion. :rolleyes:

[j2mirish]

I didn't mean "Just" two adults. It was a fair question. People are always more outraged and more inflamed when the victims are children. I just wondered if someone who killed adults would make you as angry as someone who killed defenseless children.

I really had mixed feelings about Karla Faye, too, but could care less about Tommy Lynn Sells or that Rader fellow. Don't you ever feel conflicted?
I know you didnt mean "just"-- I guess since I am new to the forum here, it is fair that you folks dont know my sarcasim, or my effort at humor! ( i know you have all seen my spelling errors, as I dont take much time to go back and correct- please forgive me) :blushing:

Does someone that kills there own children make me angrier than someone like tucker...absolutely, without question....
Do i ever feel conflict about someone who has killed.....honestly...no--- have I felt sorry for any of them...maybe......but that has never left me feeling they deserve a second chance. I dont belive that means I am correct-- I just believe life is too precious for someone to just take it away-

[j2mirish]

Not in m