Daybell-Vallow trial

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure how much material difference there is between the Times coverage and the Deseret News coverage, if any, but just to be thorough (or pedantic):

https://www.deseret.com/the-west/2024/05/30/chad-daybell-found-guilty/

 

Tons more infor from Deseret News this time.

[mfbukowski]

And so the soap opera continues.

What value would our lives have without it?

 

[rodheadlee]

Death penalty invoked. 

[blackstrap]

And the endless appeals will begin. Remind me, how is the death penalty carried out in that State? 

[rodheadlee]

Just now, blackstrap said:

And the endless appeals will begin. Remind me, how is the death penalty carried out in that State? 

Lethal injection or firing squad 

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet.  Reading the last few posts, I didn't see it.  Please pardon any duplication (Great minds think alike!).

https://www.deseret.com/the-west/2024/06/01/chad-daybell-saturday-death-penalty/

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet.  Reading the last few posts, I didn't see it.  Please pardon any duplication (Great minds think alike!).

https://www.deseret.com/the-west/2024/06/01/chad-daybell-saturday-death-penalty/

I’m good with that. 

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m good with that. 

That probably reflects a widespread sentiment.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That probably reflects a widespread sentiment.

If it just involved Daybell, I might be too.  Might not be.  In an ideal sense of justice there is something quite appropriate from removing the option of life from someone who took it from others.  Live by the sword, die by the sword kind of thing.

But how it works out in real life distresses me.  Reasons follow from least important to most for me…

1) The costs are ridiculous and that money could be used to help those in need to avoid future killing, prevention rather than punishment or at least some social good.

Have not checked this for accuracy, but it is in line with studies I have seen since high school when I was given the topic to debate from either side.

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/76th2011/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=17686&fileDownloadName=h041211ab501_pescetta.pdf

2) I am very concerned about what the mentality of thinking killing is okay in any case in the sense you go in with the intention to kill vs the intention of defending oneself and others and if death results, one will mourn but accept it happened.  The reasoning that it acts as a deterrent to killing seems quite contrary to reality imo.  And in our society where one can die in prison while waiting for it to be carried out….about 25% on death row die of natural causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_row#:~:text=Nearly a quarter of inmates,the most death row inmates.

So while not working on minds to lower the rates of murder, what does wanting to kill and feeling satisfy about someone being executed do to the respect and honor towards life and our ability to see others as humans in need of our love and support rather than animals who deserve to be put down (and I certainly feel very satisfied with the idea of Daybell awaiting death given his monstrous use of death percentages and zombies on kids and his wife who supported his whims for decades).  If my brother committed a murder and was sentenced to death, I would be horrified and desperate for him and would mourn all my life for him (and his victims).  But all I feel towards Daybell is really a bit of glee, he is getting what he deserves.  I don’t think this is healthy in the long run.  If I give myself permission to dehumanize someone in this kind of case, won’t I be more prone to come up with justifications in other cases?  And if an entire society is doing this?  Especially with the knowledge that mistakes are made and people who don’t really understand the consequences of their actions are executed along with those who deserve it…how can we be okay with that and still claim to respect and value life enough to be justified in executing those who don’t?  What does that rationalization that such is acceptable do to our emotional health?

While I don’t believe stopping the death penalty would suddenly end our country’s love affair with violence (Hollywood’s glorification of violence, even making it look beautiful ensures that will never happen imo, then there are sports like boxing), I think it would at least be something we could easily fix and try to grow past.
 

3) In the past, I allowed for the previous needs of society (in my view) to be set aside for the needs of the victims because I saw them as greatly benefitting by knowing their persecutor could no longer threaten or harm them, that as long as the murderers were alive, the victims would rarely get real peace, being able to put that part of their life behind them.  But the recent publicity of the Lafferty case and the activism of the sister and aunt of the murder victims have changed my mind on this.  They had the almost perfect set up to test which approach was emotionally healthier since one Lafferty brother went with life imprisonment and the other had the death penalty.

https://kjzz.com/news/politics/family-of-slain-lafferty-victims-advocates-for-elimination-of-utahs-death-penalty

Quote

Weeks said she and her family suffered through appeal after appeal as Ron sat on death row.

“You saw Ron Lafferty many times over the years,” she said. “Yes, I grew up with him, in the same courtroom.”

Weeks' decades long journey has landed at the Utah House of Representatives, where she hoped House Bill 147 would repeal the death penalty.

“I received a message from Sharon that she wanted to visit with me,” said Rep. Lowry Snow (R-St. George).

After hearing her story, Snow changed his stance on capital punishment, and now sponsors the bill to get rid of it.

“I'm talking about a better way in taking our focus away from the sensationalism of this death penalty and put it back on the victims and the victims' families by offering them support,” he said.

If passed, the bill would replace the death penalty with three sentencing options for aggravated murder – life without parole, 45 years to life, or 25 years to life.

“It would be best to just put the perpetrator in prison for the rest of their life and let them fade into obscurity and never speak their name again,” Weeks said.

She was about to turn 16 years old when Brenda and Erica were murdered.

“She was a fantastic, happy, loving, kind, energetic purposeful woman,” Weeks said.

While her family never saw the justice that a jury decided, she has called on the Utah Legislature to make sure other families are spared from the same heartache.

“I do it for my family and she's part of my family. I treat her as though she is still living. My courage comes from her,” Weeks said.

I do believe in a death penalty case it is essential to be sure it is just and the person is guilty, so I believe if we are going to have it, there should be even more opportunities for appeals (some states apparently put restrictions on submitting new evidence that should reopen a case).  This would mean even more trauma for victims rather than giving them greater chances at healing.  Unless we can ever get to a point that execution rightly (as in the person is indeed guilty and not just believed to be guilty) and justly (they meet a moral standard of understanding the consequences of their behaviour and still wantonly take life) occurs shortly after the sentence (and that isn’t going to happen anytime soon), I believe we should consider the trauma of those most affected by the murderer as prime importance and be protecting them the most with our choices.  Even if death penalties were cheaper in the long run and I had no worries about the emotional impact of participating in an execution even long distance on our society, this fact would be enough to persuade me to reject the death penalty as a viable option.  I think the only thing that would overcome it is if it was an actual deterrence that could save lives…and since it doesn’t appear to be at this point at least in most cases….

I can think of one possible exception and that is those who kill while in prison on life.  As long as you can’t treat them inhumanely by removing all privileges, the death penalty might be the only possible deterrence.  Depends on how it was handled and if it really is a deterrence and made it safer for guards and other inmates.  Maybe more would kill as a variation on suicide by cop.  I would want it thoroughly studied before becoming an option though….and only undertaken after a major reform of the prison system (I think intentional murderers should not be mixed in with other offenders and especially no mix of violent offenders and nonviolent plus better and safer conditions all around, I think much more mental health care so those likely to be violent are identified and placed under stricter conditions, etc).

[Calm]

I wonder what brought that post on….flashback to high school maybe and the debate

Just to be clear, I believe there are quite moral reasons to support the death penalty.  We all have different value levels of morality standards, some morals that are more important to us than others and I am not going to assume mine is the most informed or ideal or whatever.

Edited June 1, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder what brought that post on….flashback to high school maybe and the debate

I took a class in college at a rather conservative university where we were supposed to read the pros and cons of the death penalty and then read about a horrific murder and come to class prepared to debate the death penalty.

There were about thirty of us in the class, and only one guy who was quite shy opposed the death penalty. So I switched sides and argued for his side.  Apparently some buttons got pushed because one of the death penalty advocates angrily said that those who opposed the death penalty should be put to death.  The instructor was visibly shocked but said nothing, so I asked the class if everyone had heard what he had said, and repeated his words just to make sure.  He was seething with rage.  Spoiler alert - the rest of the class did not go along with his sentiment, so I was not killed.

But I did watch my back for that guy when class was over. 

Anyway many years later my paradigm slowly shifted and now I just want whatever is best and most healing going forward for everyone involved (easier said than done, of course).  I no longer think that true justice requires vengeance, so in general I am much more comfortable with "a really long time-out" (life sentence) than with execution.  I would like to think that we could do better than these being the only two realistic options, but am not wise enough to know what "better" would look like.

Edited June 1, 2024 by manol

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, manol said:

no longer think that true justice requires vengeance, so in general I am much more comfortable with "a really long time-out" (life sentence) than with execution

Some convicts themselves supposedly call life imprisonment a slow motion death sentence.  That would be more deterrence for me than the death penalty. 

Edited June 1, 2024 by Calm

[blackstrap]

And then there is this. Justice or not ? 

 Canadian Serial Killer Robert Pickton Dead at 74 After Prison Assault (msn.com)

[Tacenda]

I was on the fence on the death penalty. But now I'm leaning towards the death penalty being the only way for the heinous crimes he made. I think that was the deciding factor, plus I think those on death row have a lot less privilege as far as visiting rights etc. The most devastating videos throughout this whole thing was listening to those at the very end talking about their loved one/ones being killed and how it devastated so many left in the wake of this horror. 

I almost think Chad is one of the most evil people I've seen for a long while, or severely mentally ill. He had zero emotion throughout. There was one part toward the end that he sort of smiled once and whomever was speaking on one of several podcasts out there was about his mannerisms and about the smile he had while listening to his self speak, maybe during the patriarchal blessing or something. Maybe he was thinking how he conned Alex so well, is what the podcast person mentioned.

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Some convicts themselves supposedly call life imprisonment a slow motion death sentence.  That would be more deterrence for me than the death penalty. 

I agree with this too, conflicted. I want him to suffer in this life, not sure what suffering he'll do in the next.

[ZealouslyStriving]

I find myself moving towards the Catholic position on life issues.

Killing Daybell does nothing to protect the public. Let him sit in prison anticipating his meeting with God- and hopefully, no matter how slim we see the chance, he will repent.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I find myself moving towards the Catholic position on life issues.

Killing Daybell does nothing to protect the public. Let him sit in prison anticipating his meeting with God- and hopefully, no matter how slim we see the chance, he will repent.

I used to think like that then this guy carjacked these two gals and when he was done he locked them in the trunk and set the car on fire and walked away.

[let’s roll]

If someone is convicted of a capital offense and, while on death row after all appeals have been exhausted, is killed by another inmate or a guard, would charges be brought against the killer?  If they were and you were a juror on the case, would you vote for a murder conviction.  For the death sentence?

My somewhat unorthodox opinion is the death penalty shouldn’t be abolished, but should only be used if the convicted killer petitions the court to impose it on the grounds that the killer has concluded that the penalty needs to be carried out as part of the process of accountability and healing.

Edited June 2, 2024 by let’s roll

[grapevine]

Appeals do last forever.  In the 1990s someone demanded to be executed and dropped his appeals so was on death row less than two years before going to Hell.  In Idaho there were two recent inmates scheduled to go to Hell.  One had several dates set but Idaho didn’t have drugs to put him to death every time sentence came up.  Don’t know if he will get another appeal.

 

another piece of 🗑 who has been there the longest had date scheduled but they couldn’t find it.  Firing squad now approved but not up yet.

 

Two pieces of 🗑 went down a decade ago within a few months of each other.  They were on death row for 22 and 28 years respectively.  
 

None of Chads kids showed up.  Said he was framed on forty eight hours a few years ago.  Didn’t sound truthful in court.  Perjury is rarely prosecuted though.  Wasn’t surprised Fhad said nothing as verdict was read I don’t think many defendants say anything.  But said nothing at sentencing.

 

I think most defendants when given the opportunity speak at sentencing s.  Some may not,  Lori,s was full of blaming amd everything else.  Unless someone can find he didn’t commit the crimes will be in tight quarters in Kuna Idaho until he breathes his last breath.  
 

Having an affair, murdering people so you can collect there life insurance.  Uppingnlife insurance.  Refusing autopsy.  If there are no health problems s why would you refuse.

 

Lori moved to Rexburg to be near married man.  Son in law badmouthing law enforce,ent, lying to them.  Would not get insurance money if they divorced.

 

Chad will never have enough money to 💰 the insurance com9amy back.  Prisoners that do work in the jail don’t make more than a 💵 an hour.  His work will be restricted as maximum security inmate.  Will his kids have to pay restitution though!  Took maybe hush money.  

 

Don’t know if any of there family has any contact with Tammy’s children and siblings.  Missed Grandmas funeral.  His name won’t be heard much again unless he is executed or goes to Hell easy way in prison.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, let’s roll said:

My somewhat unorthodox opinion is the death penalty shouldn’t be abolished, but should only be used if the convicted killer petitions the court to impose it on the grounds that the killer has concluded that the penalty needs to be carried out as part of the process of accountability and healing.

I was actually considering whether it would be appropriate for someone under life imprisonment to have the option for the death penalty. One might think of it as them accepting responsibility or escaping punishment, but given how it would lighten the burden on society and hopefully remove media interest and maybe even help victims heal some, I think the balance should be towards allowing it.  Though I would set it up as self inflicted, an overdose released by a button the convict pushes rather than anyone else doing it.  It would be hard enough to watch them die.

[Tacenda]

I think the death penalty would be the easy way out, if he never woke up again. Or maybe the Grace given is for him as well, but what kind of hell will he experience if he has no conscience. Maybe he has enough that he will experience the LDS hell, and it being himself watching the horrible things he did in life. 

 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, let’s roll said:

If someone is convicted of a capital offense and, while on death row after all appeals have been exhausted, is killed by another inmate or a guard, would charges be brought against the killer?  If they were and you were a juror on the case, would you vote for a murder conviction.  For the death sentence?

My somewhat unorthodox opinion is the death penalty shouldn’t be abolished, but should only be used if the convicted killer petitions the court to impose it on the grounds that the killer has concluded that the penalty needs to be carried out as part of the process of accountability and healing.

Kind of like asking if you knew someone was sentenced to jail or prison and you kidnapped them yourself, would you be guilty of committing a crime?  For both questions I would tend to answer yes, because justice (as far as the law uses the term) is supposed to be administered by the state or country, not taken into our own hands.

I think the death penalty should exist but it should be a higher standard for using it than it now is (too many innocent people in prison).  I don't think it should just be whether or not the person is found guilty but also depend on what type of evidence they were found guilty on.  A mere lack of reasonable doubt doesn't seem enough to me.

[longview]

I think society would have been better served if Charles Manson had been quickly convicted and promptly executed. The only appeal process is to consider motions for challenging the most compelling evidences for the murder. Rehashing "technicalities" should NOT be used for appeals. But for the last several decades of Manson's life in prison the media publicized his tauntings and dislplaying his abominations with his bevy of cult followers.

ETA: Convictions should be made based on testimonies of at least three or more independent and reliable witnessses.

Edited June 2, 2024 by longview

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/1/2024 at 4:17 PM, blackstrap said:

And then there is this. Justice or not ? 

 Canadian Serial Killer Robert Pickton Dead at 74 After Prison Assault (msn.com)

This article annoys me.  Ms. Speakman, the reporter, refers to David Eby, whom she quotes, as the Canadian Premier.  Too bad she couldn't be bothered to do a ten-second Google search to ascertain that Mr. Eby is the Premier of British Columbia, and has not dethroned Justin Trudeau from his lofty perch as the Prime Minister of Canada (and shouldn't she have known that already?  ). 

Perhaps it's such a small thing that I shouldn't be bothered by it, but I assume the reporter is a citizen and/or a resident of the United States, so it perpetuates the Ugly/Ignorant American stereotype.

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/2/2024 at 8:27 AM, bluebell said:

 ... I think the death penalty should exist but it should be a higher standard for using it than it now is (too many innocent people in prison).  I don't think it should just be whether or not the person is found guilty but also depend on what type of evidence they were found guilty on.  A mere lack of reasonable doubt doesn't seem enough to me.

Whether, in individual cases, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is understood correctly and applied correctly certainly is a matter worthy of debate.  Whether the death penalty should be an option, and whether it should apply in individual cases, also are matters worthy of debate.  However, it might help readers to keep in mind that they are separate issues. 

And, also, it's important for readers to keep in mind what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means.  In the United States, there is no standard of proof higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt" other than "beyond any doubt whatsoever," which, of course, is an impossible standard for fallible humans to meet.   In good conscience and in good faith, if someone believes that the standard of proof for death penalty cases should be "beyond any doubt whatsoever," that person is entitled to that opinion, but, of course, that stance would obviate the death penalty completely.  (And of course, if a person believes that humans have no business deciding whether their fellow humans live or die, that's an understandable, principled position, as well.)

Meanwhile, it might be helpful for readers to keep in mind, also, that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that the only reasonable explanation, or that, by far, the most reasonable explanation) for what happened is that at least one crime was committed and that the person being tried is the person who committed it.  And since the penalty phase of a [possible] death penalty case is about the manner in which a murder was committed (i.e., whether it was committed in a particularly heinous, horrible, atrocious, callous (and so on) manner, or under circumstances that place it in that realm, such as age(s) of the victim(s), relationship between victim(s) and perpetrator, and so on), in order to be subject to that penalty, a person must be found to have acted in such a manner beyond a reasonable doubt, as well.

In summary, in the legal realm, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is considered the highest level of certainty that humans are capable of achieving, so while it might be nice to say that a higher standard should apply, that's not possible.