Paul Runge, "satan"

Oh yeah, he also confessed. So what's the excuse not to execute this guy?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 15, 2001

Answers

We must be compassionate. This unfortunate young man came from a dysfunctional home. A civilized society does not murder its murderers. It rehabilitates them. It forgives them. It loves them even as they torture your daughters.

-- (squishy@Squeeky_Fromm's.cell), June 15, 2001.

Fry his ass and screw the new age thinking.. This bastard killed hundreds and needed to die! end of story.

-- GeorgeWBushRocks (isay@fry.com), June 16, 2001.

I don't think he killed hundreds but certainly more than one. The issue of his guilt is moot. The DNA proves his guilt. We need not be concerned about executing an innocent man.

In such a case we are down to basics. What is justice? What is permissable in a humane society?

IMO, certain behaviors are taboo and society must have the courage to say so. Alas, sometimes the only way for society to speak against atrocities is to speak in the language of atrocity, whether it be war or execution or incarceration.

There is danger here of course. Society must be circumspect in its use of the strongest means, less they become a weapon of oppression. But there are times when nothing else is appropriate. Give Runge a fair trial. If found guilty, execute him with hunanity and dispatch.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 16, 2001.

Hang the bastard!!!

-- Judge Roy Bean (-@-.-), June 16, 2001.

"In such a case we are down to basics. What is justice? What is permissable in a humane society?"

I suppose it is somewhat perverse of me, but I see nothing unjust or inhumane about executing someone who is guilty of engaging in multiple rape-and-torture murders. I fully agree that, given guilt, the death penalty could be called "justice".

My problem with the death penalty is based purely on the observation that there is no clear set of rules for applying it that work well enough to prevent it from being applied unequally or unjustly. Our court system is frequently fallible in determining guilt and it is even more fallible in meting out equal justice.

For example, you state that in this case that, because the DNA evidence establishes guilt, the defendant is assuredly guilty. But, what if the DA and the crime lab colluded to falsify the DNA evidence?

What if this fact came to light after they had conspired to kill a dozen innocent defendents? How could justice be served there? Sentence the DA and his collaborators to death?

If I am going to be killing people in the name of justice, I want a foolproof system for finding guilt. That will never be.

I contrast this to the goal: justice. If justice is assigning guilt correctly, punishing the guilty and preventing further crimes, then justice can be achieved without the death penalty. In fact, by eschewing the death penalty we can increase the chances of a just outcome, marginally, by leaving room for those few mistakes that happen to be corrected.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 16, 2001.

Has OJ found the "real murderer" yet?

-- (Dominick_Dunne_@_Vanity.Fair), June 17, 2001.

DNA clears serial killer after 22 years

This is wonderful news and supports those who point out that false convictions are being overturned by DNA evidence that was not formerly available (or even dreamed of).

But the same DNA evidence that can prove the innocence of those convicted of murder by old-fashioned techniques can also prove the guilt of a heinous killer beyond doubt (you can't have it work one way and not the other).

In my mind, this reduces future debate to the appropriateness of capital punishment. My personal view is that capital punishment is "just" punishment for mass murderers, serial murderers, traitors during wartime and miscellaneous atrocities (such as Jame Byrd). I think capital punishment should be reserved as a special punishment for especially heinous crimes that warrant society's condemnation.

My opinion of course.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 17, 2001.

Try again.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 17, 2001.

Try again again. LI NK

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 17, 2001.

I think OJ gave up, which is a shame, really. There's a golf course across the street from where I live, and I don't think he's checked that one yet. I'm positive that's where The Real Killers are hiding.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 17, 2001.

"..you can't have [DNA evidence] work one way and not the other..."

You seem to have missed my point. DNA evidence is just as capable of being falisified as any other. Our system recognizes the fact that evidence can be falsified, and it takes measures to forestall this, or, if those measures fail, punishing proven instances of it.

If the victim of the crime of evidence falsification is executed, then what can be done? Not bloody much.

You may reasonably compare the vitim of this crime (falsification of evidence) to the victim of a murderer and say that no victim of murder, because they were unjustly killed, ever recieves justice. The difference here is that the state is the murderer and the murder was preventable by the state - by not having a death penalty. Then the injustice of the murder stains all of us, not just the criminal.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 18, 2001.

LN--

It's not necessary to create a Johnie Cochranesque scenario. You oppose capital punishment---an honorable POV of some tradition. In limited cases (such as McVeigh, Runge and Bundy, etc), I support it. You will never convince me otherwise and vice-versa.

I did not start this thread to debate capital punishment (again). I started it to publicize an example of DNA technology being used to convict as well as to overturn.

If you are that concerned about frame-ups, then possibly you view the entire justice system as corrupt. Do you? If so, you should propose improved rules of evidence.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 18, 2001.

I do oppose capital punishment, but on very limited grounds. Most opponents have based their opposition on some form of the argument that the punishment is inhumane, or that it disproportionately targets minorities.

As I see it, the system is meant to deliver the closest approximation of justice we can devise. According to my valuation capital punishment does not deliver a higher level of justice than life without parole. I also think that eliminating the death penalty would deliver a marginally higher rate of justice. Because I see the improvement as marginal, I am not especially passionate in my opposition, but I still see it as a worthwhile improvement. Killing the innocent leaves a bad taste.

"If you are that concerned about frame-ups, then possibly you view the entire justice system as corrupt. Do you?"

I do not view the entire system as corrupt. I believe that no point in the system is incorruptible and that this shall always be true.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 18, 2001.

Fair enough

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 18, 2001.