Well as you have addressed this to me specifically, I will respond to you directly:I wear big girl panties so welcome the opinions and sensible questions. I do feel like we are going around and round now, though with people say x opinion isn't welcome but y opinion is. Let it go.
I think this was tackled well in I am a Killer - gave an insight from both sidesI don't think all convicts on death row are evil psychopaths. I imagine many of them who made a terrible decision many years ago have grown considerably in that time and taken the opportunity to reflect and express remorse, perhaps try to make amends as best they can. Nothing can lessen the crime they committed but equally they are a whole person aside from their crime. I can understand how people could not get past the crime though.
Well mature debate requires that any thesis can be responded to in kind by an alternative thesis. If a customer volunteers the information that she writes to a person on death row, whom she considers a “dear sweet human”, and then furthermore gives that persons name then it is surely immature, or at best desperately niave, to think that anyone wouldn’t immediately Google him to find out exactly what the dear sweet human did. Indeed wouldn’t carrying out the said Google search be very much in line with expanding the opprtunity to learn/educational experience you outlined in posts 382 and 386 above. Maturity surely suggests that an educational experience is of little value unless all the facts are understood. (In fact sod it, I would put my mortgage on betting you googled him yourself). And in additional fact i would say that an educational experience is of no value UNTIL all the facts are known. Because that is what makes the difference between informed opinion, and biased propaganda.A mature one
Being empathic and nonjudgmental does not equal abandoning your own moral framework and disgust at his actions. He slaughtered an elderly woman who would have been physically unable to defend herself. He was found guilty of this at trial, and this decision was upheld at subsequent appeals. What further understanding is required? And what is the purpose of such understanding other than to seek reasons to minimise the severity of his actions. Mitigation would have been considered at the sentencing and subsequent appeals. From what I’ve seen of the trial reports none was found.I am not a person of faith. I am a mental health professional. I lead with being nonjudgmental and empathetic in my personal and professional lives. I have a history of addiction - I understand how that can affect people. Other people’s opinions of me are none of my business. And I try to see the bigger picture in most circumstances. I have found this discussion educational and thought provoking - thank you OP.
I agree.I wonder if the 88 year old lady may have loved to have knitted baby blankets for her family but sadly that opportunity was taken away from her.
Murder is murder - it is not “different” because it is an elderly person.
Another poster asked if he’s shown any remorse?
Have you not asked him if he is guilty because you really don’t want to know?
Your husband must have the patience of a saint to accept that you’re not only writing to another man but that you want to visit a murderer and then give his gifts to your children.
Help me understand because I’m at a total loss.
The whole person outside of their crime scenario can only work if we assume that each decision you make has equal importance and impact on your life. That somehow choosing which socks to put on in a morning is of equal import to a persons character then choosing to take the first puff of the crack pipe. The reality is you simply can’t separate a death row prisoner from his crimes in any meaningful way. Everything about that persons life, his accommodation, his daily routine, even his eventual death, is as a consequence of the said “terrible decision”. Not all decisions are created equal. There are no metaphysical scales which he can rebalance by simple reflection, once the scales are tipped to the extent you end up on death row they are tipped for ever, in both a legal and moral sense. In this case what do you propose he does to ”make amends” to Myrtle and her family. Say he’s very sorry and he pinky promises not to do it again? The amends is that he serves the sentence set out by the court. If he genuinely has remorse he must surely understand that.I don't think all convicts on death row are evil psychopaths. I imagine many of them who made a terrible decision many years ago have grown considerably in that time and taken the opportunity to reflect and express remorse, perhaps try to make amends as best they can. Nothing can lessen the crime they committed but equally they are a whole person aside from their crime. I can understand how people could not get past the crime though.
When I spoke of being empathetic and nonjudgmental- I was referring to the OP.Being empathic and nonjudgmental does not equal abandoning your own moral framework and disgust at his actions.
Yeah I love that channel! Don't think this is one I have watched yet (video is blocked).Does anyone watch the channel ewu on YouTube? The latest video of the police interview is the most shocking I've seen.
I'm not sure what to think, claims of him being bipolar or schizophrenic but cant find any info if true.
He killed his wife and 10 yr old daughter, luckily his 4yr old son survived his 11 stab wounds,
Apparently the judge took the death penalty off the table due to request of the victims family.
The only emotion he seems to show in the interview is his relief of having his handcuffs removed.
Wow, I've never heard of him. 13 is so young but I'm torn because I believe James Bulger's killers should have never been released. I think the fact his friend got such a light sentence makes it all seem worse.All this death row talk has reminded me of the case of Ronald Sanford in the US. He was interviewed by Trevor McDonald for his death row series. He, along with an older friend, murdered 2 elderly sisters when he was 13 for $5. He was encouraged to admit responsibility on the understanding that his age and lack of conclusive evidence would lead to a shorter sentence however he was sentenced to 170 years without parole when he was 15 and his accomplice got a much lesser sentence and was released after a few of years. The case has always left me really torn. Yes of course, he should be punished for his crime but also, he was 13He's spent his life in jail educating himself and seeking redemption, in the interviews I've seen with him he comes across as a humble man, truly sorry for his actions. Is his sentence fair? I can't decide.
Why did the older friend get a lesser sentence? You would think he’d get longer and in the context of only knowing what you’ve said about the case (not heard of it previously) it does seem an unfair sentence. Maybe he should have got less or his accomplice moreAll this death row talk has reminded me of the case of Ronald Sanford in the US. He was interviewed by Trevor McDonald for his death row series. He, along with an older friend, murdered 2 elderly sisters when he was 13 for $5. He was encouraged to admit responsibility on the understanding that his age and lack of conclusive evidence would lead to a shorter sentence however he was sentenced to 170 years without parole when he was 15 and his accomplice got a much lesser sentence and was released after a few of years. The case has always left me really torn. Yes of course, he should be punished for his crime but also, he was 13He's spent his life in jail educating himself and seeking redemption, in the interviews I've seen with him he comes across as a humble man, truly sorry for his actions. Is his sentence fair? I can't decide.
Was the friend equally complicit too? Unbelievable the differences in sentencing there.All this death row talk has reminded me of the case of Ronald Sanford in the US. He was interviewed by Trevor McDonald for his death row series. He, along with an older friend, murdered 2 elderly sisters when he was 13 for $5. He was encouraged to admit responsibility on the understanding that his age and lack of conclusive evidence would lead to a shorter sentence however he was sentenced to 170 years without parole when he was 15 and his accomplice got a much lesser sentence and was released after a few of years. The case has always left me really torn. Yes of course, he should be punished for his crime but also, he was 13He's spent his life in jail educating himself and seeking redemption, in the interviews I've seen with him he comes across as a humble man, truly sorry for his actions. Is his sentence fair? I can't decide.
That’s a very good point regards James Bulger’s killers, I hadn’t thought of that and I certainly don’t think they should have been released as quickly as they were. I’m definitely more conflicted (rightly or wrongly) because of how Sanford came across in interviews. He seemed, yeah I’m gonna say it, like a nice genuine guy who’d made a terrible decision. I’m not sure a convicted murderer can be a nice person though.Wow, I've never heard of him. 13 is so young but I'm torn because I believe James Bulger's killers should have never been released. I think the fact his friend got such a light sentence makes it all seem worse.
The friend was arrested a year later and, from what I’ve read, put all the blame on Sanford. The legal representation Sanford received seems questionable at the very least.Why did the older friend get a lesser sentence? You would think he’d get longer and in the context of only knowing what you’ve said about the case (not heard of it previously) it does seem an unfair sentence. Maybe he should have got less or his accomplice more
Found this on change.org site. He got a plea deal.Why did the older friend get a lesser sentence? You would think he’d get longer and in the context of only knowing what you’ve said about the case (not heard of it previously) it does seem an unfair sentence. Maybe he should have got less or his accomplice more
Ronald L Sanford grew up in a troubled home with no parental guidance. Ronald one day was looking to make money by cutting grass with a friend, Sean Rowe, which turned into a double homicide where Sanford was sentenced to 170 years at the age of 15 for a crime he committed at 13 by side of Sean Rowe. Rowe was older than Sanford at the time and agreed to testify against Sanford for a plea deal, which he received and was only sentenced to 5 years and was later released in 1991. The court had no substantial evidence on Sanford and actually only relied on Rowe’s testimony on convicting Sanford. Sanford was not made aware that he could appeal his sentence and has since has made multiple attempts to make a appeal which continuously has been denied
Thanks for posting that, my browser only threw up very limited results.Found this on change.org site. He got a plea deal.
This is what I’ve found..Why did the older friend get a lesser sentence? You would think he’d get longer and in the context of only knowing what you’ve said about the case (not heard of it previously) it does seem an unfair sentence. Maybe he should have got less or his accomplice more
I don’t think people commit murder with the idea of their future sentence in mind. It’s been shown time and time again that the death sentence is not a deterrent for crime.you’d think with living in America you’d be more cautious about killing people as you’re guaranteed to be put on death row, depending on the severity of the murder and well depending on what state as I know not every one does have the death penalty. I know not everyone will think like that but you’d think they would think twice surely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?