Michael Ross Connecticut serial killer executed

MacNut

macrumors Core
Original poster
Jan 4, 2002
21,547
7,802
CT
Connecticut serial killer executed

Michael Ross

A serial killer who struggled to hasten his own death -- and was forced to prove he wasn't out of his mind -- was put to death this morning in Connecticut. It was New England's first execution in 45 years. Michael Ross, 45, fought off attempts by public defenders, death penalty foes and his own family to save his life. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday night rejected relatives' last-minute appeals, paving the way for the execution.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/13/ross.execution.ap/index.html
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,639
2
A public beheading Iraqi-style would have been cheaper and graphic enough to deter would-be criminals.
 

arf

macrumors member
Mar 2, 2004
55
0
UK
Lacero said:
A public beheading Iraqi-style would have been cheaper and graphic enough to deter would-be criminals.

you are sick in the head
 

EJBasile

macrumors 65816
Apr 20, 2004
1,304
2
Thank god, I'm tired of this stupid thing being dragged out and having to pay with it with my tax dollars.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
The system thrives on this kind of thing so it can soak the taxpayers for every last dime. Pretty silly waiting years and years to pay all those judges,lawyers,cops,jails,cooks,accountants,jailers,etc etc only then to get rid of the guy. Now what will they do? oh yeah they are trying to make criminals out of smokers next.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
redeye_be said:
he is, but he's right
All evidence I've seen is to the contrary, that the death penalty is simply not a deterrant. Can you enlighten me otherwise with some proof of your assertion?

No criminal thinks they're going to get caught, let along punished, at the time of the commission of the crime.
 

redeye be

macrumors 65816
Jan 27, 2005
1,138
0
BXL
mactastic said:
All evidence I've seen is to the contrary, that the death penalty is simply not a deterrant. Can you enlighten me otherwise with some proof of your assertion?

No criminal thinks they're going to get caught, let along punished, at the time of the commission of the crime.
I'm against the death penalty but doing it the 'lacero-way' would be indeed cheaper, and maybe have more 'effect' then the 'humane' way, if there is any effect and/or humane way.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Original poster
Jan 4, 2002
21,547
7,802
CT
The problem with the death penalty is that it could take up to 20 years for the execution to happen if at all. If it was a swift punishment then yes it would deter crime and people would think twice if they new that in 6 months they would be killed themselves.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
mactastic said:
All evidence I've seen is to the contrary, that the death penalty is simply not a deterrant. Can you enlighten me otherwise with some proof of your assertion?

No criminal thinks they're going to get caught, let along punished, at the time of the commission of the crime.
Who cares if it is a deterant?

He admitted it and at least we won't be paying to keep his miserable butt alive for 40 years.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
iGary said:
Who cares if it is a deterant?

He admitted it and at least we won't be paying to keep his miserable butt alive for 40 years.
It cost you more to execute his miserable butt than it would have to keep him alive for 40 years.

And if it's not a deterrant, what's the point? Vengence?
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
mactastic said:
It cost you more to execute his miserable butt than it would have to keep him alive for 40 years.

And if it's not a deterrant, what's the point? Vengence?
Really? He denied the whole appeals process...

So you're going to show me how 0>40. That'll be neat.

And if it's not a deterrant, what's the point?

Removing him from society without being a further burden on taxpayers.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
iGary said:
Really? He denied the whole appeals process...
I'm not sure how it works in CT, but generally a capital conviction GUARANTEES an appeal.

From the linked article (did you even read it?):
Last fall, he announced he was abandoning all remaining appeals -- which could have kept him alive for many years -- because his victims' families had suffered enough.
The bolded part would suggest that appeals had been conducted already, would it not? And who pays for those appeals again?

So you're going to show me how 0>40. That'll be neat.
Sure, it's easy.
Link'd
A 1993 Duke University study found that going through the entire process required to execute a prisoner costs $2.16 million more than keeping him locked up until he dies of natural causes.
Read up on it. Also I'd point you again to the original article where it says:
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected two last-minute appeals from Ross' relatives...
Both courts rebuffed a lawsuit brought on behalf of Ross' father...
They also rejected an attempt by Ross' sister to intervene...
...a federal judge scolded Ross' attorney and threatened to lift his law license for trying to hasten Ross' execution.
What do you think, that these hearings are free? Donated time from the judges, no overhead for courtrooms or staffers? That the courtroom fairy shows up and pays the tab?

And if it's not a deterrant, what's the point?

Removing him from society without being a further burden on taxpayers.
See above. Keep him in jail for life if you really want to reduce the burden on the taxpayers. Or just admit that you fall for a good emotionally-based case of bloodlust now and then.
 

rainman::|:|

macrumors 603
Feb 2, 2002
5,438
2
iowa
Good call Mactastic. The penal system needs to decide whether it's meant for rehabilitation or punishment... I mean, if it's the latter, let's stop dancing around these ideas that criminals even can be rehabilitated OR deterred... But the government killing someone is just punitive, period. If it saved money, there *might* be a case for it. Fortunately it's getting harder to justify having a death penalty when we condemn other countries for it, it's just a difference in who they apply it to...
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Lacero said:
A public beheading Iraqi-style would have been cheaper and graphic enough to deter would-be criminals.
Yeah, 'cause serial killers will straighen right up as soon as they'd see that :rolleyes:

Some sick SOBs just want to see a state-sanctioned snuff film. Probably get a chubby from watching it too.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
Mactastic,

Basically, what the studies you posted say is that the entire, LENGTHY, EXPENSIVE appeals process costs tons of money versus life in prison. The cases studied are based on specific, hand-picked death rows that had criminals on them facing their fifth, sixth and seventh appeals. Fine, sentence them to life and avoid the lengthy appeals process.

This guy confessed, asked to forego the appeals process, which of course, would have is cheaper than keeping him alive for fourty years. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? I say let him die.

So you've basically done what most left-leaning folks do when faced with soomeone who agrees with the death penalty in a case where there is NO DOUBT as to guilt or innocence. You've labeled them a bloodthirsty neocon right wing lunatic. Nice.

Otherwise, I'm not really sure what I think about the death penalty. I know this guy confessed and there was no doubt as to his sanity or guilt. If there is not 100% proof of guilt, I'm definitely against the death penalty.

So label me what you will.

You guys have fun in this little "area for free exchange of ideas" you've created where someone with a differing viewpoint basically gets attacked, labeled and filed as a fringe lunatic if they don't line up with your liberal viewpoints. It is really too bad that a lot of the moderate/right leaning folks on this board won't come in here anymore because there's no respect for their viewpoints - I've received at least a dozen PM's from folks saying it's a worthless cause to try and express your viewpoint in the political forum, and it's a shame, because these are good, smart people.

You rarely see a "Demokrats r stoopid liers faces" on this board, but there is no shortage of what you would label hate speech defamation of certain politicians in this country. I'm off to talk about Macs again. ;)

Have fun.

Cheers!

:D
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
iGary said:
So you've basically done what most left-leaning folks do when faced with soomeone who agrees with the death penalty in a case where there is NO DOUBT as to guilt or innocence. You've labeled them a bloodthirsty neocon right wing lunatic. Nice.
What is support of the death penalty if not bloodlust?

It's not about justice or punishment or deterrent. It's a thirst for revenge, pure and simple.

Death is not a penalty.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
iGary said:
You guys have fun in this little "area for free exchange of ideas" you've created where someone with a differing viewpoint basically gets attacked, labeled and filed as a fringe lunatic if they don't line up with your liberal viewpoints. It is really too bad that a lot of the moderate/right leaning folks on this board won't come in here anymore because there's no respect for their viewpoints - I've received at least a dozen PM's from folks saying it's a worthless cause to try and express your viewpoint in the political forum, and it's a shame, because these are good, smart people.
It's their fault if they can't keep up.

Crimea River.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
iGary said:
Mactastic,

Basically, what the studies you posted say is that the entire, LENGTHY, EXPENSIVE appeals process costs tons of money versus life in prison. The cases studied are based on specific, hand-picked death rows that had criminals on them facing their fifth, sixth and seventh appeals. Fine, sentence them to life and avoid the lengthy appeals process.
Yes that is the point. We can do executions on the cheap, but our courts have determined (and yes I understand that all judges are liberal and activist ;) ) that there is no way to give someone a fair shake without a lengthly appeals process.

This guy confessed, asked to forego the appeals process, which of course, would have is cheaper than keeping him alive for fourty years. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? I say let him die.
iGary, have you ever heard of suicide by cop? Coerced confessions? Diminished mental capacity? If you **** up and execute someone even though they have confessed but didn't do it you have potentially left a killer walking the streets. You've gone and done what most right-leaning folks do when presented with arguments against the death penalty: Try to present the guaranteed scenario where supposedly there is absolutely no doubt they guy is guilty. Problem is, life ain't black and white like that. You can NEVER know for sure.

I've not even gotten into the moral aspects of the death penalth, which IMHO are vastly more important than the accounting arguments. I'm only focusing on those because that's where you based your argument to start with. If you'd like to talk further about the futility of killing people to show how much our society despises killing people I'd be more than happy to.

So you've basically done what most left-leaning folks do when faced with soomeone who agrees with the death penalty in a case where there is NO DOUBT as to guilt or innocence. You've labeled them a bloodthirsty neocon right wing lunatic. Nice.
I did no such thing. You said you would rather sentence people to life if it's going to cost more, so I don't see any reason to label you bloodthirsty. I was simply pointing out that those were your choices when faced with the fact that the death penalty is neither a deterrent to crime, nor a cost-savings over life incarceration.

Otherwise, I'm not really sure what I think about the death penalty. I know this guy confessed and there was no doubt as to his sanity or guilt. If there is not 100% proof of guilt, I'm definitely against the death penalty.
Like I said, IRL there is no 100%. 99.99999% perhaps, but no guarantees.

So label me what you will.
Ok, I'll call you nominally anti-death penalty based on what you've just said. Feel free to correct me.

You guys have fun in this little "area for free exchange of ideas" you've created where someone with a differing viewpoint basically gets attacked, labeled and filed as a fringe lunatic if they don't line up with your liberal viewpoints. It is really too bad that a lot of the moderate/right leaning folks on this board won't come in here anymore because there's no respect for their viewpoints - I've received at least a dozen PM's from folks saying it's a worthless cause to try and express your viewpoint in the political forum, and it's a shame, because these are good, smart people.
Hmm.. Somehow 'Rat manages. I think if you asked him you'd find that he feels his views are respected, even if there is serious disagreement.

Politics ain't beanbag ya know? It's funny that you'd label this a liberal viewpoint forum. I don't think you'd know what to do with an actual honest-to-god leftist.

It's too bad you weren't here around the time the buildup to Dubya Dubya Two was going on, you would have seen a completely different forum here. The 'left' was in the minority for a long time. Once things went sour there a lot of the right-wing blusterers disappeared for some reason. ;)

You rarely see a "Demokrats r stoopid liers faces" on this board, but there is no shortage of what you would label hate speech defamation of certain politicians in this country. I'm off to talk about Macs again. ;)

Have fun.

Cheers!

:D
You aren't looking. Start a thread about Al Gore, Michael Moore, or HRC outside the poli section and you'll see it happen right quick.

Again, this forum is full-contact. I'll repeat that: This forum contains FULL CONTACT discussion. If you can't hang with that, stay out. If you can stay away from personal insults and trolling we welcome any and all comers.But don't expect kid glove treatment when you come in here and make some ***tty comment and then leave. Which I have to say, you've done several times. Frankly your tone towards me and others in this forums has been pretty sarcastic and insulting several times. So you can obviously dish it out, which is fine. But when it comes back at you, you start these worlds-tiniest-violin diatribes rather than trying to put forth a cogent argument.

Sucks, I was kind of hoping you would be able to provide a different viewpoint and be a regular in this forum. You have a unique perspective, and I think we probably agree about more than we disagree. But I gotta say, if I went over to 'Rat's High Road forum the last thing I'd be doing is whining about how all the gun owners are so hateful to liberals and why oh why won't everyone be nice to me. I'd expect to be taking it on the chin. A lot. But that politics, right?