Sentenced to DEATH

[SCREAM]

Got this from another site...


Here's an article about a pedophile who was sentenced to die for murdering a mother, her fiancee and an older son to get to the daughter and younger son.

He apparently then raped, tortured, shot in the head and then burned the little boy and kept the little girl hostage for several more weeks to rape and torture her. An observant waitress at a Denny's spotted him with the little girl and called police.



Pedophile Sentenced to Death for Murdering 9-Year-Old Idaho Boy





BOISE, Idaho — A longtime sex offender was sentenced to death Wednesday for the 2005 kidnapping, torture and murder of a 9-year-old northern Idaho boy after federal jurors who watched video of some of the brutality deliberated just three hours.

The jurors' recommendation was binding on U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge, who thanked them, dismissed them and then sentenced Joseph Edward Duncan III.

Relatives of the victim, Dylan Groene, remained somber as the jury's decision was announced. Duncan murdered Dylan's mother, older brother and his mother's fiance to kidnap him and his younger sister, who was sexually abused along with her brother but survived.

"The jury speaks the mind of the community," U.S. Attorney Tom Moss said. "By the verdict today, they have given voice to the victims."

Duncan showed no reaction other than smiling as the verdict was passed to the judge.

He took Dylan and the boy's then-8-year-old sister, Shasta, to a remote western Montana campsite where he raped, tortured and threatened them before shooting Dylan in the head and burning his body. Jurors viewed horrifying video Duncan made of him sexually abusing, torturing and hanging Dylan until the boy lost consciousness

This defendant is dangerous. He is a predator who takes pride in his work," prosecutor Traci Whelan said. "He earned this day. His actions ... call out for the death penalty."

Duncan acted as his own attorney but had offered no response to prosecutors' closing argument.

"I have no argument," he told the court.

With an eye toward kidnapping the two children, Duncan stalked their family. In 2005 he entered their Coeur d'Alene-area home and used a hammer to fatally bludgeon their 13-year-old brother, Slade Groene, his mother, Brenda Groene, and her fiance, Mark McKenzie.

Duncan was arrested and Shasta rescued weeks after the kidnappings when a waitress at a Denny's in Coeur d'Alene called police after recognizing the two as they ate.

Duncan pleaded guilty in December to 10 federal charges involving the kidnappings and the murder of Dylan. He pleaded guilty to the other three murders in state court, where he also could be sentenced to death.

"I am so glad this is over. Justice has been served," said Darlene Torres, Brenda Groene's mother. "It's been very painful."

She said that when she saw Duncan in court, "I seen nothing but an evil, empty, coldhearted shell."

In closing arguments, Whelan reminded the jury of Duncan's lifelong "pattern of violence," including a conviction for raping a boy at gunpoint in 1980. Duncan has told investigators he killed two half-sisters from Seattle in 1996, and he is charged with killing a young boy in Riverside County, California, in 1997.

Duncan may now be brought to Riverside County to stand trial in the death of Anthony Martinez.

Whelan told the jury that Duncan would pose a risk even to prison guards and fellow inmates.

"This defendant uses the time that he has to think out these plans and he is dangerous," she said. "He is adaptable and he is dangerous."

The heinousness of the evidence in Dylan's murder made it particularly difficult for the jurors to remain impartial as they deliberate, said Art Patterson, a jury consultant and senior vice president of the trial consulting firm DecisionQuest.

"Generally, for human beings, it's pretty hard to maintain impartiality when confronted with such horror," Patterson said.

"How could any juror not want to see this person removed from our list of living human beings? How could you live with yourself as a juror if there's any chance this human being could escape from jail and do something like this again?" Patterson said.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,412104,00.html

[donquixote99]

Nice example. I'd use it for an anti-gun-control argument, myself. If there'd been a firearm handy in the Groene household, perhaps all this horror could have been cut short. That would have been a wonderful thing. Gun control removes that possibility.

Still, now that he's in custody, I'm not awfully anxious that he die. Won't do a lot of good now. As long as he's kept locked-up, I don't care that much. Guess we're just different that way.

Not that I'm terribly anxious that he live either, assuming he's the evildoer described. Just create a justice system guaranteed to execute only evil guilty people, and it will be ok with me.

Look, I'll go so far as to say that Duncan deserves death. But I don't want him dead so much that I'm willing to risk ever executing any innocent persons to get him. Alas, justice is known to operate quite imperfectly, and the only way to be sure to avoid executing the innocent is not to execute anyone.

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Look, I'll go so far as to say that Duncan deserves death. But I don't want him dead so much that I'm willing to risk ever executing any innocent persons to get him. Alas, justice is known to operate quite imperfectly, and the only way to be sure to avoid executing the innocent is not to execute anyone.

Life without parole would remove him from society, yet save his family from a certain level of grief, as he still has a mother and father, who don't want to see him die. Yes, his crime was horrible, but his parents didn't commit the crime. What's the need to make them suffer also? Not that I'm completely against the death penalty either, mind you.

[SCREAM]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

Life without parole would remove him from society, yet save his family from a certain level of grief, as he still has a mother and father, who don't want to see him die. Yes, his crime was horrible, but his parents didn't commit the crime. What's the need to make them suffer also? Not that I'm completely against the death penalty either, mind you.

You just made this about his parents? Really??

Okay.

Then how can you not be completely against the death penalty when you want this person to live just so his parents don't sufferer for him dying for his crimes?

Since almost all of us have parents, what else would he have had to do in order to deserve the death penalty since torturing, raping, and murdering a 9 year old isn't enough in your eyes? And if he could have done nothing else to get the death penalty in your eyes who do you think deserves it since you said you're not completely against the death penalty either?

[donquixote99]

Ninja, that's a gentle, humane thought. I respect it as such. I don't rate this increment of distress very high, however, compared to many other considerations. For one thing, the family of the murdered victims may be the sort that long for vengence, and will be distressed if Duncan is kept alive. I don't share such feelings, but I empathize. I think I'd give these feelings more consideration than the distress of bereavement of Duncan's family.

What I won't do is tolerate the execution of the innocent. That is a harm far beyond the distressed feelings of any side in this. And I believe any system capable of executing Duncan will execute innocent people from time to time.

[Bonniedundee]

I don't that the death penalty is particularly necessary, it tends to create an atmosphere that some taking of human life is okay in some circumstances, those chosen by the state and it helps to create fear of the state.

The true, unacknowledged purpose of capital punishment is to inspire fear and awe - fear and awe of the State.
Edward Abbey

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Ninja, that's a gentle, humane thought. I respect it as such. I don't rate this increment of distress very high, however, compared to many other considerations. For one thing, the family of the murdered victims may be the sort that long for vengence, and will be distressed if Duncan is kept alive. I don't share such feelings, but I empathize. I think I'd give these feelings more consideration than the distress of bereavement of Duncan's family.

I deal with this type of feeling every time I visit my childhood home, as I go to the house of the mother of my friend who I knew since age 3, who was shot in the face in a robbery at age 30. She wants the killer to be executed also...I don't tell her, but I don't wish to see the killer's mother also put through the same distress as my friend's mom...But then, she doesn't hear that from me.

[mammalicious]

This guy didn't just kill the boy...but almost the entire family. I am sorry for his parents, but he must be held accountable for his actions...if that means death, so be it.

As for gun control...it's irrelevent...one could argue that if there was a gun handy, the killer could have gotten hold of it himself. Most responsible people don't keep LOADED guns in a house where there are children.

[donquixote99]

You know, I'm willing to stipulate that this person, in justice, deserves death. But some number, probably between 5% and 10%, of those sentenced to die, are mis-convicted and do not deserve death. Within the limits of accuracy and honesty of human systems, we don't have a non-arbitrary way to sort them out. For this reason, if people think that in justice some people must be condemned to death, I say all death penalties should be automatically commuted to life in prison.

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You know, I'm willing to stipulate that this person, in justice, deserves death. But some number, probably between 5% and 10%, of those sentenced to die, are mis-convicted and do not deserve death. Within the limits of accuracy and honesty of human systems, we don't have a non-arbitrary way to sort them out. For this reason, if people think that in justice some people must be condemned to death, I say all death penalties should be automatically commuted to life in prison.

Again, I don't see how this detracts from the "removal from society" argument...And you don't bring a world of hurt down on a second family. What's the down side to this argument?

[donquixote99]

The only downside, which is mentioned above, is that the imprisoned killers may kill a guard, or escape and kill more civilians. So we have harms to weigh either way. On the one hand, 5% to 10% mis-convicted persons executed, on the other, some number or crimes by killers convicted but not executed.

So, does anyone have anything like data on how often convicted killers actually succeed in killing more people? It is, keep in mind, easy for the imagination to magnify the importance of unlikely dangers.

[Tom Joad]

Kill him. I don't want this SOB in the same world as me.

[donquixote99]

I can relate to that sentiment, Tom. I truly can. To repeat, my main concern is that any system with the power to kill him will also kill some people who don't deserve it, and I'm not willing to pay that price to off him.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

To repeat, my main concern is that any system with the power to kill him will also kill some people who don't deserve it, and I'm not willing to pay that price to off him.

I understand how you feel. When the state executes an innocent person, which we all know they have, I consider that to be a crime that is even more heinous than what this guy did. Still I think this guy should be executed. We have got to make the system better. I don't know what the answer is.

[Black Lance]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I can relate to that sentiment, Tom. I truly can. To repeat, my main concern is that any system with the power to kill him will also kill some people who don't deserve it, and I'm not willing to pay that price to off him.

Just to put things in a different perspective, would you feel different about it if he was going to be your new bunk mate in jail?

[Neko]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Just to put things in a different perspective, would you feel different about it if he was going to be your new bunk mate in jail?

And how would you feel if you were wrongly convincted of doing all the stuff he did?

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by Neko

And how would you feel if you were wrongly convincted of doing all the stuff he did?

Don't worry, his bunk mate would be The Straw Man.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Just to put things in a different perspective, would you feel different about it if he was going to be your new bunk mate in jail?

Yep. This is a well-known phenomena--it even has an informal (hard-to pronounce) acronym: the 'NIMLB principle.' Stands for Not In My Lower Bunk.

He'll be stuck in with newbies of low standing. That's just how it goes. Except of course where they'll really put him is supermax solitary.

What's the argument here--we should off him because other convicts will treat him with fear and loathing?

[elalumno]

He's a cancer on society, he needs to be surgically removed.

[Tom Joad]

If your daughter were to be raped and impregnated by this cree