Did Bundy deserve the death penalty?
i'm in two minds about this... i just dunno...i just think underneath, he may have been a good guy.
sharei hope you're joking.
shareare u crazy he killed an estimate of 45 people...maybe more,he never told anyone because he wanted to take the number to his grave
shareYes you are so right.. Jesus the guy was a necrophiliac for gods sake!!!
He knew exactly what he was doing and planned it all so well, but in the end it wasn't enough....Where would anyone get the idea from that he was a good guy underneath it all??
As you posted, we know of 45 people he killed, i'm sure theres a lot we dont know of...
Im sure the family members of the people he murdered are well glad he is gone.
Personally so am I.
he killed up to 300 women some say.
shareActually, he did want to tell them more in exchange for life in prison rather than the death penalty, but they wouldn't listen to him and still killed him, even though more families could've known where their lost loved ones where.
share"They" gave him every opportunity to tell and he squandered every single opportunity until it was too late.
If he'd started talking in good faith after his final appeal failed, then he might have had his sentence commuted to life because that was always an option.
Even on the last night of his life, he only gave the location and names of two of his Colorado victims.
He is suspected of the murders of at least 8 women in Washington State; one in Oregon; 7 in Utah, and many more that I'm not taking the time to list, it's all over the internet if you want to look it up - he probably murdered at least 40 women.
He was never going to talk. All he was ever going to do was promise to talk to delay the execution. If you think that the cops who worked the cases didn't want closure for the victims' families, and didn't want to "close" the cases (because all those cases will remain as 'open unsolved cases'), didn't try to pry the information out of him, that psychiatrists and cops and detectives didn't try to pry the information out of him, then you're not giving the 100's of people involved in cases which involved jurisdictions across 6 states any credit at all.
The only State that got a shot at Bundy was Florida. That's only because he got sloppy and left a trail of evidence a blind man could follow. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah and Colorado wanted their shot at him, too, but they needed confessions because they had no real evidence, just missing girls and a few bones here and there. They also wanted locations of bodies for the victims families.
Gary Ridgeway (the Green River Killer), by contrast, couldn't stop talking and got his deal. Bundy wouldn't say a word to anyone.
Who knows, maybe he couldn't.
Whatever the case, he had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing and all he did was what he'd always done: try to play people. In the end, it didn't work.
Don't expect me to feel sorry for him or come here singing that old song about "the system done him and the families wrong." The families knew, and know exactly who and what he was. They know he was asked every day until the last day.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but at least be informed of the facts before you form that opinion.
Suggested Reading: "The Stranger Beside Me," Ann Rule
"The Riverman," Dr. Robert D. Keppel
And many others:
http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-3818941-4664405?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ted+bundy&Go.x=11&Go.y=9
Eddie: "You just broke his ankle, Jack!"
Jack: "He shouldn't have been playing with adults." ii.iv
Gary Ridgeway (the Green River Killer), by contrast, couldn't stop talking and got his deal. Bundy wouldn't say a word to anyone.Sorry, sevenof9fl, but i gotta call you up on this - Gary Ridgeway didn't talk for ages, even after he got his deal. It's one of the famous cases where they tried everything to make the guy talk, and kept failing, then eventually worked out that he would confess it to a woman because his confessions of where the bodies were hidden would keep her "interested in him". It took them WEEKS to work that out - he only coughed up in the end because they sent a woman to question him where all men who tried had failed. To say he "couldn't stop talking" is utter nonsense: it has nothing to do with that - Bundy was just unlucky enough to commit his last couple of murders in a state that can't kill enough people. share
"Sorry, sevenof9fl, but i gotta call you up on this - Gary Ridgeway didn't talk for ages, even after he got his deal. It's one of the famous cases where they tried everything to make the guy talk, and kept failing, then eventually worked out that he would confess it to a woman because his confessions of where the bodies were hidden would keep her "interested in him". It took them WEEKS to work that out - he only coughed up in the end because they sent a woman to question him where all men who tried had failed. To say he "couldn't stop talking" is utter nonsense: it has nothing to do with that - Bundy was just unlucky enough to commit his last couple of murders in a state that can't kill enough people."
ROFLMAO! Confessing to the crimes was the only reason that King County took the death penalty off the table!!
And as for interviews, Reichert did most of the interviewing because he was on the case as long as Randy Mullinax (a guy, fyi).
Read up:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/2832250/detail.html
From the article: "Ridgway avoided the death penalty by striking a plea deal with King County prosecutors."
Next time, you may want to educate yourself before looking like a complete moron.
"As the Philosopher Jagger said, you can't always get what you want."
Uh, i've kinda spoken to the psychologist who worked the case, but whatever - i'm sure an internet article is more reliable than her...
Yes, the DA did only take the Death Penalty off the table when he agreed to confess, but he kept being really vague about the locations of the bodies, and only confessed to 30 or so. My point wasn't that he confessed to avoid the death penalty, just that the statement "he couldn't talk enough" was retarded, since he clearly held back for a long time. So maybe you wanna take your own advice about educating yourself? Just a suggestion...
I've spoken to Dr. Robert Keppel about this case AND the Bundy case.
My suggestion is that you believe whatever fantasy you want to believe about it, eh, and I'll stick to the facts as I know them from my sources.
You are now on "ignore," since you have nothing but ad hominem attacks to offer any reader - and that goes back to your very first response.
Have a nice life.
"As the Philosopher Jagger said, you can't always get what you want."
[deleted]
No, Ted purposely and cruelly held back information from the parents in a failed effort to delay the death penalty. He wanted to hold the reigns until the very end. It backfired on him. He had ZERO remorse.
sharehe wasnt a good guy but i think no one deserves death .. who are we to decide about life /death i think this is the most barbaric thing in america (death penalty)
share"he wasnt a good guy but i think no one deserves death .. who are we to decide about life /death i think this is the most barbaric thing in america (death penalty) " -marcsampson...
Maybe if he had gotten his hands on a female in your family, you'd feel slightly different. Who was Bundy to decide life or death? He did it for innocent people. Is the punishment he dished out to harsh for him? Seriously?
First let me clarify my position on the death penalty. Its stupid, it doesn't work, and it is used primarily as a salve to the family of the victim.
First the economic argument for getting rid of the death penalty. It costs as much to pay for the appeals process, the 10 years on Death Row, and the execution process as it does to incarcerate some for life without parole. There is almost no difference in cost actually, so the argument its cheaper to kill them is wrong.
Second, the argument, "they deserve to die." This is a completely self-defeating argument. If you say that it is moral to kill someone for murder, by logical extension it is perfectly justifiable for the family of the person executed to kill the man or woman who actually executes the murderer. By the moral standard expoused above, it is justifiable to commit murder in revenge for killing someone. No state can take the moral high ground, and legislate against homicide, by using homicide as a method of punishment. It is impossible to justify it either ethically or morally.
Thirdly, whilst we have an imperfect legal system, where innocent people are convicted of crimes, even capital crimes, then it is possible for mistakes to be made. If someone is locked up for 15 years, but subsequent evidence proves them innocent, they at least can be pardoned, compensated and released. Its a bit hard to do so when you've killed the wrong person. Whilst 95% of convictions may indeed be correct, its the 5% that concern me. And we are humans, so wrongful convictions will be made, make no mistake about it.
Finally, if we have captured someone like Bundy, he is a resource to people like Robert Ressler, a profiler at the BAU from the FBI, to study and understand why Bundy is like he is. Perhaps by understanding what caused or made Bundy the way he is, we can prevent or identify earlier others like him. Any serial killer that is caught should be subjected to tests, analysis and interview over a prolonged period of time. Serial murder is on the increase, there are more than 50 serial killers currently believed to be operating in the US alone. It is only by understanding what makes someone a serial killer, either genetics, environment, upbringing, abuse, whatever, that we can go someway towards trying to stop it.
By executing people, you are not only not saving money, you are becoming as morally bankrupt as those you wish to punish, assuming you have the right person in the first place, and you are denying society of a valuable research resource in trying to stop others like them.
How on earth can you justify killing?
Bundy and others must of course be punished, they must be removed from society so that they cannot harm others, they must be understood, so that we can stop others like them.
There is no argument that you can bring to bear that justifies to me, murder by the state. And there are significant benefits to not doing so. If you catch Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, Berkowicz, Ramirez etc etc, then you have a duty to make sure they never get the chance to harm anyone else again. You can do that without descending to their level, and you can always be sure in the knowledge that if a mistake is made, it can be rectified.
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste......
Just to cement my above comments, I wanted to add this, a direct quote from the autobiography of Albert Pierrepoint, one of the last official executioners in the UK before the death penalty was abolished....
"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."
A fairly comprehensive endictment from a man who executed between 400-600 men and women. (Estimates vary as Pierrepoint famously refused to name a figure)
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste......
And I'll bet that man was not the father of a murdered child. Easy to spout grand-sounding ideas when you have no clue what it feels like.
shareAs Arnold once said "Wroooong."
You say:
First the economic argument for getting rid of the death penalty. It costs as much to pay for the appeals process, the 10 years on Death Row, and the execution process as it does to incarcerate some for life without parole. There is almost no difference in cost actually, so the argument its cheaper to kill them is wrong.
obviously it IS cheaper. Because after the period of time you state, the cell that this piece of scum would be inhabiting WILL be FREE to house more scum and keep said scum off OUR streets.
I have enough faith in my judgment to recognize a stinker.
First the economic argument for getting rid of the death penalty. It costs as much to pay for the appeals process, the 10 years on Death Row, and the execution process as it does to incarcerate some for life without parole. There is almost no difference in cost actually, so the argument its cheaper to kill them is wrong.
obviously it IS cheaper. Because after the period of time you state, the cell that this piece of scum would be inhabiting WILL be FREE to house more scum and keep said scum off OUR streets.
A completely fallacious argument. If you calculate the cost of incarcerating a person for their natural life (assuming an average spread of years), and the cost of the appeals, keeping someone locked on Death Row, which is more expensive that other prisons and all other costs involved, the costs are roughly equivalent.
Frankly if the only argument you can come up with is an economic argument for the death penalty then I would venture that you have no argument.....The death penalty should be argued for on moral and ethical grounds if we are to have that penalty as part of our judicial system. So far I've seen no moral or ethical argument which justifies it.
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste...... share
Oh, the death penalty works, alright. You don't see Bundy doing anymore killings, do you?
shareSo, he wasn't barbaric you are saying marcsampson. This man would rape his victims and then murder, and then rape them again when they were dead. Him and Manson are two of the people that REALLY needs to be executed. Ted Bundy was one of the worst serial killers for one big reason, the man had graduated with honors from the University of Washington as a psychology major. He was smart, and he knew how to get at someone (which he did A LOT). Some people DO deserve death, especially ones who commit it as much as Manson, Bundy, and the other serial killers do. Remember, people can get out of prison, but not out of death. I think we give serial killers to much lee-way in this country. It's not like Ted Bundy was only convicted of one of the murders, he was convicted by a jury of his peers on MULTIPLE charges.
shareWho are we to decide life and death? Well, think about it... Certain psychopaths and sociopaths completely lack any feelings of empathy and sympathy. Now think real hard - YOU are asking your rhetorical question because you are a person who has some empathy - you, in your mind are making a judgement that well, maybe we should not kill people like Bundy...
Now, reverse your thinking - what if you had NO feeling at all for others - and I mean NONE AT ALL. You dont care about someone else hurting themselves, you dont care about other's pain, you live only to serve your own whims, wishes and percieved needs. If you had this, and Bundy's drive to murder, rape and torture, you would be (as Bundy was) the perfect killing machine and you would go on killing, serving your own narcissitic needs, for as long as you could.
Do you think a person like that deserves life? The answer very simply is NO!!! Why? Because in an ordered society you cannot have these kinds of abberations - you cant cure them, you cant change them, and if you lock them up you spend thousands to store away someone who will never change.
Its just better to kill them. I know that sounds harsh, but think about this...
If Ted Bundy had not been caught, he would have gone on killing eternally. Think about the lives that were saved because we got rid of Ted.
[deleted]
Of course he had to be executed. Because Americans are stupid, he escaped TWICE. Killing Bundy was the only way to keep the rest of us safe.
As Americans are so moronic I half expected some twit to post on how he shouldn't die as he is an American. If he had done exactly the same abroad you dolts would have given him the Purple Heart!
By the way, stop comparing him to Charles Manson. For the benefit of stupid Americans I...WILL.... SAY.... THIS.... VERY.... SLOWLY...
MANSON.... WAS.... NOT.... A... SERIAL... KILLER.
Got that?
Good.
Sigh.....
manson was a nut but he didn't kill anyone but it just made you all feel so much better to blame him rather than the people who actually carried out the murders...anyone remember their names.
I'm against the death penalty in all cases, I think it hypocritcal of anyone to argue that it's ok for the state to kill people they don't like but individuals can't. It isn't really leading by example now is it? The death penalty is not nor has it ever been a deterent.
[deleted]
he wasnt a good guy but i think no one deserves death .. who are we to decide about life /death i think this is the most barbaric thing in america (death penalty)
_____________
Tell that to the families of the victims. Tell that to me if somebody ever kidnaps, rapes, terrorizes, tortures, and kills your daughter. What are you going to do, go over to the killer with a Bible in your hand and tell him you forgive him?
The only way I would be in favor of commuting his sentence to life imprisonment without possibility of parole would be if he was kept in solitary confinement permanently.
You ask who are we to decide about life and death. Who was Bundy to decide that?
In my opinion, people who argue against the death penalty lack the ability to fully comprehend the monstrousity of the offender's crimes. They also place a small shred of humanity inside the killer, when anyone who has properly studied abnormal psychology knows people like Bundy live and function without a conscience, without the least amount of remorse for their crimes. Make no mistake: those crocodile tears Bundy sniveled out during his interview with Dr. Dobson were only for one person: himself. His only regret was that he was never caught.
Bundy did not 'help' with the Green River Killer search out of the goodness of his little heart. He did it so he could prove to others how much more useful he was alive than dead. And also because he wanted to relive his masturbatory fantasizes of raping and killing young women. Remember it was DNA evidence that caught Gary Ridgway, not Ted Bundy.
What is the purpose in keeping him alive? To have him be studied? He got 10 years to be studied on death row. People think the death penalty is cruel and inhumane. Don't forget what he did to his victims was far worse. How about how after he raped Janice Ott, he tied her up for a couple hours, and then returned back with Denise Naslund, and forced Janice watch him rape Denise? Or how about while he was sodomizing Kimberly Leach, he brutally slit her throat from behind? Compared to those crimes, getting his ass fried in the chair for a minute was a much easier death.
The only reason they should have given him more time to live was to find out about other missing girls that disappeared in his designated murder states during the time of his killing spree. There are many unsolved cases, and now because he's gone, we'll never know for sure. But he probably would only have doled out a little bit of information at a time. They had to play so many headgames with him, it's astounding. It was all a part of his plan to get more time to live. Although I mourn the fact that we'll never know the identies of at least 10 of his victims, I'm glad Gov Bob Martinez finally pulled the plug when he did. Justice was finally 15 years later.
In my opinion, people who argue against the death penalty lack the ability to fully comprehend the monstrousity of the offender's crimes. They also place a small shred of humanity inside the killer, when anyone who has properly studied abnormal psychology knows people like Bundy live and function without a conscience, without the least amount of remorse for their crimes. Make no mistake: those crocodile tears Bundy sniveled out during his interview with Dr. Dobson were only for one person: himself. His only regret was that he was never caught.
I fully aware of Bundy's mental state and his inability to judge right and wrong. You are missing most of the thrust of my arguments which have nothing to do with the person committing the crime. It is irrelevant as to whether or not Bundy felt remorse or how he came across in the interview.
You cannot take the moral high ground, and legislate against homicide, if you use homicide as a method of punishment. This is a completely logically inconsistent position to take. We as a society should hold higher moral values that those we seek to stop committing crimes of whatever nature.
Also, in Bundy's case he was guilty. There are other cases where the person accused and convicted were innocent. Under Life without Parole, you have the opportunity to make this right, under the death penalty there is no recourse to fix mistakes.
Bundy did not 'help' with the Green River Killer search out of the goodness of his little heart. He did it so he could prove to others how much more useful he was alive than dead. And also because he wanted to relive his masturbatory fantasizes of raping and killing young women. Remember it was DNA evidence that caught Gary Ridgway, not Ted Bundy.
That way well be true, but the research done, and the interviews by Kessler and others DID help us to understand Bundy and what drives him better, and thus we can use this inconjunction with other research to help stop other serial murderers. You are seeming to imply nothing good came from the interviews with Bundy, the people at the BIA at Quantico have argued otherwise and frankly its their opinion I'd prefer to take since they are the ones actually conducting the research.
What is the purpose in keeping him alive? To have him be studied? He got 10 years to be studied on death row. People think the death penalty is cruel and inhumane. Don't forget what he did to his victims was far worse. How about how after he raped Janice Ott, he tied her up for a couple hours, and then returned back with Denise Naslund, and forced Janice watch him rape Denise? Or how about while he was sodomizing Kimberly Leach, he brutally slit her throat from behind? Compared to those crimes, getting his ass fried in the chair for a minute was a much easier death.
No one is excusing his crimes. He deserved to be locked away for the rest of his natural life. But we are arguing the death penalty in general here, and NO ONE deserves a death penalty from the state, because the state has no moral basis to issue a death warrant. As I pointed out above, you can't say "It's wrong to kill, and I'll kill you if you do." And for this to have any moral or ethical force. Its imply logically incionsistent.
Some states may currently have a LEGAL basis for doing so, but there is no ethical or moral argument you can put forwards that justifies the death penalty. None.
The only reason they should have given him more time to live was to find out about other missing girls that disappeared in his designated murder states during the time of his killing spree. There are many unsolved cases, and now because he's gone, we'll never know for sure. But he probably would only have doled out a little bit of information at a time. They had to play so many headgames with him, it's astounding. It was all a part of his plan to get more time to live. Although I mourn the fact that we'll never know the identies of at least 10 of his victims, I'm glad Gov Bob Martinez finally pulled the plug when he did. Justice was finally 15 years later.
This is typical of the emotive arguments put forwards for the death penalty. If you take away wanting revenge for his crimes, you have no moral or ethical case for the death penalty. If Bundy was locked away in a super max prison for the rest of his life, how is this different for society than killing him? Its not, you have permanently removed his threat to society, and he can no longer hurt others. Why are you driven by such blood lust to kill? And its not you that are actually doing the killing, you are passing that responsibility to someone else, and washing your hands of the whole matter.
Society as a whole must take a higher moral stand than this. Otherwise if we accept state-sponsored killing, how are we better than people like Bundy?
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste...... share
SiPayn , Please be so kind as to quote (even by cut 'n' paste) examples of these MANY innocent people going to the chair, I don't have the time at work here to go into one about this, but seriously, for someone to be found guily "beyond" a reasonable doubt they had to be up to something themselves? It's not a case of a murder is committed on the south side of town and the cops come a knocking on a fella who lives on the north side of town 5 minutes later. How do these pople get found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I am genuinely interested and would like to know for my own education. It's probable I give you that, but I don't actually know of any genuine examples that I can study?
I have enough faith in my judgment to recognize a stinker.
SiPayn , Please be so kind as to quote (even by cut 'n' paste) examples of these MANY innocent people going to the chair, I don't have the time at work here to go into one about this, but seriously, for someone to be found guily "beyond" a reasonable doubt they had to be up to something themselves?
Firstly, I never claimed many innocent people have been executed. But if even one has, it is one too many.
Secondly, I can think of dozens of cases in the UK where there is no death penalty, when people would have been executed for capital crimes, only to be exornerated years later. The Birmingham Six are a classic example. The West Midlands Serious Crime Squad effectively fabricated evidence and gave false testimony which convicted 6 irish guys of terrorist offences including bombings which killed people, when they were innocent. They were only freed many years later, which they could not have been had they been executed like Timothy McVey was in the US. I am not suggesting for one moment that McVey was innocent, but the Birmingham Six were, and in the US they would have been executed under the same cirmcumstances if convicted.....
I would prefer a guilty man to go free, than to incarcerate or kill an innocent one. Its part of the point of reasonable doubt. If you would prefer to executed innocents rather than the possibility of a guilty one going free, that is your perogative. A very bloodthirsty, and revenge driven one, but entirely your perogative....
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste...... share
Say that again AFTER some *beep* rapes and murders your kid
sharehe wasnt a good guy but i think no one deserves death .. who are we to decide about life /death i think this is the most barbaric thing in america (death penalty)
You should have tried this appeal with all of Bundy's victims as he was killing them. Applying your logic, who was Bundy to decide their lives and deaths? share
Ted deserved death. It's barbaric to make the parents of his victims suffer by his living.
share