Parole Hearing Victims
Dave64052
The K.C.Star carried a story this morning, about an elderly couple, suffering
again, due to having to testify at a Parole Hearing for the man who brutally
killed two of their children in 1983. The man was given a Life Sentence in a
Kansas prison, but "life" held out the possibility of parole too.
This is the story of how Carol and John Duffield of Olathe, Ks., had their
lives wrecked 15 years ago, and now they must go through this nightmare again,
and again, everytime the convicted murderer Michael Cade is "up for parole."
"On a freezing January night, Cade walked into the Olathe home of John and
Carol Duffield and their three children. He didn't know the Duffields. He'd
picked their house at random.
"He attacked the sleeping 15-year-old Paul Duffield with a hammer, beating him
nearly to death. He crushed 12-year-old Janelle Duffield's skull with the
hammer. He dicided to rape her and started to undress the unconsicious,
fatally injured girl. After realizing she was 'kinda young,' he stopped.
"That's when Kelly Duffield, 17, walked into her sister's room. Cade covered
her mouth with his hand, threatened to hurt her if she screamed and forced her
outside.
"He drove her to a lake in the middle of Olathe not far from her house and
raped her. He told her to start walking and then followed her, knocking her
down with a swipe of the hammer to the back of her head.
"'The first time I hit her she was kinda crying and moaning,'" Cade later told
police. 'She knew she was dead or about to be dead.'" After three or four
more hammer blows, Kelly Duffield did die. Her body wasn't found for 10 days.
"Two lives were snuffed out by a 22-year-old man, who until that night had been
a petty criminal. Cade was arrested 2 1/2 months later. He confessed, pleaded
guilty and was sent to prison for life. The closest thing to an explanation he
ever gave was that he wanted to upgrade the level of his criminal activity so
he could get into a clinic for alcohol abuse.
"On Monday, the Parole Board will listen to comments from the public about Cade
and other parole-eligible inmates. The board will meet with him in March and
decide within weeks whether he should be released.
"John and Carol duffield are going to do everything they can to keep the man
who invaded their home and killed their daughters from going free."
Life Sentence, indeed, but it seems to be the Duffields who have been sentenced
to hell.
Regards,
Dave
Glendower
POB 520291
Independence, Mo. 64052
FrankML
Pushing this monster inside of a live volcano wouldn't even seem to be
just punishment....I guess life imprisonment is the best the state can
do to prolong the murderers suffering....after all death would be the
easy way out...
The story had an interesting effect on me...I felt nothing but despair
and longing to "make it all better" for the parents...but felt pure
loathing for this beast of a man.
Perhaps the best punishment would be life imprisonment, hard labor,
and once a month, while chained, this man could spend on hour alone
with the parents...
Just a thought.
BoxHill
What this terrible story shows, Dave, is that we need "life imprisonment
without parole." Just like we need, "guilty, but insane."
Janet
//Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a snare:
//Bedlam has many Mansions: have a care:
//Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:
//You think your self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.
Dave64052
>Pushing this monster inside of a live volcano wouldn't even seem to be
>just punishment....I guess life imprisonment is the best the state can
>do to prolong the murderers suffering....after all death would be the
>easy way out...
>The story had an interesting effect on me...I felt nothing but
>despair
>and longing to "make it all better" for the parents...but felt pure
>loathing for this beast of a man.
What? You can imagine, and even feel that "this monster" deserves worse
treatment than he got, LIFE that turns out to be 15 years and parole -- with
new hearings every 2-3 years. Yet, you think "death" is the EASY way out!
Was it easy for the parents? Is facing parole hearings every so often easy on
the parents, and their one surviving son? Should society go through this? I
guess that is one reason that society now has done away with "parole" and now
has "hard life" sentences. Yet, it's too late for some.
Next, there will be crusaders, worrying for the poor convicts who will never
get paroled, and start advocating more "rights" for lifers. Sickening yes, but
for me, because some have sincere UU-respect for brutal humans, who actually
would do society less harm if allowed to die sooner, than later.
Elvis'sGhost@ MrDonut.Com
Duffield should have been given the death penalty
FrankML
>What? You can imagine, and even feel that "this monster" deserves worse
>treatment than he got, LIFE that turns out to be 15 years and parole -- with
>new hearings every 2-3 years. Yet, you think "death" is the EASY way out!
My comment of desiring to see this man/monster pushed inside of a live
volcano was just an initial reaction. I think lwop is the best
punishment overall and yes dave, I do believe that death is the easy
way out - as far as I see it - even though I do support capital
punishment for sickos like this murderer - I would have to say that on
the flip side, execution would get him out of a lifetime of suffering
behind bars. If I wanted this man to suffer for the rest of his life -
I'd opt for lwop for sure.
>
>Was it easy for the parents? Is facing parole hearings every so often easy on
>the parents, and their one surviving son? Should society go through this?
It sounds horrible what these poor parents have to go through. Parole
hearings for an lwop sentence seems to be pointless..
I
>guess that is one reason that society now has done away with "parole" and now
>has "hard life" sentences. Yet, it's too late for some.
>
>Next, there will be crusaders, worrying for the poor convicts who will never
>get paroled, and start advocating more "rights" for lifers. Sickening yes,
don't hold your breath Dave, its bound to happen sooner or
later...heck..burglurs who break into homes to rape or steal and trip
on a skateboard receiving injury have sued the homeowners for
negligence....its just insane...
MayuTzu
Howdy,
This is a horrible, tragic story. I feel for the victims and their families.
But it is, nonetheless, anecdotal. Such an incident may fire our outrage, but
if we let passion sweep us up into more bloodshed, how are we better than the
one we would seek to condemn?
Dave of G:
<<Was it easy for the parents?>>
No, of course it wasn't. Their lives are shattered and won't ever really be
repaired. But that does not give society the right to murder its citizens.
<< Is facing parole hearings every so often easy
on the parents, and their one surviving son?>>
No, again, of course it is not. But, again, that does not mean that we should
murder a human being to ease the living of another one. This prisoner should
have been loked up with no chance of parole, that is the solution, rather than
assuming the only other alternative is state slaughter.
<< Should society go through this?>>
No, it shouldn't have to, but this is life in America. We are a very violent
society, largely because we support and perpetuate cycles of violence(and
poverty). The way to fight crime is not to murder prisoners, or try children
as adults, or any other action that (inadequately)attacks the effects. If we
really want to end violence in America, we need to decrimilize and legalize
some narcotics(I never believed I would say that), end the media-satuaration of
violent, reckless images, implement a concerted War of Poverty(instead of on
the impoverished), and commit ourselves to creating a real culture of true
non-violence(which, obviously, includes no death penalty). Even then, with a
population as large and conflicted as ours, there will still be some trouble,
but it would not be the same old America we know.
Incidentally, it is incidents like the one described here that long ago
convinced me that there is no supernatural power worthy of my attention,
respect, and worship guiding this planet. Whether there simply is no power at
all, or one who does not meet my standards, I am not omniscient enough to say.
<<Next, there will be crusaders, worrying for the poor convicts who will never
get paroled, and start advocating more "rights" for lifers.>>
Prisoners do have some rights, and they must be respected if the idea we put
forth about America is not hypocritical. Respecting the rights of the powerful
is not difficult; it is the amount of respect given to the powerless who are
under our complete control that is the test of a society's level of
civilization.
<< Sickening yes, but for me, because some have sincere UU-respect for brutal
humans, who actually would do society less harm if allowed to die sooner, than
later.>>
I am sorry to hear that I sicken you, Dave. Please believe that I have never
intentionally tried to do anything to harm you, and that my feelings on these
issues are only my own and no better than anyone else's, and that I believe in
them because to me they are our only hope for a better, more peaceful, more
dignified future for our country and our children. I am not concerned with the
alleged harm that prisoners could do while locked away forever; I am concerned
with the harm we do ourselves every time we decide to murder someone and feel
perfectly justified about it.
Peace be with you,
Jeff
Dave64052
In article <19980225032...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, may...@aol.com
(MayuTzu) writes:
>No, of course it wasn't. Their lives are shattered and won't ever really
>be repaired. But that does not give society the right to murder its
>citizens.
There you go again. Calling a legal execution murder. Why is it so hard to
draw different moral lines for different situations? Why is it possible to
argue that an abortion, for example, is NOT murder, yet an execution of a
"threat to society" IS murder?
Neither you nor I can have "our way" all the time (didn't you say that you are
OKAY with people holding different opinions?), and lead a moral life among
others.
Like **I** said before, I do not like abortion. I do not like capital
punishment. Yet, I will argue FOR both, when it's a "moral issue" having to do
with choice, and one's own conscience. There is also something that might be
called the "conscience of society" or the community.
When that conscience is aroused, and made up by a jury (12 people), then it is
not murder, but a moral choice -- what we call justice. Same thing, like when
a human being stupes so low that he/she clubs two children to death with a
hammer, and rapes one, THAT demands an action worse than "life" imprisonment,
IMO. There is also a "moral choice" -- even though I think it is insane -- of
launching massive military attacks against a perceived enemy, because you feel
they are a threat to humanity. Yes, I will argue for the alternative, yet,
living in society I must acknowlege that it's still an imperfect world.
However crazy some things seem, for me to have that right (of choice) we often
have to grant others that privilege too.
>>[snip] This prisoner should
have been loked up with no chance of parole, that is the solution, rather than
assuming the only other alternative is state slaughter.<<
Sure, and treat him the same way that we might treat "any" murderer? Seems
like some murderers do worse, more harm than others. Multiple Killings,
raping, torture. All these get the SAME justice? Seems to me we can go
further, when justified.
Dave<< Should society go through this?>>
Jeff:>>No, it shouldn't have to, but this is life in America. We are a very
violent
society, largely because we support and perpetuate cycles of violence(and
poverty). The way to fight crime is not to murder prisoners, or try children
as adults, or any other action that (inadequately)attacks the effects. If we
really want to end violence in America, we need to decrimilize and legalize
some narcotics(I never believed I would say that), end the media-satuaration of
violent, reckless images, implement a concerted War of Poverty(instead of on
the impoverished), and commit ourselves to creating a real culture of true
non-violence(which, obviously, includes no death penalty). Even then, with a
population as large and conflicted as ours, there will still be some trouble,
but it would not be the same old America we know.<<
That's where we think alike. There is so much "else" to do, before violence
can be ended. Hence, the real issue is not what punishments society renders
out to criminals, but what society does to the innocent, day-to-day innocents,
it's children and people in general. Until we are a partnership, and not a
"takers"/Competitive society, things will not get better, with or without
capital punishment. Even a non-violent society can be a "takers" one, not
supportive of sharing, caring.
Dave <<Next, there will be crusaders, worrying for the poor convicts who will
never
get paroled, and start advocating more "rights" for lifers.>>
Jeff:>>Prisoners do have some rights, and they must be respected if the idea we
put forth about America is not hypocritical. Respecting the rights of the
powerful
is not difficult; it is the amount of respect given to the powerless who are
under our complete control that is the test of a society's level of
civilization.<<
So, you want a lifer (who has committed brutal acts of violence) to enjoy most
of our "human rights" too? Freedom of speech, religion, petition, right to
carry arms, right to privacy, freedom of movement, right to enjoy life to
fullest? Where is the punishment of Life Without Parole, when it just becomes
Free Room and Board for life?
Again, I do not feel there is hypocricy, in denying prisoners their
citizenship, nor many freedoms, when it is done as a punishment that fits the
crime.
Dave<< Sickening yes, but for me, because some have sincere UU-respect for
brutal humans, who actually would do society less harm if allowed to die
sooner, than later.>>
Jeff:>>I am sorry to hear that I sicken you, Dave. Please believe that I have
never
intentionally tried to do anything to harm you, and that my feelings on these
issues are only my own and no better than anyone else's, and that I believe in
them because to me they are our only hope for a better, more peaceful, more
dignified future for our country and our children. I am not concerned with the
alleged harm that prisoners could do while locked away forever; I am concerned
with the harm we do ourselves every time we decide to murder someone and feel
perfectly justified about it.<<
I know your intentions are good. Just as many people who advocate "rights" for
prisoners who are brutally violent have good intentions.
Most moral crusaders have great intentions. Take those against drugs and
alcohol, they also said that society could be a better place if everyone would
just abstain. Those against pre-marital sex, tell us all to abstain, when not
married.
I know that "my" position no doubt sickens others, that is not my doing, nor
yours. It is in our own minds that we make ourselves "sick". My intention is
not to force my moral position on others.
My intensions are to go after the basic problems of human society, that are
mostly economic, due to inequality, and how power is divided. There is also a
basic problem with instability in our families/homes due to poor/inworkable
standards for relationships, in the first place.
We must not divide ourselves along lines of "abortion vs. pro-choice," and
"capital punishment v. life without parole", or "join BSA v. boycott BSA."
These are but diversions that address the results of a sick society, not the
sickness itself. I believe we must not JUST decide what medicine on the wounds
is needed, but stop the wounding to begin with.
I am sick with the actions/time wasted on things that do not address the
woundings, I'm not sick with you.
S. E. Stansfield
In a previous article, may...@aol.com (MayuTzu) says:
>Howdy,
>
>This is a horrible, tragic story. I feel for the victims and their families.
>But it is, nonetheless, anecdotal. Such an incident may fire our outrage, but
>if we let passion sweep us up into more bloodshed, how are we better than the
>one we would seek to condemn?
>
>
<much well written deletia>
>
>Peace be with you,
>Jeff
>
>
>
Thank you for writing tha jeff, you said it much better than I could
have.
THe whole issue is very difficult for me. STill, I can see no
justification for a person being officialy murdered by the state. When
the state pulls the switch it reflects morally on all of us. I *do*
call it murder. It's an unjustified taking of human life. War is
*also* murder, IMO. Where young people are killed by other young people
because someone told tham it's "OK". (The reason abortion is not IMO is
that it's better than the alternative.)
Dave of G.: I hope you understand that I am not sickened by the folks that
believe that capital punishment is justified. The morality of that
choice is something that I cannot understand. The idea that a life is
so worthless that it can just be snuffed is one that is totally foreign
to the personal morality that I follow.
sam
Knute Rife
S. E. Stansfield <se...@po.CWRU.Edu> writes:
>THe whole issue is very difficult for me. STill, I can see no
>justification for a person being officialy murdered by the state. When
>the state pulls the switch it reflects morally on all of us. I *do*
>call it murder. It's an unjustified taking of human life. War is
>*also* murder, IMO. Where young people are killed by other young people
>because someone told tham it's "OK". (The reason abortion is not IMO is
>that it's better than the alternative.)
to the alternative (a position I happen to agree with in most instances), but
war is murder? How would you have proposed to have stopped Hitler? "Please,
Mr. Hitler, just this country and no more." I believe Chamberlain tried that
to no avail. Are there then "just wars" that are not murder? That has been
the argument since time immemorial. The problem is devising standards for
declaring a "just war" and then applying those standards when it all hits the
fan. Going down that road also makes it harder to take the moral high ground
when someone argues that there is such a thing as a "just judicially imposed
death."
S. E. Stansfield
I disagree. I belive that the term "just war" is an oxymoron. Hitler
would never have risen to power if the allies hadn't insisted on war
reparations in the treaty of versailles that wrecked the german economy
("It's the economy, stupid!") The first world war should have ended in
a negotiated situation before the big battles (like Verdun, Gallipoli and the
Ardennes forest) happened. In retrospect it's not surprising that they
insisted on those reparations, given human nature, but it would have
been better for everyone if they had been more forgiving and less
vengeful.
Dave64052
In article <6djdv5$5hm$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>, se...@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E.
Stansfield) writes:
>The first world war should have ended in
>a negotiated situation before the
>big battles (like Verdun, Gallipoli and the
>Ardennes forest) happened. In
>retrospect it's not surprising that they
>insisted on those reparations, given
>human nature, but it would have
>been better for everyone if they had been
>more forgiving and less vengeful.
That is a key idea, and something impossible to do in reality: "In
retrospect."
Yes, it would have been better still if a Serbian assassin had not even killed
Archduke Ferdinand. WWI may not have occurred had the German not been allied
with Austria-Hungary, and Russia allied with Serbia to help them avoid being
dominated by stronger powers. It might have been better had their been a UN,
or League of Nations existing them. It would have also been better if the
nations of Europe were not engaged in an "Arms Race."
In retrospect, we may all become perfect people. That is, most of us, if we
could go back and repeat history, we might make better decisions, and end
things sooner, than later, and not have all the turmoil that comes from bad
decisions.
Human nature, that is another problem. It is my opinion that most of us are
pretty good people. We can imagine, even fantasize doing very bad things, yet
make choices NOT to do them. There was a story last evening on Dateline (TV)
-- yes, I know some of you do not watch TV, and in retrospect, I guess I should
not either.
This story was about a 14 yr old who got mixed up with two older teens, ages 19
and 17. Eventually, two older adults were murdered, for hardly no reason.
The older teens got sentenced to double life terms, the 14 yr old was tried as
an adult, and sentenced to only 25 yrs. The TV show was trying to make it look
like the 14 yr old was too scared to make the right decision, and only "went
along" with the burglary, and murder out of fear. Yet, two other younger youth
had "run away" when they saw their 19 yr old friend with a shot gun, and found
out what he was planning.
Why do some human 14 yr olds not have the capacity yet to make "non-violent"
decisions, and NOT hurt people? Is it fear? Fear of what? Society?
When we know that idea, we'll know why 50+ millions Germans went along with
Hitler, and 100 million more Europeans supported Fascists, and another 130+
million supported Stalin. That is how wars start!!!
Support of killers.
On the otherhand, that is how killers are put out of power, by the otherside
being willing to die for, or kill the killers, before they kill them. It's a
cruel world sometimes, just look at the food chain and how most animals live.
It's often kill to survive. Humans kill other mammals to eat them.
Vegetarians sometimes even look at this in disgust. They say this act could be
behind human violence.
Huuummm. Just another thought about origins of our "human nature" in
retrospect.
Jean P Nance
I am on the fence when it comes to the question of whether there
is such a thing as a "just war", or even a war that has some
justification. Most pacificists point out that Hitler would never
have attained power if the reparations after WW I hadn't been so
harsh. But, in the late 1930's, that was all water over the dam.
Could it have been an excuse to let Hitler take over Europe, and
probably Great Britain as well. And then who knows what next?
This "if only" kind of reasoning could go on forever, and
justify all kinds of horrors. In general, we have to look at the
situation at the present time, not the way it should have been, and
do the best we can with what exists.
--
Mark McGee
Jean P Nance wrote:
The big problem I see with "if only" thinking is that it concommitantly
admits "what if" thinking; The German economy was a shambles after WWI,
but you know what? The American economy collapsed in 1929, and it had
nothing to do with paying enormous war reparations. Which means
somebody like Hitler could come to power anywhere; a fascist could even
have assumed power in this country, had we not been lucky enough to
witness the rise of an indefatigable experimentalist Liberal, who pulled
us out of the Depression through bubble-headed optimism. What if there
had been no F.D.R.? What if a white supremacist spouting hate and
vitriol had ascended to the U.S. Presidency after a decade or so of
unremitted poverty and ruin, with the whole country in despair?
It only takes one "side" to make war. The question, then, is not
whether there can be a just war; the question (and a far more difficult
one, in my opinion) is how to determine the criteria that would justify
it. But, joke though it was, the McDonald's statistic reveals volumes:
where the standard of living provides hope and freedom from fear, people
are less likely to go to war.
Put another way, sociopathy among individuals can be traced to either
physiological or emotional causes; sociopathy among nations can
generally be traced to economic crises. Fighting off those who've
unjustly sought more than their share is okay; fighting for any other
reason is suspect.
Dave64052
In article <6djnvq$rht$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, jp...@prairienet.org (Jean P
Nance) writes:
>Most pacificists point out that Hitler would never
>have attained power if the
>reparations after WW I hadn't been so
>harsh. But, in the late 1930's, that
>was all water over the dam.
>Could it have been an excuse to let Hitler take
>over Europe, and
>probably Great Britain as well. And then who knows what next?
Yes, some see it as an excuse. Hitler got most of his monetary support from
rich German capitalists who were afraid of both "mass rule" -- democracy -- and
rising socialism in Europe. The USSR was only a few hundred miles away from
them, and they were basicly disarmed after WWI, under the Treaty that ended The
Great War.
Hence, getting revenge for losing WWI was not the big problem, it was saving
their capital/wealth from take-over by socialist/communists that they really
feared. They wanted to return to a "dictatorial" rule, much like the old
aristocracy/monarchy where property rights and capitalism could be protected.
Hitler declared an emergency, and exercised such rule, only after the Reichstag
was supposedly burned down by a communist. This is also why most of Europe
"slept" during his rise to power, and the French did not react so violently
when he moved into their territory, as he was going to be their protector from
Communism/socialism. (This senario was first played out during the Spanish
Civil War just prior to Germany's attack on Poland).
Regards,
Dave
(Seems like we are off of topic, but what else is new?) <grin>