For those of us who hike here regularly.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-05-08-0174.html

He needs to be put down.

Why are people still surprised when things like this happen? He killed two people without provocation once - then he did it again. Let's give him one more chance - what do ya think?

Can I do it? J/K

Good case for allowing concealed carry in National Parks along with many other places.

We can toss a coin to see who gets to off him. What is wrong with our justice system? It sounds to me like they were ambushed? If that's the case, he had the drop on them and it would have been hard to return fire without getting shot. Sometimes, even with guns they can't protect you.

I'm not convinced that capital punishment is the answer, but if there was ever a case for it, this qualifies.

Why he was ever let out makes one wonder though. Even those strongly against the death penalty would strongly agree that convicted murderers like this one should never be released to kill again.

This happens way too often and there is little excuse for it. Only certain proof of innocence should be reason to release someone convicted of those types of crimes. A claim of rehabilitation should not be cause for release as that has clearly proven to be, at best, subjective opinion that cannot guarantee public safety .

To me, when the sentence of "Life" really means "Life", we'll have it right. That seems to be the only right solution.

But guys like this one sure make me wonder if there's not a time, for the sake of the public, to end a life. There are very compelling arguments for not keeping him around.

Bill

"The campsite is not far from where Smith killed two Maine hikers in 1981. The two hikers were walking the trail to raise money for retarded and troubled youths."

Good thing they didn't say mentally handicapped, I might have taken the editor seriously.

I'm in no way condoning or excusing what this jack**s did, but:



If we ever expect released convicts to get on with life and 'rehabilitate' we need to provide opportunities for them to support themselves, otherwise the temptation to re-offend is great since they have no means of supporting or bettering themselves on the 'outside'.

Again. It may not apply in this case and I'm not excusing the S.*.B. but....

Mentally retarded is actually the official term, not mentally handicapped. No state that I know of, and nothing in federal disability and special education law, uses the term "mentally handicapped". It falls in the same literary genre as "troubled youth".

I guess it's a subject of some fascination, a bit sensational.. "murder on the trail" or something like that...The details don't really matter.. .A bit like looking at a bad traffic accident.

But I think the emphasis placed on crime in general is far out of proportion to its actual significance. Consider the case of poisoned Halloween candy: My understanding is there has never been a recorded instance, but people seem to think it happens all the time.

-

Yes, you are excusing him. Why do we need to provide opportunities for them? If people like him want to be a part of society they need to provide opportunities for themselves. His life is not my fault, or your fault. It is not my responsibility to look after people like this and make sure they are successful in life. If they are so messed up that they need to try to kill other people then they should not be out in society, but removed. He is worse than a non-contributor, he is a taker of the worse kind. His carbon footprint should be eliminated.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. It may not have worked in this guy's case, but I believe we have a duty as a society to give people a second chance including a means to support themselves, therapy, etc. They screw up again, then we've seen their true nature, but everyone deserves a second chance.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
If the guy was found guilty of killing two people back in 1981, then he should never have been let out of jail. Better yet, he should have been exterminated like the vermin he is back in 1982 and then we would not be having this discussion at all. There should not be any rehabilitation for people who murder other people. There should not be life without parole for these people. Put a needle in their arm and be done with it. They do not have the right to life after taking another.
Thank you and the soap box is now vacant.

True rehabilitation comes from within [or from God], not from therapy or education. The whole notion that criminals are, themselves, victims of their deprived upbringing or from ignorance flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Many people who had far worse childhoods than these murderers have become productive citizens in spite of their circumstances. It's high time we tossed out the old 'rehabilitation' model and resorted to the 'punishment' model. I'm sure there would be far fewer people in prison if they knew they were in for hard labor, bread and water instead of group therapy, satellite television, a well-appointed exercise facility and a free university education.

Did he kill this time? The article said one victim was injured and the other's status was unknown.

Society has a duty to protect the public from killers. This person had no physical limitations that would have prevented him from being a productive citizen. Taking on multiple victims on a trail must be hard work. His problems in life are not a result of not physically being able to work. His problems are from within. A sociopath is not rehabilitatable. A sociopath who kills should not have a second chance. His victims had no "second chance."

I would agree that most crimes would fall under this concept, but not senseless murder. He should have been sentenced to life in prison with no parole. This guys "Second Chance" should have been limited to living in prison and not being put to death.

But that did not happen. They (Prison/State/Fed authorities) must have decided to let him go. I simply cannot blame his neighbors for his actions, nor will I blame the two young men he shot.

You have to think this through all the way... Here's my way <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I'm not a "Death Penalty" supporter. I know what's happened in Illinois and Texas and therefore I cannot support it. But I also cannot support the release of murderers like this one. I know that some will get out and kill again, therefore I cannot support any of them being released without absolute proof of innocence.

Personal experience....

My younger brother, Sam, is sitting in jail again after getting arrested for possession of hard drugs (meth) last week. He's 47 years old. He's been "Saved" every time he went to prison. He's been set up with cars, homes, furniture and food, nearly every time he's been released. Our family has spent tens of thousands on bail bondsman, lawyers, putting "Cash on his books", and "Getting him on his feet" when he got out. We all stopped a few years ago because each time he parlayed this generosity into more drugs. He has two older brothers, and two younger sisters, that have all done quite well for themselves and never been arrested for anything. We all grew up together. Our parents were there for all of us. The truth is the guy was a lying, conniving, skunk from the day he was born and he'll take as much as he can from anyone he can and everyone who thought he'd changed has been burned. And it's all his fault. No one else is responsible for the stupid things he does.

Worst of all is his lies. The love of family is strong and you want so bad to believe that a loved one is innocent and truthful that you'll believe their lies.

But he's never murdered anyone, so I don't mind when he's out. The difference now is that I know he'll do drugs again and I know he'll lie too. I would not extend that grace to a ruthless murderer. I would never let them out.

I'm pretty sure that's all I have to say about that. (Do I hear a big sigh of relief? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Bill

If they screw up again???????? The second time might be someone you care about. Then unless you are a supreme pacifist, you will want to kill him.
I like the idea of eliminating his carbon footprint. O.k. maybe a little carbon when he his cremated. Then use his burnt remains to do something useful like fertilizer.

I too had a brother that would lie, do drugs and pawn my families things to get more drugs. I don't think it mattered what drugs. One Christmas he showed up at my parents and said he had bought everyone a present but his truck was broken into and the thieves took it all. That was after he went through a business, several cars, two boats and a house. He died in a head on crash that took his life and also the lives of 3 other adults with families. He never killed anyone? he did in the end. But I will say this, he was also the type that would do anything for you. For instance, if he knew you and liked you, and you were building a backyard project. He would work his [Edited for inappropriate languge, please review forum policies for more information] off just to have something to do. He wouldn't expect anything from you. Yet he couldn't get it together after being in rehab 3 times. Now how many chances would you think my brother should get?
Chuck...

Well that's a valid point and deserves real consideration.

I need to know this... Was his driver's license valid or had it been revoked for DUI's?

Bill

Amen. I don't have cable TV.

My idea of prison is a little room with a bed, toilet and shower. You get locked in alone until your time is up. You get reading material from the library cart, and that's it -- no television, radio, DVDs, etc. You get limited, inspected snail mail, no email, phone calls, etc. You don't mingle with the population to learn how to be a better criminal. You don't get weight training to better beat up your fellow human beings. If you made a mistake, you emerge with a desire to rejoin the human race and a determination not to go back to that hole again. You don't emerge with AIDS or missing pieces.

OK, now we're getting somewhere! If they are going to release a person like this, give him a chance to succeed. Do I believe this particular person should have been released?? Heck no! Cold blooded murderers should get life without parole. Period.

For other offenders, though, by releasing them, the courts think they are effectively saying: "OK, you've paid your debt, go on and be a good boy/girl now." but by not giving that person any kind of support upon release, what they're really saying is "Have a nice vacation, see you in six months!"

Frankly, I'm a little surprised and disappointed by the vengeful/hateful attitudes here. And yes, I am a pacifist.

Some appropriate quotes from His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama:

"Criminals, people who commit crimes, usually society rejects these people. They are also part of society. Give them some form of punishment to say they were wrong, but show them they are part of society and can change. Show them compassion."

"My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this. Therefore, I support those organizations and individuals who are trying to bring an end to the use of the death penalty"

but....

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

I have plenty of compassion and I do think that we should help others, but not murderers.

Those who are physically or mentally disabled should be cared for. This is different than doling out success. Having the government put in the position of providing opportunities for people to succeed is unrealistic and only weakens society as a whole. Everybody doesn't get a trophy in life. The only way "the system" let this guy down is by not punishing him enough and releasing him.
The big question is, why does lack of success and opportunity equal being a cold blooded killer?

The government is not the cause of all the ills nor is it the solution. The individual is responsible for themselves, their actions and should be held accountable for what they do. It is also the individual who is responsible for their successes in life.

And I submit that criminals are mentally disabled by definition except in cases where the law broken is a 'bad' law (another argument for another time). Anyone willing to hurt another human being has a screw loose.



Not the only way, just the first way.



Agreed and agreed

However, while released convicts should be responsible for their own success, the should not be permanently barred from finding gainful employment or housing as they so often are. Once released, they should be allowed to re-integrate into society. If we aren't willing to do that, then we should not release them.

I don't accept the assumption that he wasn't given a chance. Some people just don't do anything with the chances they are given.

It appears that the case will never have to go through trial, parole, release, or any more second guessing.

Randall Lee Smith found dead in his cell.

Thanks for the news, Bearpaw! I would like to attach a 'smiley face' to this post but I won't. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Much like any discussion involving issues of "right" and "wrong," I believe the death penalty is very difficult to implement in such a way that minimizes false positives and so am unsure as to whether or not I support it.

One thing I do wonder about, however, particularly being a therapist, is what is thought of those who are physically incapable of distinguishing reality from the imaginary (audio/visual hallucinations), such as is the case in schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders? Some have said that all murderers should be executed "like...vermin" but what of those who, for one reason or another, are not being treated for such a problem? Is it not then our responsibility to try and help them rather than dispose of them?

It seems that, if the answer is to kill them lest others be killed, then we should also kill others who have a high likelihood of harming others or being an extreme burden to society (i.e., profoundly mentally retarded individuals, those with or who have a history in their family of bipolar disorder, and even some with severe anxiety).

Case in point: I sent a first grader to a psychiatric hospital the other day because she was having visual hallucinations, threatening to kill herself, and hit a teacher her first day at our school. It was not just choices and behavior we were seeing...she was showing signs of serious mental illness with biological etiology. She was not behaving like vermin but like a little girl with an undiagnosed and untreated problem that could easily be helped with medication and therapy. Should we forget second chances for her and just send her to juvenile detention center? "Sure she should get a second chance," you say...but only because she's now being seen by a therapist and is receiving medication management. What if this guy was like the girl I work with when he was in first grade? Mental health services weren't available then.

I'm not pretending to know whether or not this man had mental illness and I'm certainly not pretending to be qualified to pass judgment as to whether or not he should have lived or died. What I am saying is that some of the comments regarding this issue leave no room for gray areas while there is a substantial amount of gray to be considered.

Amen

The standard, as I understand it, is that if a person is a danger to society, or themselves, they should be confined and treated.

If a person that has committed a brutal murder is found to have a history of severe psychotic disorders that led to those murders then they should be confined and never released. If Therapist could positively prove that the individual would never be a harm to society again then society might consider their release. My experience is that psychology as a science and profession is not that advanced and has a very long way to go before they are capable of making a judgment of that nature.

In truth, severe cases like that of the little girl you describe cannot "easily be helped with medication and therapy". The impact and effect of most chemicals prescribed for most of these severe patients is no where near fully understood and many of the drugs prescribed have very serious side effects, some of which cause serious problems both related and unrelated to the condition which they are meant to treat.

Doctors don't know near as much as they like us to think they do. Big Pharma focuses on designing drugs that can be patented, not drugs that cure. Some of the drugs they sell perform barely better than the placebo they test it against in clinical studies.

Just 25 short years ago doctors of all walks refused to acknowledge that Post Partum Depression could lead to severe Psychosis. One result of this is that almost no research on this was done previous to that. That means the body of science used to base treatment on now is only 25 years old and there is very little of that even now. How many years did women suffer because doctors refused to consider the symptoms and their relation to child birth a valid medical diagnoses.

Still today, St. John's Wort is barely being supported as a treatment for depression even though clinical studies show it to be as effective as Paxil while exhibiting none of the ill side effects of Paxil which can include an increase in suicidal tendencies.

It would be nice if a pill a day really could cure psychotic disorders, but humans, it turns out, are quite complex and the knowledge about how they work is still pretty rudimentary and our means of acquiring it crude and wasteful.

--
Bill

Murderers, Rapists, and child predators not deserve a second chance. Their victims do not get a 2nd chance in life, if the victim survives the ordeal or not. So why should we give these POS's a 2nd chance to ruin more lives ??

As for every other criminal, its not the tax payers job to help them find another job. If they really want a job and want to make good for themselves, they'll get a job at McDonalds or similar with little to no skills required and do something with their lives, even if its not the best job in the world, its actually doing something.

Like all of the high school kids who are working at similar places to have job experience to get better jobs down the line you need to work, and show that you are capable of working well before you get a decent job. It is not our job nor our duty as tax payers to give them preferred treatment because they are criminals.

Dimitri

The definition of "retarded" is to hinder, or hold back. Used in the sentence it was, you could say the youths were socially hindered, or held back. Makes sense to me.

BF

It seems like there might be some confusion as to the message of my original post. It's late but I'm passionate and will try to clarify.

Notice that I did not, in fact, say anything in regards to curing a problem, as you state in your discussion of pharmaceutical companies. However, you quoted me correctly as saying that a problem "could easily be helped..." and also accurately state the point that there are no drugs being developed to cure mental illness as they do not exist. Psychotropic medications are for symptoms not problems.

I also agree with your point that psychology is a young, developing science that is "firming up." Psychology began as the study of the mind and emotion, a very nebulous and volatile conceptualization of the topic, and only since the '60s has come to be known as the study of observable behavior and the supposition of its causes.

As I am a therapist, I have a better than average understanding of the limitations of psychiatric treatment for mental illness with psychotic features. I pick up where those limitations leave off with my evidence based and empirical data-driven treatment on a day-to-day-basis. Actually, a great thing about psychiatry nowadays is that the field (or at least the MDs I work with each week) recognizes its limitations as described by the body of research and so chooses to use medication as a means to an end much as a knee brace acutely helps physical therapy be more effective in the long-term.



Clear as mud? That was all sort of a digression, anyways. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

The intent of my original post was to say that it would be a shame if this man or someone like him were to be put down without the opportunity to be "confined and treated."

No, you were clear, I posted a few of my "Thoughts" on the subject. It's a subject that I have thought a lot about, and researched the answers to questions I've had, as well as kept somewhat up to date on the progress made.

It wasn't my intention to dismiss the info or questions you raised with your post, I only wanted to post my thoughts about them. You deal with these conditions on a professional level regularly, I've dealt with them on a more personal level. I've watched a doctor shoot up someone I loved with Haloperidol. My confidence in doctors and prescription drugs were not the same afterward.

I think it's very relevant to the subject at hand as I believe that anyone that commits a brutal murder is mentally unstable. That should be a legal definition of the term.

I'll add, while I believe that the current treatments are crude and not very effective, I don't have a better solution and I do have a great deal of respect for those therapists like yourself who work with those affected daily. That's a tough job, and there aren't many tougher or more important, so let me personally thank you here and now.

Thank You, and Kindest Regards,

Bill

A sociopath is not crazy--he knows right from wrong. A sociopath [think Ted Bundy] is someone who has no regard for others except to fulfill his own selfish desires. Sick? No. Evil? Yes.

I still think they are mentally unstable. I don't know about "Sick", especially if that implies that they might currently be cured. If it implies that there could have been an outside influence that caused one to become a sociopath than I would concede that's a possibility. "Evil", I certainly agree with no matter what.

Bill

To be fair, Bill mentioned neither sociopaths nor crazy people in his post and did not state that mentally unstable individuals cannot be sociopathic. It seemed that he was simply stating that murdering someone indicates that the murderer likely has a deficit in coping, reality testing, or decision making.

Bill,

It sounds like you've had some bad past experiences with psychiatric treatment in the past and that it has, quite understandably, left a bad taste in your mouth (no pun intended what with the discussion of medication and all <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />). Offered as an encouragement rather than a refutation: I have had the pleasure already in my short career of working with some very professional and talented child/adolescent psychiatrists and hope that their philosophy of practice and their conceptualization of problems and their treatment is indicative of a current trend in the field.

I'm really glad we got to exchange ideas and appreciate the spirit in which it was conducted. I hope I didn't come across as haughty or self-important.

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Jon:

Neither your nor anyone else's comments I believe have been 'self-important' in this discussion. Having hiked a trail, spent nights in a tent hearing those strange sounds outside in the dark, gives us that egocentric attitude toward this misguided individual who fortunately no longer is a threat to anyone on a trail or in a tent.

But when I think of the two people this man killed in 1981 -- that was 27 years ago -- were you born then? -- and the two he hurt but didn't kill recently, and then I put that against the number of people in the Miami area who were killed by robbers at fast-food restaurants or at home sleeping in the past couple of years -- say, the last 3 years -- well, seems like I should be much more paranoid waking up here tomorrow morning knowing that probably 20 or 30 times as many have died in the latter endeavors -- ordering an Egg McMuffin or sleeping in bed in Miami, than hiking/camping in a tent in a National Park, and should realize that my time in the wilderness is INFINITELY SAFER than walking around here in this urban-crime-zone, defined by the local C-of-C and Visitors Bureau as a chic and cool place.

For those rare, freakish incidents when a psychotic killer heads into the wilds, I'm still not sure a concealed weapon would be of ANY help.

I agree in that I am more concerned about the wolves in the city than in nature.

There have been a lot of comments, guessing and assumptions made about Smith's mental capacity. Really none of us know anything other than what the media reports which is not the most accurate source of information.

We do know that he was convicted of murdering two people in 1981 who were hiking as part of a fund raiser for "retarded and troubled youth." The media reports that he took a plea for second degree murder at the time because the prosecutor wasn't sure he had enough evidence to support a first degree murder conviction.

Smith either did not use an insanity defense or the court was not convinced that he was insane and he was sent to prison, not a mental institution. Prison is a place for people who have the capacity to know right from wrong. Mental institutions for the criminally insane are for people who commit crimes, but are determined to be incompetent to defend themselves in court by reasons of mental retardation or insanity and/or who do not know the difference between right and wrong. The court sentenced Smith to prison. Fifteen years for shooting and bludgeoning one person to death and shooting another person to death is light sentence in my opinion.

At least one thing is certain at this point. The AT Killer will not re-offend.

Killer dead now !!!!!! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />