Should serial killers, after being sent to prison, be denied creative contact with society?

[t0dd]

I'm curious how people feel about this. Consider the following..

John Wayne Gacy was convicted and later executed for the rape and murder of 33 boys and young men between 1972 and his arrest in 1978 (yes, word for word taken from wikipedia). Years later, before his execution, he gained further notoriety for the paintings he did while in prison. Do you believe, given the heinousness of his crimes, that his work deserved to be released to the public?

My opinion is this: the 33 boys he murdered never had the chance to realize their dreams, so why should he get any satisfaction after what he did? Of course, you can make the argument that he was mentally unstable, or that the originator of art is irrelevant, which is fair enough, but just the idea of him getting such opportunities is bothersome to me. How do you feel about this?

[rrneck]

1. It should be released.

But he should not derive any income from it. He has a right to express himself, and we could learn a great deal about sick fucks like him by studying his work. But he shouldn't profit from it.

[Ex Lurker]

3. If I remember correctly, they were offered at auction some years ago

they were all purchased by one individual, who then destroyed them.

[orleans]

2. the paintings could be used for psychological study, but not

to be bought & sold--so someone can say they have this twisted memento of this monster. no--it should not be for public consumption on the free market.

i remember seeing pictures in the newspaper (artwork) from richard speck

"Richard Franklin Speck (December 6, 1941 – December 5, 1991) was a mass murderer who systematically killed eight student nurses from South Chicago Community Hospital in Chicago, Illinois on July 14, 1966.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Speck

[stray cat]

4. How often are serial killers released from jail?

[underseasurveyor]

5. I can't imagine wanting anything made by the hand

and out of a mind of a serial killer.

[TexasObserver]

6. I don't think like you do about crime and punishment.

We have punishments prescribed by law. It's imprisonment, not deprivation of existence. What you want is a pound of flesh. You get all jacked up over some sense of outrage about the crimes committed. You want to punish the criminals more than they're being punished already. I see no point in that. They're serving time, and in the case of the persons you mention, they're serving time for the balance of their lives.

Learning about these guys helps law enforcement and those who work with them better understand the serial killer, and therefore better understand how to identify and catch them. That has value far beyond your need for a pound a flesh.

We did away with harsh punishments because we're civilized, not because the criminals deserve it. Penal systems are about us - the citizens who aren't in them - and how criminal we're willing to become to satisfy some citizens' need for blood lust.

I sure miss the old days, when believing in compassionate prisons was still a progressive tenet.

[Ms. Toad]

10. Thank you. n/t

[TexasObserver]

13. de nada

We've become a country that relishes in punishment, and that's unfortunate. We have three times as many prisoners in this country as we need to have. It's an industry that exists to imprison more and more citizens.

[MrSlayer]

7. No, they should just be killed before they can paint anything.

Capture, trial, straight to the gallows. The question never needs to be asked.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Your yes and no anwers and descriptions do not match the question asked.

Should serial killers, after being sent to prison, be denied creative contact with society?

Yes (he should be denied), his work should have been released because no one should be deprived that right
Yes (he should be denied), his work should have been released for the sake of art; anything less is censorship
No (he should not be denied), his crimes are absolutely unforgivable, and he should be deprived such freedoms


You should have made this sentence, modified a little, your poll question, "Do you believe, given the heinousness of his crimes, that his work deserved to be released to the public?", which I obviously pulled from the body of your OP, or you should have made your poll answers reflect the poll question in the subject line.

Minor detail, your poll is still very understandable, but I felt compelled to mention it for some reason.

I am probably going to vote for one of the first two answers, but I have not decided which one yet.

I would be interested in knowing how the voters feel about Vick.

[t0dd]

9. You're right

I guess I made the subject line more general because we can probably draw conclusions from this poll to answer that question. I emphasized the actual poll question to hopefully make it more clear.

[Kievan Rus]

11. Absolutely not

Jackoffs like that should be locked in a cell and have the key thrown away. People like that are sick.

[Deja Q]

12. I agree with your opinion. That bastard ruined a lot of lives. I'm sick of our country making celebs

out of vermin.