Eric Rudolph taunts victims

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/14/rudolph.taunts.ap/index.html

I've never cared much for the death penalty, but this makes me understand why so many people think it's necessary.
Of course, even if this guy did get the death penalty, he'd still be doing this, but he'd be doing it from death row for the next 10-15 years.

 

I'm a big First Amendment guy. I'm someone who almost always argues against giving up/allowing others to take away our rights (especially to fight a "war on terror" against those whose whole point is to get us to give up our rights, but I digress).
However, why can't we strip some rights from inmates?
Not in all cases, but what is to prevent us from taking away this man's right to send out letter or correspond with anyone except for his lawyer?
I know it's extreme, but this man's actions call for extreme measures -- and is it truly any more extreme than making people live in a concrete cell?

 

Let him spew his hate. He's getting what's coming to him...in this world and the next.

 

As I have done in other cases in the past, I'll put up the first carton of cigarettes to solve this problem.

 

Why didn't he get the same swift justice that McVeigh got?

 

I suspect, though I can't prove, that bombing abortion clinics has a few more fans than lighting up a federal building.

 

He pled guilty to avoid the death penalty. McVeigh went to trial and left his fate to a jury.

 

That's interesting. I remember a few years ago, there was a guy in Boston who pled guilty in a federal trial (obviously, it was federal because Mass. doesn't have the death penalty) to killings he committed during a carjacking and he received the death penalty.
I never knew somebody could still get the death penalty after pleading guilty, I always thought the government would not help somebody commit suicide.

 

I say they let him out in gen-pop for a week or two.

 

Rudolph's most visible murder/crime was the Olympic Park bombing.