You are right of course - all of your points are valid. I think the popularity of Dexter was due to the frustration felt by the general population when justice is so ill served on so many counts these days. I am in Britain and we have had no capital punishment for many decades and that is becoming true on a global scale - small wonder that crime rates have doubled in those years. Where there is no deterrent what else can you expect? A "Life" sentence in Britain averages about 14 years with time off for good behaviour - I rate that an insult to the victims and their families. One man in our street got 30 months for stabbing his 27 year old wife to death in the bedroom when their five children were downstairs. One German killer went to prison for murder - was released after I think 14 years - and went on to kill another 11 women within months of release. Prison does not rehabilitate very often - it is a system to keep criminals off the street and in my view - in the worst cases - I am a supporter of capital punishment. There is no other solution for some evil individuals. Note - I don't use the term sick - I don't subscribe to the view of criminality being an illness. To return to Dexter - I don't believe he was a psychopath - he felt love and empathy for some people which psychopaths don't usually. I think he did have a blood lust but at least he used it on the right people. I know it's not right - but it satisfies a deep need in me for justice. What else would have happened to them if Dexter had not intervened? A prison sentence complete with drugs and conjugal visits on demand? Society deems itself so superior for "understanding" murderers and sits preening itself for banning capital punishment which they say is barbaric whilst all the time ignoring the barbarism shown by rapists, child molesters and murderers. If life was a whole life tariff then I wouldn't support capital punishment, but it's only in the most publicity driven cases that it is - other cases are money managed and murderers are released back into society to wreak havoc if they so choose. I cannot see the justice in giving serial killers a life sentence - it is ludicrous to give life in exchange for multiple deaths as in the Moors Murders case for one instance. It cost millions to keep those monsters incarcerated and if it had been on a lesser scale those two would have continued to walk in freedom on the earth. As long as cases like these continue to happen characters like Dexter will continue to be popular.

I can sympathize completely with your sentiments. There are cases which call for the ultimate punishment. There are debates about whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent of course. I am certain that harsh sentences are a deterrent. Here in the US there are federal crimes and state crimes. Generally speaking, federal sentencing guidelines are more severe, and prisoners tend to serve much longer sentences. Criminals are scared of doing something which draws a federal penalty. We know from their confessions to police that this factors into their thinking. And they're aware when a state doesn't have the death penalty; they are aware of the relatively short sentences they may get for a murder conviction. Among some populations a prison term is almost a badge of honor.
Of course with crimes of passion the perpetrator often isn't thinking at all, they're driven, overcome by their negative emotions and don't think things through. But sometimes they stop because in the back of their mind they know they could pay the ultimate price if they go through with it. It is a complicated issue of course. And there have been cases in which the wrong person was convicted, and executed. That is perhaps the strongest argument against capital punishment. Personally I believe nobody should receive the death penalty unless there is categorical proof of guilt, and special circumstances. For example, if a guy gets into a bar fight, lands a blow on the other guy, he falls and hits his head or breaks his neck, I don't see giving the death penalty for that.

But when the crime is especially heinous, when the perp is evil (as with the Moors Murder perps) I think society deserves the option to require the ultimate penalty. People who can set out to sexually assault and murder children are evil; if they are sick, they are sick in a way they never get over. There is no way to rehabilitate them, and taxpayers should not be forced to provide them with food, housing, medical treatment which is better than that given to law abiding citizens in many cases, etc.

I don't agree with the philosophy and policies of many States which hamstring law abiding citizens, and bend over backward to protect the rights of criminals. I believe everyone has the natural right to defend themselves for example. Criminals tend to prey on those they perceive as weak and defenseless, particularly the young, the elderly, the small, and frail individuals. Many states here in the US have adopted concealed carry laws over the past few decades, allowing lawful citizens to carry concealed handguns (after an FBI background check, and an approved training course). Critics predicted such laws would result in a "wild west" environment, that shootings would become rampant. But the opposite happened. Violent crime rates always decrease after such laws are passed. Permit holders tend to be very careful. They get in trouble for violations less frequently than police officers do. Study after study shows that anywhere from 3/4 to 1.5 million crimes are prevented annually in the US by armed citizens, most of the time without a shot fired. Though the US has by far the most firearms per capita of any country in the world, our murder per capita rate is not even in the top 100. And that is including the data from areas with strict gun control laws and high murder rates like Detroit, St. Louis, Newark, etc. The highest murder rates in the US occur in jurisdictions with strict gun control laws. The countries with the highest murder rates also tend to have strict gun control, like Honduras, Venezuela, etc. Most people are good and honest and would not think of assaulting someone else. But there is a class of people who are opportunistic, who prey on the defenseless. I am getting off topic here I guess.

It was easy to root for Dexter, especially in the first few seasons. He stopped some really bad guys from getting away with murder. As the writers began showing the negative fallout of his activities his vigilante actions became harder to get behind. I found myself cringing when he threw off police investigations. I feared there would be a price to pay for doing that. If Dexter had limited himself to those cases in which the justice system had failed, it would have been easier to root for him. But it would have been a wrong message to send to the viewers if there were no negative consequences to his actions.

Your post is very interesting to me - I am often puzzled by the multiple layers the American justice system has - I find it very complicated compared to the British law system where we simply have a uniformed police force and a plainclothes detective force. There are special units within the C.I.D which deal with serious crimes and terrorism but all in all that's the system. You seem to have so many what with Sheriffs and State Police and the F.B.I and Texas Rangers etc. Our police are not routinely armed as yet although they do carry guns in their cars. I think the time is coming when that might change because crime here, particularly in London and the major cities is getting pretty much out of control. We are suffering mightily from government cutbacks and our police forces are being decimated. In my more or less quiet suburban area where we get a lot of children and teenagers causing havoc there is no point in calling the police - they simply wont come. I watch Judge Judy and I am constantly amazed when they say that the police attend for altercations and car vandalism!! Not over here - not a chance!! I agree with your final paragraph - but let's face it - there are so many wrong messages being sent out from film makers that it's no wonder the general public think they can get away with anything. Way off topic but I have to ask as you are an American and I can't find any real news on the case - what is happening with Robert Durst? Has he got away with it yet?

I imagine our system does seem mysterious, and I am not surprised. (Our own federal government fails to follow our Constitution, making up novel interpretations to suit themselves, to justify their actions. But that is another issue in itself. )

When the colonies began fighting the British the leaders met in Philadelphia to discuss whether to declare independence, and if so what form the new government should take. Many of them were learned men who had studied the history of various forms of government and they recognized that small centralized governments with a great deal of authority tend to become tyrannical and trample the rights of the people. The individual colonies did not want to cede much authority to a central government. Each one had its own special interests and felt best suited to regulate their own areas. So eventually they settled upon a republic of individual states forming a federation, ceding limited power to a federal government in certain areas only, retaining all other authority to themselves. These areas were specifically enumerated, and all other areas were therefore off limits to the federal government. (Over time by various means the federal government has usurped the authority of the states in ways which are not legal according to our constitution, and since the federal government collects and disburses monies to the states, they tend to get away with it).

The founding fathers feared a central government with too much power, believing it would invariably seek to concentrate all power in itself and could too easily give rise to a dictatorship. So there was no federal or national police force or standing army provided for. Each state has its own set of investigative and police forces, both local and state. For example, Texas formed the Rangers, a statewide law enforcement agency. They work in conjunction with local law enforcement but are not tied to any local jurisdiction. About 80 years ago when the Great Depression hit and bank robberies became national news, the federal government formed the Federal Bureau of Investigation primarily to combat these notorious bank robbers.
Sheriffs are county servants whereas police forces generally serve specific cities. A sheriff was responsible for upholding the law in a very large geographical area. Naturally when towns grew in population there were more crimes to combat, and the people there wanted local law enforcement officers dedicated to their smaller geographical areas. So sheriff departments became law enforcement for the sparsely populated country outside of incorporated towns and cities, and city police forces were formed. People are loathe to change things which have served them for years, and don't want to give up the authority to regulate themselves, to have their own elected officials, their own law enforcement departments, etc. So efforts to merge these forces have largely been met with resistance. It seems complicated if you're not used to the system I suppose.

I am not real familiar with Robert Durst's case. I just did some reading on it. The guy seems dirty to me, but I don't think there is a lot of solid evidence for a prosecution. I am sure Dexter would put him on the list. LOL

He was tried for killing one man whom he later dismembered. He claimed it was a self defense killing. Dead men tell no tales so we only have his side of the story. He claimed that in a panic he dismembered the body afterward. That is a bit hard for me to accept. Who does that? I guess his position is that he was afraid he would not be believed and wanted to cover up the killing. Well....that would be true if he outright murdered him also, wouldn't it? The jury apparently bought his claim of self defense. I don't know much about that case. But I feel like innocent people don't dismember bodies.

His first wife disappeared. He claims he last saw her when she left to return to school. No body has ever been found. He comes from a rich family. Perhaps his wife was going to leave him and he didn't want to pay alimony to her? Then more recently, in 2000, investigators were scheduled to speak to a long time female associate of his (Susan Berman) about his first wife's disappearance. Perhaps she had had a falling out with Durst and was going to share information with them. We have no way of knowing what she might have said because she was discovered with a bullet in her head before she could meet with the investigators. Naturally Durst is a suspect in that crime, but apparently there is a dearth of evidence against him in that killing. The police have not found the murder weapon.

I think the fate of Durst depends on whether the court will accept the hearsay evidence of Susan Berman who allegedly had confided to friends that she had helped Durst cover up the murder of his wife about 40 years ago. Normally such conversations are not allowed as evidence in trials. "She told me...blah blah blah" is considered too far from the original source. But in a case where the original source was murdered and can no longer speak for herself, perhaps it will be admitted. Also, friends said Berman told them she had been expecting Durst to visit around the time the murder took place. That is all circumstantial evidence. Durst is reportedly worth $100 million so he can afford a first rate defense team.

Personally, I believe he is guilty. But it's anybody's guess as to how this will play out in the courts. If he is found guilty, you can be sure his lawyers will appeal for a new trial based on the use of the hearsay evidence, and lack of physical evidence.

You are very knowledgeable - how you remember all that is incredible!! Very interesting as to how the jurisdictions evolved. With regard to Robert Durst - I watched a documentary called "The Jinx" - he was very chatty and cocky and willing to talk but at one point when they were taking a break or finished for the day (I can't remember which) he didn't realise that his microphone had been left on and he said "Did I kill them all - of course I did". I am probably paraphrasing, but not by much. So how he is going to wriggle out of that one I do not know. Still the super rich have a habit of getting away with anything. It was a while ago - but I think he was filmed on his way to kill his brother also. Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply - I found it fascinating.

Thank you. Our first President, George Washington, felt the purpose of education in this new country should include instruction in our form of government. But times have changed, even since I was a lad in school. Every so often some late night talk show host will air some "interview on the street" segment in which everyday people are stopped and posed various questions about our history, our government, etc. I am astounded at the number of people who cannot even recall who the Vice President is. Much has been written about the dumbing down of America, how the school system is geared toward indoctrination rather than instruction. These interviews seem to support that view. One question almost nobody could answer was "Which country did we fight in the Revolutionary War to gain our independence?" Can you believe that almost nobody could come up with Great Britain, or even England? I am truly worried about the future of this country when the people are so ignorant about their own government, their own history. They all know which Hollywood star is dating which other star, or when they broke up, etc. "Group think" is in, group conformity is in, but independence is out. Students who voice "unapproved" opinions are ridiculed. It's scary. It's as if this generation is being groomed to be governed by totalitarians.

I read that quote of Durst, when the mic was hot and he didn't realize it. It's certainly a damning quote on its face. “What the hell did I do? Killed them all of course.” But I have heard attorneys take statements like that and make them seem so benign. One can only hope that the preponderance of the evidence will be enough to return a guilty verdict.

The families of the murdered women may be able to bring charges against him for violating their civil rights. The standard of evidence for a conviction on that charge is much lower than for a criminal charge. You cannot be tried twice for the same charge, but this is technically a different crime, so even if the State fails to convict him for their murders, the families can still bring charges against him. So perhaps the families can win a judgment and take his money. OJ Simpson was charged with violating the civil rights of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman and he was convicted. He claimed he was broke of course, but if he ever makes any money from selling books or anything, he can't keep it. That is something at least. Of course Durst has plenty of money to lose. It would be fitting for him to lose it too. I think it's likely he killed his first wife because he didn't want to have to pay alimony. I think he was too cheap, too full of hatred, to pay her alimony. It would be just therefore if the court awarded such a large judgment against him, that together with his legal fees he was left bankrupt.

I spent several months in Bromley Kent back in 1979-80 volunteering with a youth mission group. I really enjoyed myself. In America if a building is over 100 years old we think it's pretty old. But you have buildings which have been standing for well over a thousand years, and some structures of unknown age (Stonehenge). Most of my ancestors are from Great Britain so I felt like I was returning home in some sense. Maybe I can get back there for a visit one of these years.

Our country's education system is in decline - students are awarded "A" levels down to a G pass. In my day a pass was A, B or C. University students now do degrees in Tourism and write theses on Coronation Street. (A thrice weekly soap). They say we have never had such a high pass rate at "A" level - yet more children than ever are leaving school without the ability to read or write - as you might say - go figure !! The general level of intelligence is this country is falling dramatically - a question on a quiz show recently - "What William wrote "As you like it"? The answer given by a middle aged man "Tell". They say comedy and tragedy are two faces of the same coin. I think they are right. In the case of Durst it has always been my belief that when money talks money walks, he will get away with it. If you ever visit Britain I would advise you to stay away from London and the bigger cities - try places like Oxford, Bath, Cheltenham and Stratford-on Avon. I am in industrial South Wales but there are some beautiful places in West Wales which is renowned for its gorgeous Gower peninsula.

I think the decline in education in western nations is intentional. Students are being conditioned to react to triggers. They're being groomed to be unthinking lemmings. But they're not being educated. [Corporations report they must send university graduates through remedial training programs to learn what students used to learn before graduation. Americans test lower than other industrialized nations in just about every category..... except for self-esteem. They believe they are competent!] Nationally recognized educators speak about using the educational system to effect"Enlightened social engineering" of students. I read a book called BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS which was a real eye opener. Educators brag that they don't teach facts anymore, but teach students how to think. I can't say I understand the end goal of these people, but they seem to want to create a society they can manipulate.

This is a crazy time we live in.

I have long believed that the powers that be do not want people who can think for themselves - they want sheep they can convince of anything. It scares me that people can't seem to see this - it's almost like science fiction where people are mindless automatons. One huge instance of being told what to think and believe is the holocaust situation where people can be jailed for simply having an opinion of what happened 70+ years ago. The same doesn't apply to denying the holocaust of the Bohemian gypsies who were exterminated by three and a half million. Funny how that seems to have been airbrushed out of history but we have never ending reminders via film and television of the Jewish atrocity, surely both are worthy of remembrance. Most people I speak to have never heard of the Bohemian gypsies. I think governments want people to focus on themselves (not hard given the natural vanity of people) and be completely satisfied by their own mediocrity. Hence the rise of the selfie and the endless mind numbing "talent" shows. As long as people are thinking about themselves they leave the important stuff like corruption and sleaze alone. I don't know whether it is the same in America but I have noticed that on higher class quiz shows like "University Challenge" all the students appear to be from upper class backgrounds - there seems to be very little representation from less affluent backgrounds. You can tell from their names and accents. Keeping the power where it belongs - with the moneyed classes. Nothing will ever change because people are just too damn stupid to see it happening.

Millions of Polish people were also exterminated in those camps. They all deserve recognition of course. But what is alarming is the censorship of opinions which are not approved by governing bodies, and worse, punishment for expressing such opinions. That is something which only used to happen in totalitarian societies such as communist China or the USSR. We in the West pointed this out to highlight the differences between the liberties enjoyed in the free countries of the West vs. the oppression in the totalitarian countries.
Now as leftist groups gain power in the West we see the same thing happening here. Of course they label it "hate speech" or say it is "offensive" speech. But that is absurd. There is no 'right' to not be offended. Anyway, how could such an invented right be protected? Anyone can claim to feel offended and demand punishment of others, reparations for mental anguish, etc. [And if they are rewarded for claiming to be offended, there is a huge increase in the number of offended parties. You get what you pay for. ] In practice, not all 'offensive speech' is punishable, only that speech which the government deems to be offensive. It is a means by which a dictatorial government can control people by censoring speech and punishing those who disagree with the government.
Civil rights groups ought to be up in arms over these laws, but their silence about or complicity in the censorship system has evidently been coerced or bought.

The younger generations are being groomed to go along with this system. They are cajoled and conditioned by the school system's behavioral science teaching methods to conform. It is very alarming and scary to see. They can't think for themselves; they find out what to think by watching the various media, news, hashtag campaigns, facebook, etc. They view themselves as technologically savvy and therefore more in touch than older generations, and they are ignorant of how easily they are programmed in what to think, who to hate, what to believe, etc. "Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion". That was a commonly held idea when I was young. It meant we lived in a free country and each person had the natural, sovereign right to his own opinions, his own religious beliefs, etc. But that isn't the case today in America, and I gather GB is much the same. If you express an opinion contrary to that sanctioned by the PC thought police, you are subject to harassment or worse. I've read of people in GB going to jail for joking in an offensive manner. Incredible. Things are almost that bad here. The punishments here are usually in the form of lawsuits, attacks upon your employment, and so on.

And young people seem to think this is normal. They are taught to place a high value on group conformity, and to ridicule the independent thinker. They have been socialized to find out what the approved ideas are and give assent to them, because they don't want to be excluded or worse, attacked.

There is nothing to be done it seems - like corruption - these policies are so entrenched there is no longer any hope of turning them around. I fear for the future, for my child and everybody else's.