General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Progressive Forum should never advocate the Death Penalty.
And I'm proud to say that a strong majority on DU do not.
I have said this many times on DU. Prove to me that the death penalty is 100 percent full proof regarding the accuracy of someones innocence or guilt, then we will talk.
Nobody can do that because, as we know, we have seen proof over the year, thanks to DNA, that innocent people have spent time on death row, and probably still do so. That tells me that innocent people have most likely been put to death via the death penalty.
We hear from advocates---but he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt argument---therefore he must die. Sorry--- you simply can't pick and choose based on that. You either have the penalty or you don't--no picking and choosing.
The death penalty is flawed simply because it is not 100 percent accurate.
If you are OK with putting innocent people to death, then you might want to check yourself to see if you truly are progressive.
MHO
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)Whether it's someone committing mass murder, someone committing a terrorist act, or the state putting someone to death.
Human life is a very precious thing, and no one should ever be put to death against their will.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)committed and has no place in truly progressive thought. I too abhor the death penalty.
lastlib
(23,224 posts)According to our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, government exists to protect our basic rights, life itself being foremost among those rights. Giving it the power to take a citizen's life sets it above the citizens, and that is in contradiction to its purpose for existing.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)
liindy
(12 posts)The State can kill in self defence.
I wish I could write this is the stars. Life Liberty and Happiness does not include being put to death by your own Government.
Period.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)The Constitution, on the other hand, is law--the highest law of the land, in fact, and the death penalty has been ruled to be Constitutional.
As I said below, I would favor a Constitutional amendment to abolish the death penalty, but that's what it would take.
-Laelth
lastlib
(23,224 posts)but it certainly carries a certain probative value in any intelligent debate on the subject. I would also support a constitutional amendment to abolish it, but I don't think it would be required. Just as the Supreme Court overruled legal segregation in schools, it could also overrule the death penalty--for example, finding that it is unfairly administered, and inherently cruel and unusual. I admit that may be a stretch, and impossible with the current RW clowns on the SCOTUS, but down the road, maybe.... I also think Congress could abolish it statutorily, but that's just as unlikely. It probably would take a constitutional amendment to settle it for all time, so I guess we're probably stuck with capital punishment for my lifetime. But we can work toward it........
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Parts of its text speak to our better angels, and I am quite fond of it.
My goal, here, is to insure that we're all on the same page, so that we sound like we know what we are talking about. It is true that the SCOTUS could up and decide that the DP is unconstitutional, but it seems to me that there's very little that we can do to influence the SCOTUS (other than to press for liberal appointments to it). Given the current SCOTUS, it appears that the only way to abolish the DP would be to amend the Constitution. I would love for the current SCOTUS to prove me wrong, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Assuming you are pro-choice, that is.
As you say, "Human life is a very precious thing, and no one should ever be put to death against their will."
How would you answer the teabagger that says that the innocent child's life is precious and should not be killed?
booley
(3,855 posts)because right off they try to trap you in their own assumption that a clump of cells is a "child" and being born is always the best option for it. Not to mention how they keep forgetting that an unambivelantly human being is also involved... the mother.
They ask a half thought out question and expect a full answer that fits with what they want to believe.
They do with the death penalty too: asking why murders shouldn't deserve death .. forgetting that when governments kill anyone they always think it justified.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)When states execute people it is always surrounded by exaggerated ritual, ceremony and formality. Putting people to death should not be perceived as the epitome of government function.
Similarly, while no one should view the decision to abort lightly, the entire impact is on the life of the mother, and the decision should rest with her.
--imm
kiva
(4,373 posts)Or an infant, or a baby. It is a collection of cells that has the potential to become human life, assuming that it is not one of the estimated 30 to 50 percent of such cells that are lost after implantation.
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)Until a newborn baby takes his or her first breath outside their mother's womb. I would then ask the teabagger why they only care about unborn human "life" and not the lives of already-born children of poor parents without health insurance and who rely on WIC and EBT to make sure their kids get fed.
lastlib
(23,224 posts)If they're willing/able to digest the essay-answer, I'll oblige 'em.
For one thing, there is a distinction between an individual ending a potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy and a State exercising a power that it does not legitimately have.
Second, I can just refer them to Albert Camus' essay, "Reflections on the Guillotine." In that piece, he states it better than I ever could.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)There are many other ways of dealing with murderers than murder.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)And after so many cases like Troy Davis, it is indefensible.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Translating that commandment as Thou shalt not kill was a truly witless thing to do. Easy and euphonic but a moral pain in the ass. You can't swat a fly the way it reads in that translation.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Thou shalt not murder? I don't know much about it but I know about that eye for an eye thing.
aquart
(69,014 posts)But in one of the texts our modern English Bibles derive from, the word used was more accurately translated as "muder.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But I think for most people the word murder is implied. It always was for me. But probably because it's the only thing that makes sense. I think most people really do try to make sense of what is said.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Nannies are a good thing, liberals want to help their fellow persons.
Yet, time and again, I see people state nannies aren't good.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)Awesome.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)In a more primitive society, where the possibility of escape from prison was high, it was absolutely justified to give murderers the death penalty.
AAO
(3,300 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)It's an evolving standard.
AAO
(3,300 posts)
former9thward
(32,003 posts)And no you can't isolate them 24/7. Too many and courts don't allow it.
AAO
(3,300 posts)former9thward
(32,003 posts)I believe in assisted suicide and in the death penalty for special cases.
AAO
(3,300 posts)I also believe in the right to end your own life with dignity, in comfort, with family, and on your own terms. This would only be legal if your were terminal, or have unbearable pain - there may be a few more.
But who needs the law? Just about anyone could fake it (after researching) in order to get a subscription to Xanax, Valium, Ativan, or Ambien. Painless suicide is available right now if you want it.
former9thward
(32,003 posts)When the person wants to end their life they may be in a situation where they are not capable of doing themselves. My father died a couple of years ago in OR. He was in extreme pain and pleaded for us to kill him. Could not do it with OR's assisted suicide law because recommendations of two Drs are needed and he was not able to see Drs at that point.
marmar
(77,080 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It is disappointing that President Obama favors it.
Animal Chin
(175 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)in seeing people who opposed torture when the US government was doing it to Al Qaeda terrorist suspects cheering the idea of anyone being sentenced to life imprisonment in solitary confinement.
JustAnotherGen
(31,820 posts)Who oppose oppression - yet "laugh" for lack of a better word at feminists in America and think demeaning language and images of women are AOK.
But I guess this is part of the big tent. . .
dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)Even though it has the lowest support of any ideology, "Liberal" still pulls death penalty support at 47%. It's safe to say that it's an issue that has a strong divide. I don't know if DU differs substantially from the opinions of liberals across the USA or not.
AAO
(3,300 posts)At least not by my definition.
onenote
(42,700 posts)And what makes it the one true definition?
AAO
(3,300 posts)One plank in my platform is "No Death Penalty". If you don't like my definition, you can use your own - but don't ask me to agree with you...
onenote
(42,700 posts)So far it has only one plank. Does it have any more? I'm going to guess that you don't view every person who opposes the death penalty as fitting within your definition, so there must be other criteria.
AAO
(3,300 posts)You can assume I'm in favor of all progressive stands on the issues. If you want to ask me one by one, fine, but I'm not going to write a treatise for you.
onenote
(42,700 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)Self defining, of course, but perfect nonetheless.
AAO
(3,300 posts)And you really are a onenote! Lighten up Francis.
onenote
(42,700 posts)With my help, you're now responsible for nearly 20 percent of the posts on this one thread.
AAO
(3,300 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)the principle that martial law is odious. And I don't care how many times last Friday the police brought milk to some family that ran out of milk!
Bully Taw
(194 posts)that martial law was instituted in Boston following the marathon bombing?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Last Friday, Bostonians celebrated the annual "stay home from work and school and get the cops to bring you milk day!"
Bully Taw
(194 posts)that no one felt like they were under martial law. people were encouraged to stay in their homes with the door locked as there was a very dangerous individual that had not been apprehended. there was also the strong possibility of other terrorists that were still at large. You would probably be the first to decry the police because they did not do everything they could to protect people if everyone went about their daily routine and another bomb went off and people were hurt or killed. I am thankful that the police did take extreme measures to protect people from harm. You probably won't find much support for your insinuation about martial law from the residents of Boston.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And almost everyone I knew circa Nov '63 to sometime in 1975 or '76, thought that Oswald was a lone nut.
And that the Bay of Tonkin was a real true event.
Now over 67% of all us 'Murkins realize that Oswald was probably a patsy. Few people can say for sure who did it or how or why. But again over two thirds of us don't believe the official story. (In my defense, back when i believed the Oswald was the lone nut tale, and the Bay of Tonkin tale, I was not even fifteen yrs old yet.)
Some,time in '75 or '76 the Zapruder film of the events in Dallas 11/22/1963 was available for viewing on many campuses across our country, and opinions started rapidly changing after that.
And McNamara himself went on tour around the country some years before his death, to let us know that Bay of T. was staged.
SO WAIT FOR IT - When will Ohio Barbarian arrive at my post to tell me that his girl friend was a believer in "conspiracy theories" and she then entered a mental ward?
And regardless of how people feel about the Official Story re: Nine Eleven, regardless of the Truthers, most of us here at DU certainly no longer believe our government's official story that the big problem in Fall 2002 was indeed that lone nut Saddam Hussein, with his country's storage facilities filled to the brim with WMD's, and our need to go to war against Iraq.
Google Sibel Edmond and her view of Apr 15th's events, and then get back to me.
Bully Taw
(194 posts)i don't know what to say to that! that is so far off track for this discussion. I feel like I am talking with Oliver Stone. I don't believe in any of the theories you are purporting, and I don't believe in the theory that Sibel Edmond is looking to sell. And, I do not see how any of this is connected to the events at the Boston Marathon.
Thanks for the comments, though.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)truth, and at that point in time, here on DU, Sibel Edmond was a hero.
But now that following the DLC loyally without question is what is required (otherwise you might be Alex Jones using a pseudonym!) the need for truth is less pervasive. Just turn on the TV and happily regurge whatever new Orwellian thing they have up their sleeve.
But here is what used to be said about Sibel:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/understandinglife/456
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2363624
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)across the country.
We are the only civilized country in the world that still holds on to that medieval practice.
But we ARE a culture of violence so in that respect it makes sense that we are still clinging to these long ago, primitive brutal, violent practices.
The good news is that support for the DP has gone way down since the days of Reagan's 'tough on crime' policies have had time to play out and we are no more safe than we ever were.
onenote
(42,700 posts)I oppose the death penalty, but suggesting that we are the only "civilized" country that still employs it is to suggest that the following countries are not civilized: China, Taiwan, Egypy, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan.
Drawing a line as to what countries are civilized and not civilized has gotten us in trouble before.
Lucky Luciano
(11,254 posts)I think by civilized, the poster was referring to countries that are rich and secular.
H2O Man
(73,537 posts)Recommended.
Logical
(22,457 posts)aquart
(69,014 posts)But nice of you to decide how people are allowed to define themselves.
AAO
(3,300 posts)But rooting for murder doesn't make it so.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"But nice of you to decide how people are allowed to define themselves."
Exactly. How dare anyone tell the neighborhood CPA that's he's not in fact, a third-world dictator. If that's what he wants to call himself, who are we to say otherwise via the mechanism of valid definitions.
Viva la CPA! Death to the oppressors, long live spread sheets!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Not all Democrats are liberal. That much is certain.
-Laelth
aquart
(69,014 posts)I'm also pro gun control and perfectly happy that McVeigh and Bin Ladin did not die of natural causes.
Now take that bed, Procrustes, and have a nice nap.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)How does the term, "liberal" apply here to gutlessness? Does it really matter how you term it? What matters is the recognition of how the least of us be given due process, regardless of the crime.
I mean, who really has priority to getting even by having "the State" put to death the person(s) you or others despise? Is the punishment a deterrent? It's never been clearly shown that killing stops other killing.
If you're pissed that people break the rules, then we're in the same company. But if you think you feel better, based on the punishment then wake up from your nap.
ashling
(25,771 posts)Nice! I'll have to use that.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,254 posts)
barbtries
(28,793 posts)because it's my belief that people should not kill people. i am against war as well.
onenote
(42,700 posts)While I personally oppose the death penalty, I don't think that someone not being 100 percent opposed to it is somehow disqualified from being considered "progressive."
There are folks on this list that consider themselves progressive who without the slightest hesitation call for the government to impose all sorts of content or speaker based restrictions on speech. I find them far less "progressive" than a person who believes in free speech but does not oppose the death penalty in all cases.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I also oppose the death penalty, but would not begrudge someone who did.
Actually for many years when I was much younger I held no real opinion either way on the death penalty. Then I began to learn more about it and decided I was against it. There are a few other issues I have evolved on as well.
I don't think anyone can claim to be a "perfect progressive"
AAO
(3,300 posts)Progress would be eliminating something as barbaric as the death penalty. Conservatives want to take us backwards, progressive want to move forward to a better world.
Shrek
(3,979 posts)I'm okay with the death penalty in the very limited number of such cases.
Otherwise I agree with you.
auntAgonist
(17,252 posts)circumstance I'd be ok with the death penalty.
*disclaimer.
I have seen the face of evil in the man who murdered my best friend's daughter. Life in prison without any chance of parole should be the penalty.
aA
kesha
intheflow
(28,466 posts)Was going to post just this: putting someone to death is more expensive than locking them up for life. If you don't oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, you should at least oppose it on fiscal grounds.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'll tell you what is lost: the value of human life, all human life, is deprecated when we give the state the authority to take it, not in self defense, not in war, but coldly and calculatedly as it does through an execution.
From a legal perspective guilt is never in doubt, as a jury has determined, "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused is guilty. In that sense your qualification is meaningless. How else are you going to determine this other category of "not in question" that I assume you mean is different than the legal one?
Shrek
(3,979 posts)If the accused pleads guilty, or otherwise admits to the crime, then guilt is not in question.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)In his Tuesday ruling vacating Montour's guilty plea, Douglas County District Court judge Richard B. Caschette noted that when the defendant pleaded guilty he was not represented by a defense attorney and he had a "documented history of mental illness."
"A common theme for Mr. Montour's public defender and advisory counsel is that Mr. Montour wanted to die by execution," the judge wrote.
The judge noted that Montour's former public defender, Sharlene Reynolds, testified, "He wanted to be killed by the state…[H]e was very despondent, very depressed, he wanted to basically throw himself at the state so that the state could kill him."
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/front-range/castle-rock/judge-tosses-edward-montour-jrs-guilty-plea-in-beating-death-of-colorado-correctional-officer
That literally took less than a minute to find.
Shrek
(3,979 posts)For a guilty plea to be accepted, the accused has to allocute and essentially prove that he committed the crime. If the plea is accepted then there can be no doubt that he is indeed guilty.
McVeigh did not plead guilty, but he admitted to the crime outside of the judicial system, and there was plenty of evidence to support that admission.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The claim was that was sufficient. Now it seems more has to occur after the guilty plea and the sentence. A guilty plea and a death sentence are not sufficient.
While acting as his own attorney in 2003, Montour pleaded guilty to murdering Autobee. A judge sentenced him to death, even though Montour had requested a jury trial for sentencing, Lane said.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/front-range/castle-rock/judge-tosses-edward-montour-jrs-guilty-plea-in-beating-death-of-colorado-correctional-officer
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)There have been many cases of false confession. People can be beaten/tortured, otherwise coerced and/or lied to to extract confession. They can be seeking renown (hard to believe, but it does happen). They can be protecting the real killer. They can have a death wish. Or they can be mentally challenged and not fully understand what they are confessing to.
I believe that false confession is not even particularly unusual.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)to crimes they did not commit. They are browbeaten so badly - could even be considered tortured possibly - that they don't even know what to think anymore and they confess because they are so stressed and confused and have been told they did it so many times they just admit it. So yes, guilt may still be in question.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Center left need not apply.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Also, since when did the desire that no innocent people get murdered by the state become a far left principle?
Not to mention, it costs less to imprison someone for life than it does to go through the inevitable appeals.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Nonsense.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)democrank
(11,094 posts)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I am more interested in the question of whether or not someone who supports the Death Penalty, but is progressive in other ways, belongs at DU.
Bryant
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)Are there criteria that must be met to be a DU'er?
I'm not trying to rag on you, but I'm an oldie around DU and in my opinion, what used to be an open discussion group is becoming more closed. By that I mean, that on many threads there appears to be a majority opinion and posters who disagree with that opinion are pounced upon.
I like open debate, many times learning from posters with alternative viewpoints. So I want to continue to read opinions that agree with my thinking AND opinions that differ.
Like you, I have mixed feelings on the Death Penalty. While I don't like the idea of taking a human life ever, sometimes (such as the instance with the Boston situation), I feel like the crime is simply so heinous that I think I would consider the death penalty. Considering it versus actually applying it are two different matters. I'm not sure exactly what I would do if I were sitting on a jury.
Arby
(60 posts)for a state sanctioned death penalty (murder) is vengeance, not justice or punishment.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)War Horse
(931 posts)The DP has nothing to do with justice, it's almost solely about vengeance. And the latter should be far, far removed from any concept of 'justice'.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)The killer should be prevented from killing again. After that, it's all about deterrent, vengeance (thanks I didn't know how to spell that word), or the so-called "closure".
Apparently it's ineffective as a deterrent. Vengeance is one of the most wrong-hearted reasons to do anything, and it perpetuates a cycle of violence.
They always talk about "closure" for the victim's family. That needs a close examination, what's that really about, and should the family be entitled to it? Is it even real? I think once the killer has been removed from society that is enough closure. The families are irrevocably wronged by the killing, there is no remedy for that whatsoever.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)assault on another person or persons. Self-defense while being victimized by a carjacker, rapist, armed robber, home invasion etc.
I give a little cheer when violent criminals are dispatched by their would-be victims. Attacking other people is not OK.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)
malaise
(268,982 posts)These last few days have shocked my sensibilities
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Show me an alternative that, like the death penalty, is 100% fool proof against a convicted murderer killing again.
Nobody can do that becasuse, as we know, we have seen murderers escape and kill again, be released and kill again, or kill guards and other convicts in prison.
Don't we care about those lives?
Nobody has ever or will ever kill again after being executed.
Javaman
(62,528 posts)I never understood that logic.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Javaman
(62,528 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)How many murder victims of already convicted murderers are enough?
Javaman
(62,528 posts)
Harry Monroe
(2,935 posts)If the US had captured Adolf Hitler, do you think he deserved execution after an international trial? He would have surely been put on trial at Nuremburg. And was the "killing" of Osama bin Laden justified, in your view? I only bring up the most heinous examples of human beings I can think of am interested in how would you handle monstrous crimes of their nature. Not trying to pick a fight, but just interested in how you would handle 2 extreme cases like this.
Javaman
(62,528 posts)I believe that death is the easy way out. I believe rotting in a prison for their crimes for the rest of their lives no matter what it is, is the worst punishment a person can ever receive.
People seem to think that prison is some sort of easy way out. Study after study proves this wrong over and over. Life in prison does colossally more harm to a person than good. And every single day they are reminded why they are there.
There is no amount of argument a person can give me that will change my mind.
Until we as a society finally accept that killing for any reason especially as a form of punishment does nothing to fix the over all problems in our society, it will continue because those who want the simple easy "solution" to our problems will keep pushing for it thinking somehow the problem or problems will now go away or somehow criminals will suddenly change their ways in fear of the death penalty.
And using hitler as an example is a version of Goddard's law.
Harry Monroe
(2,935 posts)I'm not trying to change your mind nor would I if could. I wrestle often with the dichotomy of my progressive and liberal beliefs and with the thoughts that people like this have forfeited their rights to live in our society.
Javaman
(62,528 posts)I'm an atheist and I hold life so very dearly. It's not our decision to decide who lives or dies, it's only up to the individual. After all our lives are our own.
And if we fuck up and make a massive bad choice or mistake it's up to the individual to live with that.
That is why life in prison, to me, is a far more harsh punishment than putting someone to death.
Harry Monroe
(2,935 posts)on who "forfeits the right to live" by his very act of murder.
Javaman
(62,528 posts)and it gets back to what I first stated, I will never understand how killing someone to shows people that killing is wrong. To me that's completely failed logic.
This is why he should spend the rest of his life in prison. To me, that is absolutely the worst punishment anyone could ever receive.
Harry Monroe
(2,935 posts)Javaman
(62,528 posts)health deteriorates at a more rapid pace then the general population and your live expectancy is at least 20 years shorter than the general population and you are under the daily threat of potential beatings from the various prison gangs and you have all your basic freedoms revoked, is what you believe to be "living", then we will never agree.
I don't believe in killing. It's a very simple tenant my life
Again, killing someone to show that killing is wrong is still failed logic.
Harry Monroe
(2,935 posts)But you are completely ignoring the victim and his family here. There are two sides to a murder, the perpetrator and the unfortunate victim and what he has done to tear apart his family. I can completely understand your point, but at what stage do you start thinking about the unfortunate victim and the wreckage the murderer caused in his wake? Keeping the killer locked away for life and throwing away the key is a start, but it doesn't bring back the dead victim. What is the solution for what the surviving family deserves for some closure? Do they just suck it up and live with it? Again, I'm not advocating the death penalty, but short of that, what does the grieving family do? They have rights also.
Javaman
(62,528 posts)And I still stand by what I said, I don't believe in killing someone to show that killing is wrong.
I'm taking the larger view as how it effects the general population.
My position isn't only in regards to the bombers, it's regarding all people who are sentenced to death.
And you answered your own question when you asked, "what does a grieving family do?" They grieve.
That may sound harsh, but that's what we as humans do.
If you feel that all people must have some sort of retribution for the death of a loved one, where does it end? If we as a society are to move forward as a civilization, we must stop killing. That's how it works.
And regarding criminals such as these two asshole bombers, yes they killed but are we as a society to continue to lower ourselves to their level by killing them? We, in the general sense, have to be the embodiment of rising above the lowest common denominator and not give over to the easy answer and kill. We have to be better than that otherwise we will never progress as a people or civilization.
Our initial impulse is to act out and get our pound of flesh, but we must strive to better than that and not allow our most base instincts be the law of the day.
Again, there is no better punishment to me, then taking away someones freedoms and putting them in a controlled, 24/7, type of environment where every single aspect of their life is watched and dictated to them for the remaining years of their lives.
There is no amount of convincing me otherwise, I will always be against the death penalty.
Again, as I have said before, killing someone to show that killing is wrong, is a failed logic.
Harry Monroe
(2,935 posts)Peace
Javaman
(62,528 posts)I know this is a very emotional issue and a discussion of this sort could easily get out of hand.
Cheers and thanks for the compliment. 
Harry Monroe
(2,935 posts)Let us both hope that neither one of us has to walk a mile in the victim's family shoes. For me at least, it is one thing to say that I am against the death penalty, but it would be hard to stick to my position if my wife or child was murdered. If, God forbid, a loved one of yours was ever gunned down by a killer for no reason whatsoever and he/she showed no remorse whatsoever, and you could still steadfastly stick to your position then, well I commend you. I can honestly say that I just don't know how I would react if this ever happened.
Javaman
(62,528 posts)I had someone very close to me killed when I was in my teens.
I framed my opinion then.
I, at first, felt outrage that the person should be killed, but then I realized just how complete ridiculous that sounded. It was then I became an anti-death penalty advocate.
cali
(114,904 posts)and 100%?
No one has ever escaped from adx Florence which is where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would be sent if he were sentenced to life.
NO ONE has escaped from adx Florence in the 19 years it's been housing federal prisonrs.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)If we must show 100% accuracy in the DP to avoid the loss of innocent life, we should surely show 100% recidivism-free alternatives to avoid the loss of innocent life. Is 99.9% acceptable in the former case?
I'm pretty sure I can find specific facilities where no DP candidate has ever been exonerated too. Is that relevant? Especially since Florence has certainly not stopped people killing again
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/29/Death-penalty-sought-in-Supermax-killings/UPI-73571301420385/
Now depending on how relativist you are willing to be, those lives lost may not be all that innocent, but that same standard can be applied to DP risks too, as it is pretty darned rare for a lifelong crime-free person to be executed. How are we to decide which risk and which questionable level of innocence should be sacrosanct? If all homicide is unacceptable, it must apply to Florence inmates at the hands of other inmates at least as much as at the hands of the state (probably more so - most people would prefer to die by lethal injection given the choice between the two).
cali
(114,904 posts)sorry, but you're being pedantic in a how many angels kind of way.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)Jeez....
dmallind
(10,437 posts)A PREVIOUSLY convicted killer. One who could have been executed, but kills again on parole, after escaping, or in prison. Aren't those lives worth protecting more than that of a murderer? Who made the decision to leave him the ability to kill again? Whoever did should pay the price.
Until there is an alternative that prevents recidivism as effectively, the DP will be both necessary and just.
AAO
(3,300 posts)The DP IS NOT! neccessary and it CERTAINLY isn't Just. Why don't you go torture a frog.
whopis01
(3,511 posts)Because even with the death penalty in use in some cases, the problem that you point will still exist.
Even in states with the death penalty, there is the possibility of a murderer receiving a sentence that allows for parole. If the purpose of the death penalty is to make certain that person never kills again, then wouldn't it make sense to do away with all other punishments for murder?
What about a drunk driver who kills someone in an accident? They have killed. They have exhibited a behavior pattern that is likely to lead to them killing again if they are allowed to continue. What happens when they get out, get drunk and get behind the wheel again? If they kill again, do you feel that those responsible for their release should have to "pay the price"?
Where do you feel the line should be drawn?
RobinA
(9,890 posts)is flawed because it is state sponsered murder. I don't care if it's 100%, if only white people are executed, or any of the other arguments against it. The state should not be killing people for...killing people. It's a barbaric throwback to a mostly long gone time.
Ishoutandscream2
(6,661 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)I do believe that the DP is applied far to often in cases where agency is less than certain and when there are mitigating circumstances.
G_j
(40,367 posts)are not progressive values, I agree.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)But I don't think you nor anyone else can define 'Progressive' for the rest of us.
AAO
(3,300 posts)He cannot define it for the rest of us as he did in the OP. Progressives (I prefer Liberal) are free thinkers and shouldn't blindly follow every plank on a platform.
AAO
(3,300 posts)I may agree with him that the DP isn't a liberal value, but that's my personal opinion.
cartach
(511 posts)If that's the that's the main thrust of your argument then you've lost it before it's begun. I'm sure that no sane person wants to put an innocent person to death. If it can be proven that someone has murdered someone deliberately, in plain public view for instance and there is no question of self defense, and it was not a question of reasonable doubt but no doubt at all, then I for one would be all for capital punishment.
Aside from vengeance, what purpose is served by capital punishment?
It doesn't work as a deterrent. It doesn't save money. It doesn't reliably provide closure for the victims.
In more than a decade, I have never heard a single argument for capital punishment that didn't boil down to a need to satisfy public moral outrage and some dubious thirst for vengeance.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)This has happened because some states let them go, most recently in the news were those a GOP governor pardoned and they killed again. Also, as far as closure for their victims, I have to respectfully disagree.
Most would not gain anything by the death of those confined; but I know people whose family members were victims of serial rapists, gangs of child molestors not yet in custody or murderers and don't feel they can safely exist while they live. It's not vengeance. It's fear that while the person who did what they did to them breathes, they will be back for them.
I have not walked in their shoes, and don't live with the terror and horror they have. So I can't say that it's vengeance, although I appreciate the belief that says it won't help bring closure. These people want it to happen for their own peace of mind, as sad as this is.
IMO, supporters of the death penalty fall in a couple of other categories, as well. I have no sympathy for those who say it costs money to keep them alive as the monetarization of life is repugnant to me and it doesn't stop at just caring for criminals.
Then there are there are what I call the 3-F solution people erect in their minds. They don't want to think they'll have to deal with Killer XYZ again. They don't particulary wish harm, or injustice, they just want it to all be over with.
They won't be administering it, so it's distant to them. Just as people don't want to know what goes on in a slaughter house, they put this out of their mind.
As far as people wanting to have some vicarious satisfaction from the deaths of these, I don't think we see much of that here at DU, although at times I'm surprised.
I am appalled to see the detailed tortures some want inflicted on criminals, the result of years of media brain washing from '24' and the whitewashing of torture by Bush. It's a societal sickness.
When I see that expressed or the total trashing of the system we are supposed to be a part of to make things work for all, some days I doubt the wisdom of allowing people to vote and that's been an uncomfortable idea that really bothers me, particularly with the rise of the Tea Party. Because immaturity, intemperance and ignorance are disturbing.
YMMV.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)The issue of murderers released who then kill again is an argument against current incarceration policies, rather than an argument in favor of executions. That is, we'd essentially be saying "we should kill them because we don't know how to imprison them."
I should also state for the record that I would personally and with my bare hands kill anyone who harmed my family, so it's not as though I'm unable to empathize with people who've endured such hardship. However, that's a far cry from endorsing state executions once a convicted criminal has been rendered harmless. Also, if I were to kill such an assailant, I would submit myself to whatever legal process is required, rather than declaring myself not guilty by reason of being really, really angry. I'm not saying that you've suggested this, but rather that I've seen this sort of sentiment expressed often on DU.
That's also the answer IMO that Dukakis should have given Bernie Shaw, by the way, rather than some tepid and tone-deaf legalistic response to the murder of a loved one.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I contend that The People are responsible for how the government works. Lead, follow or get out of the way of those doing the job one criticizes. Join it and stop catcalling from the sidelines. As Will PItt said in a piece quoted here on DU this morning:
Random Notes from the Police State
...Worried about your civil liberties? Ask the bastards who committed murder about that before venting your spleen on the ones tasked to deal with the bombs thrown in the street and the shooting and the fleeing and the hiding and the guesswork, ask the bombers about your curtailed rights before going after the people who have to balance the Constitution against public safety when a killer is loose in a neighborhood.
It was the bombers who ruptured your rights, you damned daft self-absorbed outrage-junkie jackasses. The Boston police restored them. I know that's not the hip, cool, anti-authoritarian thing to say, but it is a fact nonetheless. Period, end of file...
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15895-random-notes-from-the-police-state
If we are to be a nation where laws rule and not kings (or bosses) we must be willing to pay for indefinitely keeping the public safe from killers.
I just don't see the attention span of Americans as being sufficient in most cases to accomplish it. Forget about getting them to consider the long-term implications of any policy for longer than a media spin cycle presents it to them.
That's part of the problem, too much hyped emotion and too little analysis or reflection. I confess to not being immune myself as well, if anyone thinks differently.
Sorry, I went afield there and started ranting. Take the time to go to that article by Will PItt, it's well worth the minute it takes to read. He says all I can't articulate running to and fro to put out one fire and then another in my life.
Nice talking to you, Orrex.
broadcaster75201
(387 posts)As an atty, I represented people facing the death penalty. And there were some that absolutely "deserved" such a fate. But it is not for me to decide and it sure isn't for the State to decide if for NO other reason than that the State makes mistakes. I've got zero problem with life without parole. States that execute it's citizens are among the most barbaric in history which, well, is exactly what America is . . . one of the most barbaric Nations in history.
AAO
(3,300 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)I think you need some remedial history lessons.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)2.24 million people in prison, the highest worldwide by total and per capita... two-thirds are minorities, and one in 20 of all black men in the U.S. live in a prison.
Only member of the G8 which executes prisoners.
OK with stripping rights from prisoners and detaining them indefinitely.
Yeah, maybe not the most barbaric of ALL of history, but for "developed" countries in the modern time, the most hypocritical.
onenote
(42,700 posts)that its ridiculous to say that the US is one of the most barbaric nations in history.
There's a enormous gulf between between "the most hypocritical" of the "developed" countries in "the modern time" and most barbaric in history.
Heck, it would be ridiculous to say that the US is the most barbaric nation among developed countries in the modern time unless, of course, you're prepared to say that Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia (a) weren't developed and/or (b) didn't exist in the "modern time."
BTW, I'm not disputing that our criminal justice system leaves much to be desired. But that, of course, was not what the post I was responding to was saying. It was saying something much different (unless words have no meaning) and something quite absurd.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)
get the red out
(13,462 posts)The black and white belief test is a big part of what has completely radicalized the Republican Party. Do we want to go down that same road?
AAO
(3,300 posts)Murder is a grey area. Then obviously theft, assault, robbery, rape, must also have grey areas. Sorry, but I wasn't brought up that way, thank goodness.
get the red out
(13,462 posts)NOT. It's probably best if you don't apply for a job at the psychic hotline just yet.
Putting words in someones post that they did not themselves put there to peg them with some opinion you consider vile is not argument, it's just smug self aggrandizing.
AAO
(3,300 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)That is another form of B & W thinking. The problem we have is that people want a quick fix to complex social problems and social justice because they don't want to do the hard work of reform or paying taxes.
In contrast to that view, the primary argument against the imposition of the death penalty in regard to systems of law and government is that mistakes can and have been made all the way down the line. From the arrest, charging, trials and convictions.
At every stage of the proces there is possibility of prejudice, venality, corruption and just plain callousness. But there is no possibility to restore life to the victim of any of these after the death sentence is carried out.
To assume that in every case or as a given that the State is in all instances committing a crime is to say it has no authority at all. Reform the system, don't slit its throat and hand the imposition of punishment over to the mob.
America doesn't need capital punishment to take care of public safety, which is the goal that all of us can support. It's the rest of the system being deemed illegitimate by those who have been bitterly disappointed or want something else - like the Tea Party - that will do us in.
If you didn't see it, you may want to check this article by Will Pitt which explains what I don't have time to put into words:
Random Notes from the Police State
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15895-random-notes-from-the-police-state
Well worth the read for what we need, and not sensationalizing as we humans tend to do.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Do I qualify as a progressive, now? While waiting for approval, you want mind if I clean my arsenal?
byeya
(2,842 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)should never support many of the things I see supported on DU.
I think no reasonably evolved person should ever advocate for the death penalty. Not because of the margin of error which can not be overcome, but because killing is wrong. Becoming that which you condemn is not a path to a healthy planet.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
spanone
(135,831 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)In the original Hebrew it was `Lo tirtzakh `- thou shalt not murder.
There is plenty of killing in the Hebrew Bible, and much of it was approved by the man upstairs. It's murder that he frowns on.
dembotoz
(16,802 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)These people would make good teabaggers.
marble falls
(57,081 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)And I am strictly against solitary confinement. Its torture, pure and simple. even in cases where prisoners have to be separated from the rest of the inmates for their own safety, or because they are a danger to others, they should at the every least be able to see other people and talk to them.
dembotoz
(16,802 posts)list goes on
marble falls
(57,081 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Maybe it will be one day. One can always dream.
AAO
(3,300 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)in prison never to see the light of day. I want them to remember what they did and be reminded what they did.
auntAgonist
(17,252 posts)get the red out
(13,462 posts)I feel this way too.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)While I had no real problem with a McVeigh being executed, I've come to believe a person should sit in confinement for the rest of their life. If said crime warrants it. Death ends any suffering that criminal has. Yes, the end of ones life is a terrifying thought, I believe it to be worse if someone is sitting in a cell. Knowing NO freedom. Just my opinion. I've seen or read stories of those wrongfully accused and I feel horrible for them. I hate the thought of an innocent man/woman dying for a wrongful conviction.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)penalty so easily. I would think sitting in a small cell 24/7 would drive a person nuts. I know it would me.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)I realized that sitting in a cell for decades is a far crueler punishment than death. Let them rot. I would support putting the pictures of victims in their cells if so many of them wouldn't get off on it.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)with the person they killed.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)should never do... but they happen here all the time... every day.
sP
AAO
(3,300 posts)ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)and every hour of every day someone on this board reads something that wasn't even written...
sP
AAO
(3,300 posts)ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts) 
musical_soul
(775 posts)and the fact that some executed will be innocent is one reason.
That said, I don't think we should judge somebody who has a different opinion. You need to think about what some of these people have done. In the recent case being talked about somebody set off a bomb and killed a child. We saw amputated legs on tv. Those people did nothing but show up to a marathon. I could definitely understand wanting this guy to die. Suppose Adam Lanza had lived. Think about the fact that this guy coldly went into a school and shot over twenty children right before Christmas. That's cold, just flat out cold.
I don't agree with those who support the death penalty, but I understand.
Now personally, I don't understand why it isn't considered unconstitutional. It's cruel and unusual punishment. Some argue they deserve it, and they might be right. Doesn't mean we should do it. Some people argue it's made humane, so it's not unconstitutional. Uh, it's not humane to kill somebody. Hello? lol.
Response to trumad (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)Although I want capital punishment abolished, especially at the state level (more prone to abuse), I don't oppose it for crimes in which one or more victims is under 13 years of age. I find the victimization of young children so heinous that the criminal should be given the most stringent punishment available at the time.
AAO
(3,300 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)A Liberal doesn't worry about being mired in details.
AAO
(3,300 posts)
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)and then get back to me on this.
And YOU don't get to decide what's progressive and what isn't.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Also Google the Chicago nurse killer who enjoyed his life in jail...
I understand what you're saying and I agree wholeheartedly.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Richard Speck. One of my all time favorite scumbags. I remember that story in the newspaper. It completely fucked me up.
GoCubsGo
(32,083 posts)Mostly because my mom was a nurse. It scared the crap out of her. I grew up a couple of towns away from John Wayne Gacy lived and committed his gruesome serial murders. It still gives me the willies to think about it. I oppose the death penalty, but boy, people like these two sure make me think twice about that.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I'm prepared to at least listen to the argument that there are people so evil that it's better to deliberately kill them than to imprison them for life.
I dismiss out of hand the claim that the state can identify such people reliably enough to kill them without also sometimes killing other people, and it's so obviously absurd that I'm not sure it's something one could come to believe as an honest mistake, rather than as deliberate self-delusion.
And I think the claim that it's worth occasionally killing an innocent person in order to kill bad people rather than locking them up is... immoral, foolish and unprogressive, to put it mildly...
peace13
(11,076 posts)It is ironic how many 'religious' people think the death penalty is just fine. As a spiritual but not religious person, I find this impossible to understand. Thou shall not kill... Pretty simple concept.
Response to peace13 (Reply #80)
Name removed Message auto-removed
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)We feel we should progress past ancient retributions.
Nitram
(22,800 posts)...who supports the death penalty with a very high bar for evidence and the depravity of the crime.
See my reply down thread
auntAgonist
(17,252 posts)Response to trumad (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Response to stevenleser (Reply #109)
Name removed Message auto-removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)"irrefutable" that turned out to be innocent.
I'm quite happy to see all the above you listed rot in a supermax prison for life.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #123)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)assumptions about what is more of a deterrent are off. It's different for different people.
What is not different is the risk that the state executes an innocent person. A dead person cannot appeal their execution.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
Response to cyberswede (Reply #158)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)You seem to confuse "revenge" with "justice".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)To be innocent.
It is barbaric, it is not necessary, life in prison, with zero possibility of parole not only is sufficient...it is cheaper.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The death penalty is employed by fallible mortals.
The only question we can address as a society is "should we have a policy of sometimes executing people" - we *cannot* legislate for "we will execute Bob, because the evidence of his guilt is irrefutable".
And if you have a society that sometimes executes people then in practice, no matter what the nominal standard of evidence required, it *will* sometimes execute innocent people.
It is not possible to support the execution of guilty people without also supporting the occasional execution of innocent people, and claiming to do so is dishonest.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)If you don't call yourself a "Trumad Progressive" you're fine.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I'm against the death penalty and I'm also against self-appointed purity testers.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)rabid dogs waste of air----death penalty in first instance
Other case is murder-
If you murder 1 person 30-life
If you murder a 2nd person in a separate instance death penalty-
Murder multiple people at same time death penalty
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Even dogs on chains in the backyard have it better.
But ask yourself, would you like to spend 23 hours a day in a 6 x 10 cell for the remainder of your days? Would you be able to handle it?
There's a reason why these people BEG to be put to death. It's pure torture to spend hours upon hours in solitary. Cabin fever doesn't even come close to how these people suffer day in day out.
I am 100% against the death penalty. There've been too many innocent people murdered by the States because our justice system isn't 100% flawless. The DP should be banned in this country.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)We can add, convicted of rape with DNA evidence then death penalty...
Baby fuckers don't get to live, I figure that's a pretty good rule for society
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Pedos should not be given an easy out. The DP is an easy out for them. They won't have to live in fear that someone might come in and shank them. They don't have to watch their backs anymore. They can sit in a concrete room 23 hours a day and constantly live in fear of their lives.
Murder is murder, even if it's state sanctioned. I'm against murder.
By the way? Most pedophiles don't get the DP and they don't get long prison sentences. I would like to see the law changed that when you're convicted of raping a child - after extensive DNA testing or other hard evidence - you get a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole. Science has shown that pedophiles cannot be cured and they pose a constant danger in society.
Life without parole is the best prison sentence for this monsters.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)for people who murder prime numbers of victims.
So murderers better murder 4 and not 3 people or it's off to the gurney.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)The issue of whether the death penalty should ever be administered as part of a criminal justice system is something that brings out strong emotions, as this thread indicates. People have varied reasons for their positions, and many people hold those positions with absolute certainty that their position, and the reason for it, is the correct one. Others, like me, are not without doubt about the subject, but may have reached a conclusion in one direction or the other.
My position is that I oppose the death penalty. My reasons are not among those that I've seen most often given here. For example, I don't oppose it because its not society's position to decide who lives and who dies. If not society, who? And its not because an innocent person might be put to death, although that is indeed a very strong concern of mine. My problem with that argument is that its a slippery slope. To suggest, as the OP did, that not opposing the death penalty is the same as supporting the execution of an innocent is much like saying that one supports imprisoning innocent people for life if one supports life in prison. To be sure, the death penalty is irreversible; but the life experiences that a person loses when imprisoned are also irreversible. There is nothing just about punishing an innocent person, no matter what the punishment.
My principle reason for opposing the death penalty is that it is reserved for the cases where emotion is most likely to outweigh reason. And where biases, conscious and unconscious, are most likely to influence the outcome. It is why there is demonstrable evidence that the death penalty is not and cannot be administered even handedly -- that its administration contains elements of arbitrariness that simply should not be acceptable to a just society.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)Even if a progressive could support the DP in some cases, it has been applied more often on minorities. Minorities are also more likely to be convicted, they are less likely to have a solid defense.
If we ever achieve the progressive/liberal goal of having equal treatment under the law for all, then we can argue whether the DP is ever justified.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The "forum" doesn't advocate anything, the people participating in it do, and they are as entitled to their opinion as you are.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Others may differ, but also IMHO, it should never be for mandatory group-think.
But I identify myself as a liberal.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)I have no problem with the death penalty for the likes of:
Ted Bundy (who escaped from prison which is how he got to Florida to wreak murder and mayhem at the sorority house where his deadly crime spree FINALLY ended)
Jeffrey Dahmer (though he was killed by another innate)
Timothy McVeigh
BTK
John Wayne Gacy
The Night Stalker guy in LA
The Manson Family killers (who got the death penalty until CA overturned it)
So flame me, but I am consistent: pro-choice and in favor of the death penalty for heinous crimes, multiple crimes, crimes where the evidence is irrefutable (body parts in your refrigerator, bodies under your house...!)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
Phentex
(16,334 posts)I was thinking the same thing. 
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Republican Party on Crime
Party Platform
Support the death penalty
The Republican Party and President Bush support a federal Constitutional amendment for victims of violent crime that would provide specific rights for victims protected under the U.S. Constitution. We support courts having the option to impose the death penalty in capital murder cases.
Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 74 , Sep 1, 2004
Death penalty is an effective deterrent
Within proper federal jurisdiction, the Republican Congress has enacted legislation for an effective deterrent death penalty, restitution to victims, removal of criminal aliens, and vigilance against terrorism. They stopped federal judges from releasing criminals because of prison overcrowding, made it harder to file lawsuits about prison conditions, and, with a truth-in-sentencing law, pushed states to make sure violent felons actually do time.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention , Aug 12, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Crime.htm#3
Romney Position on Capital Punishment
Romney is in favor of capital punishment.
“From my perspective, there are two main camps when it comes to the death penalty. On one side, there are some people who believe there are certain crimes that are so offensive… so reprehensible…. so far beyond the bounds of civilized society that they demand the ultimate punishment. In the other camp are well-meaning people who believe that it is immoral for government to ever take a life. In the middle, I believe, are others who could support the death penalty if it is narrowly applied and contains the appropriate safeguards. It is with that group in mind that we have brought forward the death penalty bill before you today…
The appropriate response of society to terrorism carried out around the world or within the Commonwealth’s borders is to apply the death penalty. That is why the legislation I filed in April accounts for terrorism, along with a small number of other crimes, including the assassination of a law enforcement officer, judge, juror or prosecutor, for the purpose of obstructing an ongoing criminal proceeding. My legislation would also allow juries to consider the death penalty in cases that involve prolonged torture or multiple murders, as well as cases in which the defendant has already been convicted of first-degree murder or is serving a life sentence without parole.”
July 14, 2005, Death Penalty Testimony of Governor Mitt Romney to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, in support of his April 28, 2005 filing of a death penalty bill that was ultimately rejected by the legislature.
Romney's profile, official website and positions on the issues
stklurker
(180 posts)Terrific, another 'I'm more progressive than you thread'.. what you 'believe' is fine, assuming you own the definition is a FAIL
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Why don't you explain authoritarianism to the authoritarians, you know, for the symmetry of the thing?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?
newmember
(805 posts)That's us my friends the U.S.A
randome
(34,845 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think there are people so evil that the arguments for deliberately killing them rather than merely imprisoning them are not absurd.
The primary reason I oppose the death penalty is because it will inevitably sometimes be applied to people other than those defined above, and I *don't* think that there are people so evil that occasionally killing innocent people is a price worth paying to execute them when they could be imprisoned.
I think that there *definitely* are people so evil that in a subsistence-level society where you can't afford a significant long-term prison population it's worth occasionally executing innocent people in order to avoid having to let them go, but there are few if any such societies remaining today.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Nobody, and that means NOBODY has the right to take someone else's life.
Only have you have that right - to your own body.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)We simply don't have any real need to kill them.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)SalviaBlue
(2,916 posts)
NiteOwll
(191 posts)let's just give the death penalty to anyone convicted of any sort of violent crime, whether a murder occurred or not. That way they can never commit another violent crime and potentially cause a death. Commit robbery, arson, child abuse, hurt someone while DUI, domestic abuse, etc.? Here's the death penalty. Easy peasy. 100% chance they will never kill anyone. And we can all feel safer and sleep well at night.
brooklynite
(94,535 posts)...some individuals advocate that position, and the fact that it is on a progressive site is irrelevant. I suspect that on any topic you will find self-identified progressives disagreeing.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)then the least we could do is to make the penalty for judicial malfeasance in death penalty cases death. That I could support.
Initech
(100,068 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)under any circumstances.
Litmus test.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Fine with me.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I can only assume you mean that the posters on the forum shouldn't espouse a view you dislike.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Dude...ask tougher questions.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)--like mass murder or terrorism--is unwelcome here? Or should just keep his/her mouth shut about the death penalty?
trumad
(41,692 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)No "system" is perfect. Nothing designed by man is.
But that's a dodge on your part. Is someone who supports the death penalty at times unwelcome here?
trumad
(41,692 posts)I said it has no place on a progressive forum.
My opinion but not my forum.
So answer my question. You ok putting someone to death with a system that isn't accurate?
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Are you unhappy that McVeigh is gone?
trumad
(41,692 posts)How many innocent people who were on death row that we had dead to rights?
trumad
(41,692 posts)You either have the death penalty or you don't.
You happy innocent people have been put to death---or are you the kind of person that says some mistakes have to happen for the greater good.
Prove to me it's full-proof.
onenote
(42,700 posts)I'm not okay putting someone to death with a system that isn't accurate. I also would oppose it if the system was accurate.
Now I have a question for you: are you okay locking someone up for life with a system that isn't accurate?
trumad
(41,692 posts)My God that was easy.
onenote
(42,700 posts)My point is that the fallability of the system isn't the only or even principal reason for opposing the death penalty and that accusing someone who isn't opposed to the dp in 100 percent of situations of being okay with executing an innocent person is as disingenuous as my accusing you of being okay with locking innocent people up for the rest of their lives.
Easy indeed.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Lets try that again....at least he or she isn't dead...which means they still have a chance to prove their innocence.
If you're dead...you're fucking dead.
onenote
(42,700 posts)Remember, I oppose the death penalty in all cases.
trumad
(41,692 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Pardon the pun, but the death penalty is just overkill IMO. I believe that we all deserve the right to live, no matter what. People who consider themselves "pro-life" should also oppose the DP. Strangely, though, most of them favor it along with opposing universal health care, but I digress.
In a nutshell, prison is a harsh enough punishment for murderers and terrorists.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
progressoid
(49,988 posts)Sad, but true.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Once in a while with some nice progressive messaging. Thought you might have been totally emerged in the religious right koolaide and we'd lost you. 
jimlup
(7,968 posts)Even though it clearly is not.
But for the sake of argument, even if it were fool proof I have trouble with it. I can't accept giving "the State" the moral authority to take life. Even in the most henious of cases. Mostly because a viable alternative does exist called "Life in prison."
trumad
(41,692 posts)I would be against it.
RGinNJ
(1,020 posts)you said what I was thinking, only better.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Obama, Kerry, Gore, and Clinton all supported the death penalty in some form.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)You set up your argument so that we either have to accept innocent people executed or you can't have capital punishment at all. And that is absolute bullshit. I can put whatever standards or parameters I want on it. You can't just say I have to follow your arbitrary rule so you can win without opposition. No sane person is going to go along with a "kill them whether they're guilty or not" standard.
My standard ensures that only the absolutely guilty get the chair. And I most certainly can subscribe to this standard regardless of whether you say I can or not. It should be the national standard.
Like every other normal person, I'm completely opposed to innocent people being executed.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Our justice system will never be 100% accurate, and even if it was, it's state-sanctioned murder.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,254 posts)Sometimes you just need to put down the rabid beast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs
Look up the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs. A couple of 19 year old kids that amused themselves over a month long spree of murdering 21 people using hammers and screwdrivers while videotaping on their cellphones.
Ya just gotta get rid of garbage like that. It is not revenge. It is not a deterrent. Just gotta put down the rabid beast.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
radiclib
(1,811 posts)Is that, like, full of proof?
Kennah
(14,261 posts)Incarceration is not 100% full proof regarding the accuracy of whether someone is innocent or guilty, but we still have to have incarceration. Our criminal justice system is not 100% full proof, at any level, because it is comprised of imperfect human beings. I think it is because our system is imperfect that we cannot allow something like the DP because the DP is irreversible.
trumad, maybe I am just picking at nits, and in fact we are in complete agreement on the DP.
In all, I would say there are at least three reasons why we cannot have the DP.
1) It is vengeance, not punishment.
2) We have an imperfect system, and the use of the DP means that the system cannot make a mistake.
3) It is prohibitively expensive.
There are people who say that 97% of those accused of a crime are guilty of the crime with which they are charged or some lesser included offense. If I am generous, I could go along with the 97% metric. However, take away the DP, and simply consider incarceration. Isn't it a daunting prospect, as a juror, that there is a 3% chance the accused is being drug through a trial for a crime they did not commit, and you get to decide whether they go to jail or not.
flvegan
(64,407 posts)Unless you support the death penalty.
It's revenge. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't get it, I'm sorry for you.
IrishEyes
(3,275 posts)I have been since I was 14 years old. I have enjoyed watching some US states and countries get rid of the death penalty in the last few years. I have yet to live in a state with the death penalty.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)people here will applaud it.
It's savin' lives, dontcha know?
trumad
(41,692 posts)Yeah--maybe like 5 people.
Not sure if you notice but many here are against Drones.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)who plays a Democrat on cable TV news shows who advocates for drones.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Be accepting and open minded of a differences of opinions. Very few progressive are 100% in agreement with progressive philosophy, but rather are a gestalt sum of their beliefs.
Im against the death penalty too, but I can accept a difference of Opinion. Some of my favorite politicians have been for the Death Penalty including Bill Clinton and Obama. Should I not mention them because they deviate from one line of philosophy?
According to that overly simplistic political compass test im an a perfect social liberal and left of center on economic issues. Should I not post on economics then? What if someone is pro-universal single payer healthcare, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay marriage, pro-income equality, pro-diplomocy, pro-equal rights, pro-animal rights, anti-monopoly, anti-corruption, anti-racism yet also pro-death penalty? Just because of that one issue they have to check their progressive card?
I would expect a progressive forum and the progressives posting there would not enforce a strict test of philosophical dogma, and would allow a few dissenting opinions here and there. I would also expect said forum to have most people argue and support progressive and liberal positions. To use logic and reason tempered with compassion to try and convince them to change their mind. That is what I have been seeing. You even admit that most members on this forum don't support the Death penalty.
So whats the problem? 
trumad
(41,692 posts)like say--North Korea, Iran, China, etc... then fine.
You comparing economics talk to the killing of a human being is quite funny.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Again, most people I have seen here oppose it. But progressive would also allow a difference of opinion on the matter (though they would try to change it). Nor would they use a broad generalization against entire cultures.
China is a horrible dictatorship, but they also think that wearing warm clothing in cold weather is a good idea. So should we run around buck naked in the middle of winter?
Also, I am not comparing economics to the death penalty. Im commenting on how you are trying to quell all opinion that is not in full alignment with our philosophy. Thats not very progressive or liberal.
Why not put up a thread entitles "This is why the death penalty is wrong." ? Instead you post a thread calling out anyone who disagrees. This is not about changing opinions or minds. Insulting people only makes them cling that much more to their beliefs.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Don't even try to call yourself a progressive if you support the state sanctioned murder of another human being.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]trumad should have said:[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Don't even try to call yourself a progressive if you are close minded won't even actually bother reading what other people are saying.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Other people are saying that they are OK with state sanctioned killing of Human beings.
onenote
(42,700 posts)I'm not okay with either the death penalty or locking up innocent people. So I guess that's where we differ.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Put away the bong dude.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But that's what it would take. The death penalty is certainly legal and Constitutional.
-Laelth
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)One would think that a self proclaimed 'progressive' might have a problem with dictating other people's opinions to them.
Being 'progressive' is not a single issue world-view: Such simplistic reductionism is for conservatives.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)My vote is to supermax him for life, deprive him of all human contact, make sure he eats nothing but nutraloaf until his dying day.
Make him beg for death, and deny it to him.
jg15
(12 posts)That said, while I do have a number of problems with the death penality... The regular ones, cruel and inhuman, cost, not enforced equitably, no do overs if you make a mistake and etc...
But the last post nags at me...
Is it mercy to put someone in a tiny cell with no hope of parole in a super max prison, for decade after decade, where he is possibly abused, raped and sodomized. Maybe even worse he does the same to other prisoners or even a guard. Where every last bit of hope is squeezed out of individual until the last bit of life is taken from his body in his tiny little cell where he dies alone - even in the unlikely event he was to truly repent and was no longer a danger to society? This mercy almost sounds like the definition of vengeance.
I don't like the death penalty - but I don't think it should be a test of whether or not you are truly liberal. Doesn't sound like either solution is truly liberal. Though in this case one is tempted...
Seems like better solutions are still needed...
trumad
(41,692 posts)That tells me something right there.
Joseph Ledger
(36 posts)
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)should require rule of the majority... we haven't gotten there as a nation yet...
We are a democracy after all.
