Death penalty opinion poll: Where do you stand? Justify your position

[prolesunited]

With the recent execution of the 74-year-old man in Alabama, this topic has emerged once again.

[mstrsplinter326]

1. Thou shall not kill... Pretty straight forward. n/t

[NMDemDist2]

18. yep, violence begets violence

i'm either for peace or i'm not

god is or he isn't

there it is..

[Bandit]

38. What Splinter said

:shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

95. Killing is wrong, or it's not

Just because it's sanctioned by the state which is comprised of laws made by people doesn't make anybody any less dead.

We here in Canada got rid of the death penalty long ago (last execution Dec. 11, 1962) and yet we haven't suffered as a society because of it. Murder rates haven't gone up, there's no less deterrance effect and we don't live in fear. I think this is the case for all countries who abolished it.

So, what is it good for? I admit there is a need for some to get revenge or feel some sort of biblical vengeance, but isn't that what the law tries to avoid?

So, no deterrance and you violate God's first commandment. Where's the justice in that?

[Jackpine Radical]

103. Wouldn't wanna one-up a Canuck, but

WI has never executed anyone since statehood in 1848. The death penalty was formally outlawed in about 1853.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly endorse everything you said about the death penalty.

[Canuckistanian]

106. I did not know that.

Fascinating.

[leftofthedial]

2. extreme cases

treason

voting for a republican

war crimes

[prolesunited]

19. I sincerely hope you're joking

on the voting for a Republican one. It turns my stomach when they talk about killing liberals and I certainly can't advocate doing it to them.

[genius]

171. Clearly you are talking about Bush and his followers.

Though, I'm thoroughly opposed to the death penalty, I wouldn't have any problem if they dragged him out on the front lawn of the White House and carried out Article 85 of the UCMJ (the penalty for desertion in time of war).

[Screaming Lord Byron]

3. Total Opposition.

There's no allowance for error.

[monarch]

4. It's barbaric and

counterproductive.

[SaveElmer]

5. It's immoral

If it's immoral for one person to murder another...it is also immoral for the governmnt to do the same thing.

[ObaMania]

6. Retain, speed up, but...

.. make absolutely sure the killer is guilty beyond shadow of a doubt (DNA, evidence, eyewitnesses, admission of guilt) before death sentence is imposed.

[sangh0]

8. Please read my link (post #7)

.

[onethatcares]

116. my stance

there are rabid dogs and there are rabid people. Those that kill others as prey, don't deserve to live in society. I also feel there should be impeachable evidence to support the sentence.

[zuzu98]

129. FYI, eyewitness testimony

is some of the most unreliable "evidence" there is.

[sangh0]

7. I oppose it in ALL cases

and here's why

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/national/05houston.html

[DrWeird]

9. moratorium.

I haven't got a problem with the death penaly in theory, but until you fix the racial bias it's a form of genocide.

[ET Awful]

10. Totally opposed, you can't kill people to show people that.. . .

killing people is wrong. It's inhumane, hypocritical and immoral.

[pacalo]

11. I'm in favor of the death penalty, depending on the case...

but with the stipulation that DNA testing should be mandatory for each death penalty case. There should be no room for mistakes in these cases.

[daveskilt]

12. my last old RW viewpoint

now I used to be all for it but now I think high treason, genocide etc are still legitimate for the Death penalty.

now I had a sociology professor who put it well once - so a poor, starving, mentally handicapped 17 year old who robs someone and accidentally kills them when the fall after he pushes them down DOES deserve to die but Lee Iacoca who commits premeditated acts that he knows will result in the deaths of hundreds of people (ford pinto memo where they wiork out the cost of paying off the families of dead drivers versus replacing defective fuel lines) DOESNT deserve to die?

i would support the death penalty for the ford pinto folks too - premeditated mass murder to save 11 bucks on a fuel line replacement is downright dastardly. as for fraudulent wars for profit...(genocide or treason?)

[Kitka]

13. No one has the right

to take another’s life. Period. Sorry, but it’s just so common sense to me that I don’t feel compelled to elaborate a whole lot on it. But I will if asked to.

[liberalcanuck]

151. So simple and well said. I can't believe some of the posts I'm

reading on this board. To me, it's just common sense that a murder, be it government sanctioned or otherwise, is immoral.

[liberalcanuck]

153. Simply put and well said. I can't believe some of the posts I've been

reading on this board. To me, it's just common sense that a murder, be it government sanctioned or otherwise, is immoral.

[aintitfunny]

14. What is to justify?

It is only logical to oppose the state killing in order to prove killing is wrong.

[Worst Username Ever]

Violence begets violence,

due to the appeals process it is more expensive, it has not proven to be a deterant, and there are currently inoccent people on death row.

[Burma Jones]

15. Other - LWOP in Solitary Confinement

No visits, no human contact upon exhaustion of appeals.

[Endangered Specie]

17. Unfortunately that is expensive...

I would recommend LWOP and hard labor, if you dont work, you dont get fed.

[sangh0]

48. Capital punishment costs more than LWOP

Capital trials are VERY expensive. It ends up costing more to kill them than it does to lock them up for life.

[Endangered Specie]

55. I can see how that is possible... but Id still like LWOP to be cheaper...

Why should an inmate be fed if he doesn't work... A free man who doesnt work doesnt get food, why should it be so for criminals?

10-12 hours a day of labor, what depends on the area, and you get 3 meals a day. 0 hours = 0 meals. If the prisoner needs to be isolated find something that he can do alone.

[sangh0]

61. That post was not very thoughful

For one thing, I doubt that many want LWOP to be MORE expensive than it is. For another, LWOP *IS* cheaper than DP, so you should be please by that. Third, people who don't work get fed.

Are you sure you're in the right place?

[Egnever]

172. Perhaps, that point is arguable.

However, once dead there is zero chance that the perpetrator will be released on some technicality and allowed to kill another innocent wich happens far too often for my tastes.

Also there is no chance that the same perpetrator who no longer has anything to lose will kill/maim a prison guard or other inmate either.

[Burma Jones]

122. No, the point is that if someone deprives us of a life

then that person should also be deprived of life - just not his/her own. That way we do not kill. Hard labor would give the murderer something constructive to do, and I would want to see all meaning stripped from that person's life without actually taking it. Also, LWOP ain't all that expensive, you already have the capital costs and the labor is also there already.

[prolesunited]

26. Hmm...

That almost sounds like you're advocating torture.

[sandnsea]

33. Oh great

The reason the left always loses the death penalty fight is because somebody always turns around and argues some sort of inhumane treatment. Decisions have to be made. The longer we delude ourselves into thinking certain kinds of criminals can be reformed, the longer we release them into our society and the more crimes they commit. The longer the other side has justification for the death penalty and the longer we repeat the cycle of violence. I'd like to believe people can be trusted to behave in a freer prison environment or be reformed, it's just not been proven for the worst violent offenders. I think it's time to face that reality, just like the Catholic Church has had to do. That's the main reason all those priests got moved around for all those years, the belief in reform. Did you know that?

[prolesunited]

53. So, we need to deliberately decide

to be inhumane to win?!?!? Not the kind of victory I'm looking for.

And, please, point out to me where I said they should be released? Studies have shown that deprivation of human contact IS a form of abuse and torture.

Perhaps we could lock them up WITHOUT parole without simultaneously torturing them. And, although I know some criminals are truly lost, I do believe that some people on death row can become more than just their crime, to realize their wrong and find a way to make a contribution.

Does that mean I want them back out on the street, no? But, to transform a human mind is a much greater victory than killing them.

And what do the Catholic priests have to do with it? People with issues, either murderers or pedophiles, need to be removed from the situations in which they can act out. We as a society are so limited in our capacity that we can do nothing but kill that which we can't understand?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. we've been deluding ourselves since the 70's that killing them deters

what happened? Murder went up not down.

BTW...the RCC did NOT move them in the belief they wouldn't molest again...they were simply covering their ass with both hands...if that was their excuse, it was pure crap.

[daveskilt]

Deterence theory - certainty not severity counts

if you are sure you will get caught you will be less likely to commit crime in the first place. the severity only has to be enough to outweigh the reward.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. barbaric...older societies such as France and England no longer animalize

people in this manner since it does not work.

[Burma Jones]

124. It isn't a question of working

If you want something that works, then you have to start recognizing behaviors in early childhood and correct the situation.

What I am saying is that retribution is a legitimate act.

I can think of societies far older than France and England that still execute or otherwise punish their offenders with abandon, say, China...

The willful depriving of life deserves extreme punishments, not because it may deter others but because the victims' loved ones deserve it. And before you go on about how it doesn't bring anybody back, or that a victim's loved one will never be made whole, I would just say that there needs to be balance made when someone murders.

Of course, practically speaking, balance is impossible because our prosecutors are often more interested in furthering their careers than in justice....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

130. I don't buy that one bit....

that is simply saying victims want revenge..the law does not exist to serve the victim, the law exists to serve the interests of the state and more importantly society...society is not served by this law and the law is meted out worse than imperfectly. The victim has civil court for their wrongs.

[eyesroll]

16. There are plenty of people in the world who deserve to die for what

they've done. If someone killed a loved one of mine, I'd want to strangle that person myself. It's a natural, human instinct, I think.

That said, one of the hallmarks of a civilized people is how they treat the worst among them. The death penalty is irreversable, not a deterrent, and there's no guarantee you're executing the right person. The counsel that most death-penalty candidates get in this country is, at best, regrettable -- fresh young public defenders who are dedicated and have their clients' best interest at hard, but really shouldn't be cutting their teeth on such cases (and too many public defenders are inexperienced) -- or, at worst, reprehensible (incompetent, sleeping). People of color who kill white people are multiple times more likely to be sentenced to death for white people who commit identical crime on a person of color.

Someone who is 17, and commits a murder while drunk, can be simultaneously tried as an adult for capital murder and cited for underage drinking. This country has decided that a good way to send the message that killing people is wrong is to kill people who do so.

I am against the death penalty in all cases for those reasons.

[DebinTx]

20. Only in extreme cases

Timothy MeVeigh is the perfect example.

[0007]

160. What about Ted Kaczynski, the unabomber?

This right wing nut got life!

"I intend to start killing people," Kaczynski is quoted as writing in his journal. "If I am successful at this, it is possible that, when I am caught (not alive, I fervently hope!) there will be some speculation in the news media as to my motives.

McVeigh did kill more and that probably made Kacznski extremely jealous and led to his capture.

Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto sez it all!! It is a must read.

What was the difference between the two men begs the question?

[JHB]

21. Retain, but require higher standard of evidence, do not block appeals

..process.

I think there are some crimes where a death penalty should be among the possible sentences. However, "beyond reasonable doubt" is not a high enough standard for something so irreversible (as demonstrated by the number of convictions eventually overturned).

Speedier is NOT better, and in fact works against "better". "Speedy" justice is for people who want a nice, neat moral story but don't give a rat's banana whether it's actually true.

[Tweed]

22. Let God be the judge

Oddly enough, it's the 'Christians' who rally for the death penalty often.

[Cheswick2.0]

82. It's the Christians who rally against the death penalty

As a group Christians do NOT rally for the death penalty. Some of the people who are for it are christians. Some of the people who show up and cheer when someone is executed may also be Christian. But churches are not sending people to pro-death penalty rallies. If you can prove otherwise I would like to see that proof.
However many of us do organize and rally against the death penalty.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

23. no capital punishment in all cases

it is more costly than life in prison and there is the chance you put the wrong people to death. you can't undo that.

[qwertyMike]

24. Only for serious crimes against children

Nothing else.

All bets are of if our children are harmed.

[seventhson]

25. Always Oppose It - BUT if ANYONE tries to hurt my kids or wife...!!!

I might be persuaded that it is necessary.

I believe in self-defense and believe that violence is justified to prevent greater imminent violence (in self defense or defense of others)

I also believe that I might myself kill anyone who hurt my child or wife seriously and intentionally or stupidly. But I do not think the state should kill that person. If I were in that position I nmight feel differently.

The children of two friends of mine (a 1 year old and a 10 year old) were recently murdereed brutally by a sick "boyfriend" - father of one of the children). The ten year old was a best friend of my son and frequent guest in our home and a sweet wonderful girl who intervened to try to save the baby and ended up with a savage death by knife thrusts.

I have no real problem if the perpetrator is executed. But I still think it is wrong. I feel exactly the same way about the current state of crimes against humanity and their perpetrators.

[Kitka]

42. Though I hold that it’s immoral… I could see myself killing

anyone who hurt my children. I would accept the consequences, and it would still be wrong, but I could see it happening. That doesn’t mean I think the state should, though.

[Bombtrack]

146. That just showes the rediculousness of the anti-death penalty movement

"types" at least many of them right there. The families of victims, the vast majority of them anyway who want the perpetrators to recieve the ultimate penalty, you people have the high fallutentness to impose your will on them, but if something horrible happens to your loved one's, it all changes.

[ulysses]

150. try to understand this, Bombtrack:

the victims' desires are not necessarily in the best interest of society. If someone hurt someone I loved, of course I would want to kill them myself, but the fact is that we live in a society of laws, not in the Wild West. Society's interst is in seeing *justice* done, not in acting as the agent of the victim's vengeance.

[sandnsea]

27. Prisoner who keeps killing

If you can't even control somebody in prison, then it becomes a case of justified self-defense. Other than that, it's wrong. Charlie Manson is alive. Ted Bundy is dead. Has anything changed? Nope.

[LWolf]

28. Oppose in all cases.

For a number of reasons:

*I oppose killing. I oppose violence. I won't become what I oppose.

*I choose not to play any sort of god. There's a kind of arrogance involved in deciding who gets to live or die that I want no part of. If I believed that killing someone was an appropriate punishment, I'd put those kids that drowned/barbequed the puppy to death. Instead, I recognize that there are many factors that lead to the violent acts that the death penalty is assigned to. I'd rather put time, energy, resources, and attention into finding and healing the root causes of violence. Putting violent offenders away for life without the possibility of parole is an appropriate way to protect the general public, which should be the whole point. Protection, not punishment.

[Endangered Specie]

29. Outright opposition, on many non-morality points:

1- Its racially and economically biased, far more poor and non whites get it than LWOP (per capita).

2- Its irreversable, and there is no perfect justice system, mistakes WILL be made.

3- Its hypocritical, your going to teach someone not to murder by killing them?

4- It is proven NOT to deter crime, some people even ASK for the DP, presuming life in prison is probably worse.

5- It causes a lot more trauma for the murders families, say what you will about the perp, but his family is going to suffer alot more and they are innocent.

6- Between the appeals, time, setup, and whatnot, its not that much cheaper than LWOP, LWOpers should be doing doing hard manual labor full-time
.
for the people who say "an eye for an eye", that leaves the whole world blind.

[MsUnderstood]

30. Speed up the process or cut it out

It is a waste of taxpayer money to hand out the death penalty. The person gets multiple appeals, spends all of the government's money, and waits and waits and waits for the execution.

Once sentenced, it should be one appeal (all the way to the Supreme Court) and then it is a done deal.

[Endangered Specie]

35. That is absurd.

That would be incredibly unfair... non Capital Punishment cases get more appeals than that. Youd have to set EVERYONES appeal limit to the supreme court and that would basically mean you get NO appeals, the SP couldnt possible handle all the CP cases, let alone ALL cases. Furthermore, i believe that the SP does NOT have juristiction over some things that the lower state courts do.

Your proposal would completely undermine the point of the appeals system and destroy it. You need to think about that one more.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. Not MsUnderstood...Msunder read

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

look at the number exonerated and the number of appeals it took to get to the truth. I can't believe people render such ill informed opinions...it staggers the mind.

[pscot]

31. Extreme cases

Bundy, McVeigh, Milosovitch.

[Cheswick2.0]

80. Why? Who gets to decide what is extreme?

Isn't that already supposedly what we do?
But if doesn't work that way.

[smirkymonkey]

164. and the entire Bush Administration and their supporters.

Otherwise, I oppose it.

[comradebillyboy]

32. extreme cases

such as mass murder, for folks like john wane gacey of jeff dhamer

[TreasonousBastard]

34. I don't have to "justify" my postion...

but I can "explain" it.

There are many practical and ethical reasons to oppose capital punishment, and I subscribe to just about all of them.

But, fundamentally, I see the death penalty as vengeance, not justice.

The state does not have any powers greater than the people who comprise it. If it is wrong for us to take such vengeance, it is also wrong for the state to take it.

The state has no right to define ANY class of people for extermination.

Just for laughs, if the Green River Killer isn't being executed, precisely who WOULD deserve it?

[LiberalPersona]

36. Extreme cases

The person must be proven 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty, and this is only possibly with video captures and similar evidence. If there's even a fraction of a doubt, forget it.

Must have gone through a certain period of rehabilitation programs, therapy, and all that stuff (about 5-10 years at least) and not recovered enough to become a normal member of society.

Never, ever must the death be the type that causes pain and the criminal must be asleep before and during the execution.

[ieoeja]

37. When Over 50% of Death Row Inmates ...

... are later proven to be innocent, I do not understand how anyone can continue supporting the death penalty. I was an unequivocal supporter of the death penalty until a group from Northwestern University began investigating everyone on death row in Illinois and ended up proving the majority of them innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced to die.

And we're not talking about legal technicalities here. They found definitive proof in those cases that the wrong individual or individuals were behind bars. And this is in a fairly progressive state like Illinois. Can you imagine how many dozens of innocent people were put to death in Texas during the nineties?

[Endangered Specie]

41. Even worse during Bush years...

FRY EM cowboy! </saracasm>

[RhodaGrits]

39. On a personal level, there are situations where I could administer the

lethal injection myself, no problem whatsoever. As a society, as a community - I am 100% opposed because I do not think there is any way to make it completely "fair" and know with 100% certainty in every single instance that we were not making an error. Even one wrong execution ever would negate any moral "rightness" in my mind. I do not trust any human or group of humans to be infallible and omniscient. Kill none and let God sort them out (to paraphrase).

But do I believe that we would be better off executing some of these people? Absolutely. I would prefer to live in a world where it never happens though.

[lil-petunia]

40. John Wayne Gacy. Richard Speck. several other predators in Illinois

in very few, very specific cases, I support it.

Look, we are an organism. If we find a deadly cancer cell, our bodies kill it. The same should occur when there is a massive infection ready to destroy the host.

John Wayne Gacy tortured, raped and killed many dozens (some estimates go as high as 150) teenage and pre teen boys, plus a few girls. Putting him in prison is not humane. Erradicating him is. plus, it is safer for society.

Speck raped and tortured, then killed 8 nurses. When he was convicted, he was quoted as saying, "I will get released. I got good lawyers. And I will do it again. it is too much fun. Try it sometime."

In the VAST majority of the rest of the cases, i am strongly against the death penalty.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

43. I'm against it.

I can't figure out how killing someone for killing someone teaches that killing is wrong...... :shrug:

[Aftershock]

44. I don't know where I stand on this issue.

I support it for people like those who commit extreme crimes like murder and terrorism; but I don't support it for those who are on death row with little evidence they committed the crime, mentally challenged people, or even innocent people.

It's a tough decision. It depends upon the case and the evidence whether or not I support it.

:shrug:

[ibegurpard]

45. Totally oppose because there's no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt

that someone is guilty. DNA evidence that has exonerated death row inmates was what caused me to do a complete 180 on my support for the death penalty.

[lil-petunia]

49. Gacy buried 48 bodies in his basement.

Gacy's neighbors all saw him wil several of the missing before they disappeared. Even without a forced confession (a chicago speciality) he admitted that he did it.

Other locations - described by him in detail - resulted in another 25 corpses around chicago construction sites. When asked how many he killed, he responded. "I don't remember. there were so many, I lost count. Maybe 100-150. Maybe more.

There

was

no

doubt.


The man was a monster.

[ibegurpard]

59. Yes

But I would rather keep Gacy locked up in prison for life than chance executing an innocent person.

[Kipepeo]

123. exactly

It is more important to me that we don't execute innocent people than it is to me that we execute the guilty.

The way the death penalty is applied now, we most certainly execute some innocents. The life of innocents is not worth it to me just to make sure we get the "Gacys" of the world. Let the Gacys sit in prison for life without parole. The death penalty currently does a lot more harm than good.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. How many of those 48 came back to life after his death?

Could we not have learned something from keeping him alive and studying his past and his motivations that may have made us all the more wise in the future?

[lil-petunia]

96. how many more should we let happen?

All too often, courts and people make mistakes. I'd rather put a stake in this guy's chest than let innocent kids suffer what so many others sufffered before.

There are a few, veeeeery few (thankfully), who deserve no consideration at all.
Gacy is one prime example.

Some friends of mine lost a son to this animal. that might skew my bias. Or not. Personal knowledge remains knowledge.

[sangh0]

98. LWOP prevents it from happening

and is cheaper than DP

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. How many have you stopped with a death penalty?

How many COULD you stop by studying cause and effect as regards the Gacy's of the world. At the time of his death, Dahmer was cooperating with academics and others in his prison to BETTER help OTHERS to understand how he got to where he got to...that seemed far more valuable to me than bashing his head.

[liberalcanuck]

155. Why should we kill so-called 'monsters'? As sickening and dispicable

as the crimes these people commit are, we mustn't forget that they are a product of OUR society also. Oftentimes these sociopaths have mental disablities and/or were raised under extremely abusive conditions-- we as a society have a moral obligation to learn how they became the way they are.

Why is the U.S. the only developed nation to still endorse capital punishment?

[lunarboy13]

46. I just flat-out oppose it...

I think a life sentence without the possibility of parole is enough justice. But, most important, is the fact that our justice system just cannot give us a 100% guarantee that each and every person we put to death is truly guilty. Being found guilty and truly being guilty of the crime can be two different things.

Think of all the people who have been sitting on death row that have been found innocent via new DNA analysis of the evidence. Now think of all the people we have put to death before DNA testing was available. Now think of all the people currently serving on death row for crimes they were found guilty of in which no DNA was recovered as evidence (i.e they were convicted by most circumstantial and eyewitness accounts).

Did our justice system only begin making errors once DNA testing became available? Does our justice system only make mistakes when prosecuting crimes in which DNA was recovered for evidence?

Anyway, that's just how I feel. There are a number of other reasons the death penalty should be abolished, but what I wrote is what I think.

[KT2000]

47. Does not make society better

We have to be honest about what people want from an execution.

Closure for victims' families? revenge? express hate?

There is no "closure" for victims families, revenge is not satisfied if the person is not alive to experience it and hate like that is never satisfied.

The execution does not resolve any of these desires. After it is done, it leaves an emptiness and diminishes all of us as a society. Many are burdened even more by an atrocious act committed in all our names.

[lil-petunia]

51. If anyone is against most DP cases, it is mois. Being an attorney

and knowing just how corrupt the process was in Illinois (17 innocents released from Illinois death row alone!) not to mention how prosecutors use the death penalty to gain notoriaty for their future political aspirations, I am against it in 99.999999999999% of the cases.

But, when a guy digs and builds crypts in his basement (the only owner) places dozens of corpses, many still showing signs of torture, sexual sadism, abuse and murder, and admits to the multiple crimes, we need to exterminate that diseased rat.

Society deserves no less.

[Cybergata]

50. Just count the reasons why it is wrong!

1. There have been many cases of the wrong person being in prison for the crime. Just one Innocent human put to death is reason not to have the death penalty.

2. We live in a country with deep seeded racism. How many more Blacks and Hispanics find the way into the death chamber than whites.

3. Killing is wrong whether is is done by an individual or by the state. Murder is murder!! The death penalty is a "Do as I say, not do as I do" situation. When kids are hitting each other, what does it say when I hit them to make them stop?

4. Studies show that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

5. Why give a murder the escape from their earthly existence? Let them spend time in jail living with their crime.

In my 8th grade history classes we discuss Supreme Court cases that had to do with teen agers. One of the cases deal with giving the death penalty to minors. I always get a lot of differing opinions & a lively discussion. This past year I had the most amazing thing happen.
One of my students, an amazing, intelligent young woman waited for everyone to have a say, then she spoke. I had totally forgotten about the tragedy that had struck her family a couple of years ago.

Two men had robbed a convenience store, and in their get away they smashed into her father's car. He got out of the car to see if the men inside were OK (he didn't know of their prior activities), and the minute he reached their car, they shot him dead.

She started explaining why she opposed the death penalty. She said that her family even testified against the death penalty for the two men at their sentencing. She said that finding forgiveness for these two men was difficult, but she felt that the forgiveness she gave had lifted her soul & freed her from much of her pain. She said she did not want the families of these two men to feel the suffering that her family had felt.

My student spoke with such clarity, intelligent and humanity that she convinced even the wringers who wanted blood to spill on the Iraqi soil at the beginning of the Iraq War.....well at least made them stop their ranting & think. I have had some truly amazing experiences during my 29 1/2 years of teaching, but this one has to be at the top. I didn't truly understand the power of forgiveness until I was in my 30s. She was 13, and understand it only too well. She will always be one of my heroes! :hippie:

[puerco-bellies]

52. When you grant the State the power to kill a single citizen,

You have granted the state the power to kill ANY citizen.
I oppose the death penalty in all cases, regardless how much the SOB may deserve it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. Completely opposedfor the following reasons:

1. The murder rate in the US has gone up not down with the death penalty so it isn't a deterrent.

2. Nations with no death penalty have lower murder rates.

3. We share this barbaric practice with nations such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia and China whereas other developed nations don't practice it.

4. It exists solely for revenge.

5. Killing people who kill makes those meting out the "justice" no better than the perp.

6. Life without the possibility of parole is actually less expensive than appeals and I do not favor fast tracking "justice" when so many people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit.

7. It is unevenly applied...poor and minorities are more likely to be put to death than wealthy and white.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

57. Agree completely...

Life without parole accomplishes everything society needs to keep itself safe from a criminal.

[Cheswick2.0]

79. Agree and in addition

People who think they have a right to see their loved ones murderer executed are looking for closure in the wrong place and often they don't find it anyway.

The death penalty is immoral. In the case of people who are supposedly Christians, it is playing God and making a mockery of the ideas of grace, mercy and God's forgiveness. We are also taking the opportunity for some people to redeem their lives. A murderer who is in for life may very well do something meaningful in those years to help someone else.

[prolesunited]

56. BTW, anyone want to explain

why they are in favor of public executions?

[botchan]

58. Had a bad dog once

Actually, he was a good dog, but he bit someone that was throwing rocks at me. They said the dog was bad and needed to be put to sleep. "Biting dogs are a danger to society," the sheriff told me. I look at capital punishment in a similar manner. I do not believe that the human race has evolved enough that every individual is capable of rehabilitation. Serial rapists, multiple murders (not crime of passion individuals), CHILD MOLESTERS (include Catholic priests) are all dangers to society.

This is so contrary to my ultra-liberal self, but I believe that society must protect those that are part of it. Certain criminals are a danger to the peace loving individuals like myself. Ultimately, if anything happened (like the above items) to my children or my wife, I would kill the perpetrator myself.

[prolesunited]

And why can't you just lock them up

to protect society? Why do we have to kill them?

Also, if you killed someone yourself for perpetrating a crime, you could be found guilty yourself and put to death. What would that resolve?

I'm not even going to touch the analogy between dogs and people.

[botchan]

87. No

Locking them up just sends them to a different portion of society. Many serial killers, rapists, etc... end up suffering items worse than government assisted suicide in prison. And for me revenge my love ones, I would take any punishment that came my way, gladly.

[prolesunited]

92. Oooh! That's a good one!

The death penalty shall henceforth be known as government-assisted suicide.

How about just working harder to keep our prisons safer. There are people other than those you think should be helped to die in there as well. Some of them we might even let out one day and the more brutal our prisons, the more warped they will become and then be walking our streets. So, we all have a vested interest in keeping our prisons well-maintained and humane.

For one, privatizing so many of them has introduced a profit motive. Few guards, more cut corners, less rehabilitation and drug treatment all means more profit for the corporate overlords at the expense of the taxpayers.

And, for your sake. I hope no harm ever comes to those you love.

[botchan]

114. I try to be funny

Not that this is a laughing matter. I have to admit, this is the only issue that I stray from being radically ultra-liberal. I constantly debate this issue with my compadres and I just won't budge. My problem is that when I look at my two wonderful daughters and then think of the horrible things that get committed in this society I say to myself, "society does not need these individuals (the evildoers)."

Now I am aware of the items involved in this issue; from wrongful imprisonment to extenuating circumstances, nonetheless, I don't think in case of John Wayne Gacy, Jeffery Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc... that there was any question of their guilt and ultimately their desire to keep killing.

This is the one issue that gets me.

**** edited fixed a spell in erra :)

[Egnever]

173. and in your own post you point out the flaw in your position

"Some of them we might even let out one day and the more brutal our prisons, the more warped they will become and then be walking our streets. So, we all have a vested interest in keeping our prisons well-maintained and humane."

By putting offenders behind bars for life without the possibility of parole you ensure that what you hope for never happens. These people become walking time bombs with nothing to lose preying on those who do have release dates. By putting them in jail for life with no hope of release you give them license to do anything they want as there is no longer any deterrent.

no sorry keeping them alive does not make our prisons more humane quite the opposite in fact.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. Every individual is not capable of rehabilitation but tell me what

locking your dog or a murderer up does not accomplish that killing them does..especially with the grey area you described wherein the dog was actually protecting you from the actual perp who was the proximate cause of the dog biting.
How is a multiple murderer less of a danget than a "crime of passion" which is simply a way to claim a man is justified in killing his wife? What if he feels passion again?

Given your hunger for a pound of flesh, I question your love of peace.

[botchan]

83. Oh it isn't about the

pound of flesh!!! It is about society ridding itself of ills. I also believe that a person should be able to choose to die at the end of their lives. By breaking the rules of society - serial rapist, multiple murderer, etc... they could have chosen death. Society at times has to take steps that we do not appreciate or condone to keep itself running properly. Why lock them up for life in an institution that has no intention of rehabilitating them.

The difference between a callous killer and a crime of passion is extreme. I am sure you are aware of the difference between an individual that walks out the door in the morning hell bent on finding a child, molesting it, and then killing/eating it (Dahmer) and a man/woman that comes home and finds there spouse in bed with another individual and momentarily goes insane. Both deserve punishment, one of them needs to be removed permanently from society - all of society - gone, Soylent Green gone.

Not pretty. Just my opinion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. The only difference is one is justified by AGREEMENT and the other isn't

dead is dead...damage is damage and the legal age for marriage in America was once much lower...some posting on this site were reared by a barely pubescent mother depending on their age (older generations)

Why kill them? What EXACTLY is accomplished...back to you, Jane.

[botchan]

94. Do you mean

why kill the murdering evil of society or let someone choose to die?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

97. I mean neither

On the choose to die issue, I support those that choose to die reticently as I will always have reservations about their presence of mind at the time the choice was made. I am for the freedom of choice in that one but against euthanizing the infirm for expediency.

On the death penalty issue, you are asking me to make several judgments at once
1. that they are evil
2. that they actually factually did the deed they are being put to death for when serious problems have been uncovered in our justice system.
3. that their death is more just than life without parole
4. that their death accomplishes anything of benefit to society.

I'm unwilling to agree that 1 is correct in all cases where the DP is applied, 2 is correct in all cases where the DP is applied, 3 is more just than life in prison, or 4 is anything more than revenge.

[botchan]

115. So

Do you mean that Ted Bundy, The Green River Killer, John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffery Dahmer weren't evil? I am not a religious person, at least I don't wear it out on my sleeve, but if I was to choose how evil was going to present itself, these guys fit the bill (as does the entire Bush admin :) --> Ha!).

I understand your 1 - 4. I have issues with wrongful imprisonment, unfair justice systems, etc... I also, do not like the idea of a mass killer (of the above sort) allowed to continue existing. I said above and I will say it again. Their actions are a cry for government-assisted suicide.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

131. Yes I am saying they are not evil. Nor is Bush

Bush is incompetent and self serving and incapable of leading us to anything but disaster. Gacy et al were sick and Dahmer was remorseful and using his imprisonment to better help autorities and mental health professionals understand the mental and emotional capacities of serial killers at the time of his beating death in prison. He was worth FAR MORE to us alive.

[neverborn]

60. EXTREME cases

OKC bomber deserved it. Serial rapists deserve it. Gacy deserved it.

[prolesunited]

64. OK, and how do we arrive

at a definition of extreme? Certain number of bodies? Evil intent?

[JohnLocke]

62. Oppose except in extreme cases.

Treason, espionage, genocide, mass murder.

[SammyBlue]

63. I oppose death penalty in ALL cases except

1: Hitmen (murder for hire is inexcusable)

2: Depraved indifference to human life (torture. . .yes, rape is torture)

3: War Crimes (like what Saddam and Bush are and should be accused of)

4: Drug Lords (pump them full of the shit they grow.) Yet, if we just stopped the drug war (which I, as a former libertarian, want) this would be moot.

5: Most importantly, child killers (you kill a child and it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you lose your right to live. No one should kill children. . .at all!)


I am against the use of the death penalty for all other cases. I know our European friends are against the death penalty completely, as are alot of DUers, but I use my four cases as the most extreme in murderous behavior. And I believe the death penalty should only be used in the most extreme cases. No, cop killers don't warrant it because just because someone wears a badge doesn't make their lives more important than ours. And this is a future District Attorney talking.

[JohnLocke]

66. So killing a cop shouldn't warrant ANY higher penalty?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

67. Define drug lord...if no one is harmed by them selling their wares and

there is a market and no other crimes such as murder are committed..then what makes this a crime worthy of the ultimate punishment?

[gpandas]

71. let them choose-

life-no parole or death. we can easily wash our hands of this mess.

[newyawker99]

73. NO DEATH PENALTY....NO EXCEPTIONS!!

[Desertrose]

74. Oppose. Why do to another what you condemn them for doing?

If it is wrong to kill...it is WRONG TO KILL, right?

Where's the difference if its court sanctioned or not?

[Mandate My Ass]

75. Oppose under any and all circumstances

Both the theory and the practice are seriously flawed and it is not a deterrant, in fact, violent crimes increase in the wake of an execution.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. Thank goodness for my long time pals when this subject arises

I can barely stand the stench of ignorance on this subject. :loveya:
(to the Bond Girls :toast: )

[Mandate My Ass]

78. Hey, girlfriend

How ya been? I see you've been fighting the good fight today, as always.

You rock.:loveya:

[Guaranteed]

88. Derrr what's the death penalty? nt

[Darranar]

77. Always opposed; it is barbaric, disgusting, and inneffective...

Furthermore, it is not undoable; if evidence arises after the execution that the person who was executed was actually innocent, it is too late to change anything.

[Imalittleteapot]

81. Oppose in all cases: Thou shalt not kill and

do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for starters.
The death penalty is uncivilized and there is no proof that it deters crime.

[sendero]

84. I don't support it as it is currently implemented...

... I would change the standard of proof to obtain the death penalty from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "beyond any doubt". Only cases in which there were multiple witnesses, overwhemling physical evidence, and particularly heinous would qualify for death penalty consideration.

[CaTeacher]

90. I am 100% against the death penalty

it should never be used on anyone. In my opinion it is just a cover for genocide against black males. It is racist in the implementation--and as long as there is the chance of one innocent person suffering the ultimate penalty--well then it just cannot be allowed.

I have a limited support for LWOP---I think there are some cases where a person cannot be rehabilitated. But, I think that many people CAN be rehabilitated if they are given therapy, job training, and a new start. So--for the 98% of the people who would benefit from societal help--I would provide this and reintegrate them into society instead of advocating for LWOP--and definitely never the death penalty--no not for anyone, ever.

[sendero]

109. Well....

... I hafta disagree. There is such a thing as an evil person. Jack Abbott comes to mind. The world would have been better off without him.

I agree that as currently practiced, the death penalty is often racist in implementation. If it were reserved for the most dastardly, evil, premedititated, remorseless crimes, this would be much less true.

[maxsolomon]

85. extreme cases

i think sex monsters - rapers & murderers of kids i.e. - no point in keeping them around.

in a way its a mercy killing. you'd do it to a dog who attacks humans/other dogs, why not give a human the same respect?

and i know i'm probably wrong & a hypocrite.

[prolesunited]

89. Here we go equating humans with dogs again

I don't get it. Is it easier to kill them if you think of them as animals?

"Mercy killing"? I really think you're reaching here.

What does killing these "extreme cases" solve that locking them behind bars wouldn't?

[RhodaGrits]

136. Actually, one of the reasons I began to reconsider my

position on the death penalty was because I started from the position that people were better than animals and the longer I have lived, the more I have realized that some good animals are a lot "better" than some lowlife scumbag humans. And I do believe that some dogs are just hardwired psychotic and are better off euthanized humanely. There wasn't a huge leap to realizing the same was true for some humans.

That doesn't change the fact that I am opposed to the death penalty for people as it is implemented today. (I don't trust those that implement it.)

[Steely_Dan]

86. The Sanctity of Life

It seems to me that those who are against abortion are usually the first to throw the switch on the electric chair.

Yet, we hear the Right constantly talk about how abortion is wrong due to the "sanctity of life." They claim that state sanctioned executions are performed on people who have "committed a crime." It isn't the same thing as abortion..."that baby did nothing to deserve to die. But....if the Right argues (as it often does) that it is the sanctity of life that should protect the unborn, how is that not applicable to the death row inmate?

I have always been against the death penalty. I have never thought it ethically or morally right to take another life using my tax dollars.

If I'm helping to pay for executions, I want to see them performed. Better yet, I would like to see the executions televised during half-time at the Super Bowl. And...instead of electrocution or lethal injection, I would like the convict to be impaled or drawn a quartered. I mean...why not? What's the difference?

-Paige

[Selwynn]

93. That state should never execute people - they don't have the authority.

Or right justification, or the right.

[DavidMS]

100. I am generally opposed, but will make exceptions

The only exceptions I would make are for war criminals and spies.

The reason to kill spies is to assure that any secrets they have obtained die with them. I also advocate executing war criminals because most of them could either return to power or engage in political influencing activities (see post-world war II Nazis tainting western intelligence) generally to the detriment of the world. To me the death penalty should be used in such cases to assure that any intelligence service, political party or corporate mercenary outfit cannot make use of them in the future.

[VOX]

101. As deplorable as some crimes are, state-sanctioned killing is wrong.

It is morally indefensible, it doesn't solve any of the underlying issues which may have contributed to the crime (mental illness, poverty, etc.), nor does it bring any victims back to life.

It's time for the U.S. to catch up to the civilized world on this issue.

Death Penalty Permitted

Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Morocco
Myanmar
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Philippines
Qatar
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Death Penalty Permitted in Exceptional Cases
(Exceptional crimes include some committed under military law or crimes committed in wartime.)
Albania (2000)
Argentina (1984)
Armenia (2003)
Bolivia (1997)
Brazil (1979)
Chile (2001)
Cook Islands (n.a.)
El Salvador (1983)
Fiji (1979)
Greece (1993)
Israel (1954)
Latvia (1999)
Mexico (n.a.)
Peru (1979)
Turkey (2002)

[MrSlayer]

102. I'm for it.

Call me a barbarian all you want. I just know if someone raped, murdered or otherwise harmed a member of my family they had better hope the cops catch them first. I will not be so merciful as to give them a lethal injection. Some might call this nothing more than bloodthirsty vengeance, I call it justice and satisfaction.

I would also like to see the appeals process eliminated in obvious open and shut cases where the crime is done in full public view, on tape or is confessed to without coercion. I don't see what the point is in wasting all that time, money and resource for a person who is patently guilty. In cases where it is not open and shut I think every possible means to prove the person's innocence should be used before execution (DNA, etc.) to make sure you have the right guy.

I realize this is an unpopular view around here but this is how I feel. I'm quite liberal on most issues but this is one of the few where I side with the conservatives.

[zuzu98]

133. who decides

if a confession was obtained "without coercion?" The cops? The pro-prosecution judge? The jury who will likely believe the cops no matter what they say?

[Pithlet]

174. What if a loved one of yours

is arrested for a murder they didn't commit? They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, since they would live under laws that you'd like to see happen, they wouldn't have a chance. Because someone mistakenly IDd the the person who committed out in the open and said it was your loved one. And they would no longer have the appeals to rectify things. Because the police planted the DNA evidence. Because someone with an ax to grind, or the real person who did it, wants your loved on to go down for the crime. The prosecution and the media are convinced of your loved one's guilt, and everyone wants to see blood for revenge.

Is that the risk you're willing to take for you, your loved ones, or other people's loved ones?

[Warren DeMontague]

104. I think until we can be certain

that the justice system is fool-and-bias proof, the debate is pointless. From where I sit, there's no justification for giving the death penalty when you might be meting it out to innocent people who had bad representation because of their race, or socioeconomic status, or whatnot. Since that's undeniably where we're at, and I don't see that changing any time soon, I'm fairly solid anti-death penalty-- in all cases.

[Curious Dave]

105. Education and rehabilitation

No one should be executed. No one should be inhumanly incarcerated for life. If an offender can't be rehabilitated by love, compassion, and education then it is reasonable to conclude he must be mentally ill. Mentally ill people belong in hospitals. not prisons.

[lil-petunia]

111. nice thoughts, but explain that to 8 nurses, 150 kids.

Rather you than me.

As hard as it is to accept, there are some truly evil people out there.

Not many, not often, not easily discerned.

if this love of life is so powerful, it should include a self-defense mechanism for humanity.

If some nut case like Gacy can destroy so many lives, over so long a time, is it that far of a stretch to think that some other nut case may create some bio weapon that kills all? given the opp to shoot his ass rather than let him combine the binary parts to let it happen, hell yes, I shoot. Damned straight, too.

Hell of a lot better than all of us dying.

self preservation. Protection of innocents. Protection of kids. All that comes first.

Gacy was not some mixed-up Houston crime lab case. Nor a Commander Burge "upside the head" beaten conviction from Chicago. He was an evil killer of children. MANY children. No amount of therapy would ever allow me and my conscience to sleep nights if some therapy and psycho-analysis would ever E V E R let him out in the streets again.
IF THERE WAS ANY CHANCE that this murderer/evil person/rapist/ torturer could ever see the light of day, then that is one chance too many.

[Curious Dave]

113. I'm sure you didn't mean this...

quote

"is it that far of a stretch to think that some other nut case may create some bio weapon that kills all? given the opp to shoot his ass rather than let him combine the binary parts to let it happen, hell yes, I shoot. Damned straight, too."

I'm not trying to start a fight, but this sounds like the same rationale that shrub used to attack Iraq. I'm guessing there is a difference and that I'm just not seeing it.

I see John Hinckley as a good example of what I'm talking about. He did attempt to kill the president and I think its safe to say that he had emotional issues that he wasn't dealing with successfully. At the time a lot of people were clamoring for him to be "fried". Fortunately, this disturbed young man was placed in an institutional setting where he could be provided with the help he needed. Society was kept safe and the individual's needs were and are still being addressed. A win/win situation.

No one is so far gone they can't be saved...except shrub.

[lil-petunia]

145. In a case of mental derrangement like his, (seriously, Jody is simply not

that hot) treatment, support , Dx and Rx work. No doubt.

Are you willing to put your family at risk with a person who, over 4 decades, kidnapped, tortured, raped, then killed boys and girls in the three figures? Methinks a different standard applies at some point.

Not me. My fear is that some human error will allow him to escape, go free, get probation, whatever.

I used to date a psychiatrist. Nice person, a little screwy, but nice. According to them, "DSMIV - yeah pretty good stuff. The way they define illness, the standards they create - I am comfortable with it. But, one thing they miss. There are some really crazy people out there with whom no amount of Tx will ever help. They a fuckin nuts and evil. the DSM simply doesn't cover that."

THere is no amount of Rx, Tx, Dx, or prison time that will ever make me feel safe with the possibility that John Wayne Gace could have been on the streets. None. Never will be.

[daveskilt]

107. how about working on prevention first?

just a thought - why are people killing? can we make it happen less? detterence only works if there is a high perceived probability of punishment (severity is far less important) so how about funding more cops, better trained cops (better trained than the vindictive asshole who pulled me over even thogh I wasnt speeding because I cut him off avoiding a jerk who breaked to watch the fireworks...grrr) and greater education.

another reason not to vote for bush. grabbing the wrong end of the stick again isnt he?

[Bettie]

108. I oppose it in all cases...

If someone kills someone I love, I would probably want that person dead on a purely emotional and visceral level. That is the human desire for revenge.

Justice is a completely different thing.

Justice demands that cooler heads prevail and that the penalty for crime be delivered by an impartial jury and/or judge.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Killing by the state is no less heinous than killing by an individual, in fact, I would argue that it is worse, telling our children and citizenry that killing is just fine as long as it if officially sanctioned.

The death penalty has not shown to be a deterrent to crime, nor has it ever brought a single soul back to the arms of their family.

Bettie.

[underseasurveyor]

110. I'm All For It........Go ahead and kill em

But you have to do it by your own hand. If it's your loved that has been harmed and the verdict is death, then the family of the victim must be the one to push the needle and administer death. Sounds fair? Sounds easy?

It would be easy for me to sit here and say that if someone harmed me or my children or beloved family member that I could easily choke the life out of em or in some manner kill that person myself and be glad I did. I use to be very pro DP years ago. Kill em, be done with it. They're scum.

(there was a time in my past that once offered me a prime opportunity to have a life taken, not by my own hand but all I needed to do was say something. Circumstances that presented itself were perfect. I've never spoke of it before and I won't speak in detail now except to say that this 'thing' was a career child rapist and preyed upon little girls approx. 8 to 14 y/o).

The opportunity presented itself many years later being the small world that it is. For years I loathed and hated this person. Fantasizing a thousand different ways to torture and kill this evil 'thing' disguised as a human being. But when the opportunity presented itself I balked, I had to search within the deepest depths of my soul. Could I do this? I have this persons very life in my hands. It's an immensely powerful feeling. As much as I hated that 'thing,' could I truly live with myself for the rest of my life knowing that I was 'the key' in the death of this, this 'thing'? This 'thing' that was the cause of so much anguish and pain and shame, for his own jollies? See, I didn't even see this 'thing' as a human being, so it should have made for an easy choice, right? I could exact my revenge and years of hatred on this vile 'thing' and be done with it. He'd suffer and then he'd be dead! Forever! And I'd be relieved? Or would I?

I am the one that has to live the rest of my life with myself. No, I couldn't be responsible for taking a life and then live with myself after-wards. To this day I am at ease and I can look at myself in the mirror with no guilt because I am better than that and better for it. No regrets and it feels good.

So I ask any of you that are for the DP, do you truly and honestly believe that if it came right down to it, could you push that button that would forever take a human life? Cuz I'd bet if you really, really searched honestly within your heart and remained true in your soul you'd realize, that you couldn't do it either and the government has no business doing the dirty work 'for anyone' either.

BTW, I am against the death penalty.

scared ya huh NSMA thought I was 'go death penalty' for a second there, didn't ya ;-) Heard ya gasp all the way from here. Lots of 'ears' around ya know........ha ha

[ulysses]

112. oppose in all cases.

Others have voiced justification.

I would add, though, that for all that DU has become "more centrist", it looks as if there's a great deal more full-on opposition to the dp here now than in times past...

[Jokinomx]

117. I voted ...only in exstreme cases....

Only if there is ZERO doubt that you have the right person... and the person himself/herself agrees to it.

[malatesta1137]

118. The State should not be in the business of killing.

Once we allow the death penalty, we are lowering ourselves to the level of the criminal and committing the same heinous crime. It is barbaric.

[devilgrrl]

119. I'm a flip-flopper...

99.9% of me is against it because it solves nothing. The other .1% supports it only for people like Lawrence Bittaker - he's about as extreme as one can get. Sorry humanity shouldn't have room for people like him - especially those who enjoy harming people. Then again, I'm not against having people like that rot behind bars either. :shrug:

[Bluzmann57]

120. Opposed to death penalty but...

I think the worst of the worst, i.e. child killers, mass murderers, etc. should get life without parole and live their entire life in solitary confinement. I mean no TV, radio, newspapers, telephone, magazines, nothing. They should get two squares a day, bathe three times a week, forced or unforced. These animals just don't deserve anything better. For those who think this is too harsh, think about this, these things, dregs of humanity cannot be rehabilitated. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Richard Speck, "people" like that neither wanted, or deserved rehabilitation, so let them live alone in isolation and think each and every day about what they did, how many lives they ruined. If they go crazy, so be it. Or I should say, crazier. And when they die, don't waste any cemetery space on them, just incinerate their bodies and throw them away.

[Skip Intro]

121. Kill - to punish killing? Hypocritical insanity. Murder is Murder.

[WLKjr]

125. This IS AS LOGICAL AS IT GETS

Why is it that we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?


Sit and think about that one Freeper's....

[Dem2theMax]

126. Totally opposed to it in all cases.

Justification? Everyone here has pretty much covered the reasons.

When our government executes a person, they have to fill out a death certificate. Under 'reason for death' it lists "murder". Ironic.

[napi21]

127. It's a tough decision for me.

If someone brutally murdered my family, I believe I would want the ultimate penalty for the person who did that.

I believe the law should read Beyond ANY DOUBT if a person is sentenced to death.

[daligirrl]

128. I don't have a problem with it. . .

If we were able to actually construct a legal process where the definitely guilty (like Gacy, Dahmer, and others)are the only targets. The problem manifests itself when we start talking about people whose situations fall under gray areas - people who could, even under the most suspect of circumstances - be innocent. There is so much overlap when it comes to criminal law. . . the same laws apply to a confessed, DNA-confirmed serial killer as to an 18 year old drug-addled liquor-store robber. And therein lies the problem.

Also, I am a bit of a true-crime enthusiast (I know, weird) and one of the reasons that they don't execute some serial killers is because of unsolved crimes. They continue to try to get information to give peace to the families of loved ones killed by the perpetrator.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

132. I've now read all the pro death penalty positions and will sum them up

The impulse to kill or murder another human being should be followed up by the societal impulse to kill them back. That is the basic argument FOR the death penalty.

A question for all of you...if one follows their impulse to kill and that is wrong..then when society follows ITS impulse to kill...how is it they are not wrong?

[TreasonousBastard]

139. You know you can't win this one...

because after you've blown the deterrence and other practical and economic arguments out of the water, they come back with the magic word-- JUSTICE.

An <enter criminal of choice--______> has forfeited his right to live by committing his crime. Guilt trumps all other aguments.

I've been involved the anti-DP movement for years, and you get to a point where it's just walking into a wall. The idea that the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate penalty is so deeply ingrained into so many people that it is almost a religious belief. Not a strongly held belief, but one that many fall back on to make themselves comfortable.

I imagine you've been at capital sentencing hearings where the prosecutor makes a moving argument that killing the defendant is such a good and positive thing. The sun will rise, the swallows will sing, and all will be right with the world when we kill this guy.

Tain't easy to argue against that.

Should be, but it's not.

[ulysses]

148. my response to that

is that "justice" is understood, by dp proponents, to mean "vengeance". If it *were* that, then we might as well just go back to lynch mobs and vigilantes.

[TreasonousBastard]

162. It is vengeance...

but few of them will actually admit it.

I can't describe how sick I am of the word "closure."

I have heard proponents talk of the "necessity" of executions to affirm the sanctity of life. I have heard them say that "we" must accept the cost of possibly executing an innocent person in order to hold society together.

Just who is that paying that price, exactly?

Aside from some residual Calvinist silliness, central to our concept of justice is the concept of redemption-- people can pay for what they have done and be accepted as productive members again. Vengeance is simply destroying them because they pissed us off.

There is a strain of Quaker pacifist thought that says even killing in self-defense is unacceptable. If you are intent on killing me, so be it, but if I kill you in self-defense, I have stolen your right to atone for your sins. A bit extreme, perhaps, but a logical extension of the concept of justice, and a better place to start from.

[bluestateguy]

134. White collar super-criminals, terrorists, child killers/molesters

I would put them to death, BUT due process of law comes first to me. If it takes 20 years to execute somebody, then so be it. The system here in Texas is a disgrace with Third World overtones.

[ButterflyBlood]

135. Against in all cases. We aren't God.

n/t

[LearnedHand]

137. Because "the state" doesn't execute a person

...a PERSON executes a person. That is, SOMEONE must flip the switch/start the drip/fire the rifle. We have to MAKE a murder to execute a murderer.

[Hutzpa]

138. I say get rid of it completely

especially in this cowboy country that I lived in (Texas) where they love killing so much that they are even executing juveniles, I mean young teens as young as 15, now can you imagine how those parents are feeling.

This is going on in Texas as I speak. Gross disregard of the human race.



makes me



:-(

[chicagojoe]

143. Well, what could you expect from Texas ?

I feel VERY sorry for all the normal people who are stuck in that cesspool. It's full of people who make Bush look progressive. I know; I've been there. I'm all out of sugar-coating, so I'll shut up now.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bhunt70]

141. I have problems with the judicial system, I want an overhaul. I oppose it.

Our justice system is draconian, I have no answers (yet) but it needs to be changed.

[chicagojoe]

142. I oppose the death penalty in all cases. Here's why.

No one should take a life, even as punishment for taking a life.

A) If a person takes a life, they should have to spend the remainder of their own life thinking about what they've done.
There are those that argue "why should the tax payers pay to keep a killer alive in prison for "X" amount of years ?" Well, it doesn't have to cost a lot. Here's an idea - make the convicted killer spend the rest of his/her time in a 6' by 6' concrete cell with a large photo of their victim on the wall. Minimal food and ZERO creature comforts. Period. For the rest of their life. How much could that cost ???

B) It's my belief that many {or most) who support the death penalty do so for this reason --- a killer is bad (no argument here), and bad people go to "Hell",and good people go to "Heaven", so it is our duty to dispatch them to "Hell" as quick as possible. Well, since we have no evidence to support the actual existance of "Hell" or "Heaven", I can't see any worse punishment than the one I describe in paragraph A.

C) I think it's odd that all so many people who rail against abortion
so strongly support the death penalty. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What gives society the right to take any life, even the life of someone who has taken a life ?

[Piperay]

144. It depends...

on principle I am totally opposed but sometimes the crime is so heinous (like Timothy McVie, though I think he should have had to suffer 70 yrs or so in prison) that I can't find it in myself to argue against that particular execution. I could never be in-favor of though, as a deterrent it is of no value whatsoever and vengeance is not enough of a reason either.

[Bombtrack]

147. Retain and speed up appeals process and carry out quicker

I have little doubt that the vast majority of people here are basic their opinions on dumb emotion driven high fallutentness and not logic. Because it's a question of logic. And it's almost impossible to argue with them about this without them insinuating that to be for the death penalty you support innocent people being put to death and other garbage. Even though they cannot point to one case in modern American times of an executed person being found innocent post humously. I've had the pleasure of not having a loved one be the victim of a heinous, fatal or debilitating crime, and I'm damn sure the vast majority of anti's here haven't either. But I do know that the opinion on this subject is damn near concensus of the community that has been that unfortunate.

It's rediculous that millions of dollars are spent to house, feed, clothe and entertain the people who continue to ruin the people's lives they've already ruined everyday that could be spent investing in other people who would avoid the sickness that leads to people becoming predators.

[prolesunited]

159. You say it's a question of logic

Yet use emotion and incorrect statements to argue your points.

Here's some actual FACTS.
Since 1973, over 100 people have been released from death rows throughout the country after evidence of their wrongful convictions emerged.

Examples of wrongful convictions:

In September 1999, Charles Munsey died in a North Carolina prison. He had been imprisoned for six years and sentenced to death for a crime to which another man had confessed. Shortly before his death, Munsey had won a new trial.

In October 2000, Earl Washington received a full pardon following DNA testing that exonerated him of a rape and murder charge for which he had spent 17 years in prison in Virginia. Washington, who has mild mental retardation, came within one week of execution in 1985. In 1993, his death sentence was commuted to life. He was finally released from prison in February 2001.

In January 2000, Steve Manning was exonerated in Illinois, when prosecutors announced that they were dropping all charges against him and no longer planned to retry him for the murder for which he had been convicted. He was the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in that state since 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed. Mr. Manning's exoneration led Illinois Governor George Ryan to declare an immediate moratorium on executions.

In April 2002, Ray Krone became the 100th prisoner to be released from death row since 1973. Mr. Krone spent 10 years in prison in Arizona, including time on death row, for a murder he did not commit. DNA testing finally proved his innocence.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/factsinnocence.html

So, if executions were carried out more quickly, these people would already have been dead. The death penalty is IRREVERSIBLE. Can you imagine being innocent and being put to death for a crime that you didn't commit?


In addition, there is a proven racial bias to the implementation of the death penalty.

Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (over 80%) have been executed for killing white victims, although African-Americans make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging,sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/racialprejudices.html


And, yes, I have had my belief against the death penalty tested. An associate was brutally murdered in his own home over a car transaction. As I read the accounts of him fighting for his life as he was chased through the house being bludgeoned to death, my blood boiled and at that point I didn't think the death penalty was such a bad idea.

HOWEVER, I cooled down and realized that one reason we have laws and systems in place in society is to protect ourselves from our basest instincts.

Ask yourself, if all of your arguments are so valid, why has every civilized nation in the world put an end to the death penalty. Are their streets teaming with murderers? No, and as a matter of fact, there are FEWER murders per capita in the U.S. Explain that one.

[liberalcanuck]

149. I can never hear a convincing argument for the death penalty

from Christians. This group in particular is almost always the ones screaming for blood. I don't know how they reconcile their lust for revenge with the Christian tenet of turning the other cheek. On its face this is the definition of hypocrisy. I'm so grateful for being raised in Canada; a country that usually believes that there is not a person on this earth that is beyond redemption.

edited for spelling

[union_maid]

152. No. Never for any reason

For every reason that there is. These are few of my favorites.

1. The government should not have that power. If the last few years haven't demonstrated how flawed governments can be, I don't know what will.

2. We are too busy sorting out all the people who have been wrongfully convicted of capital crimes to have time to execute them.

3. It has not been proven to deter.

4. There will never be a death penalty for homicides that occur due to decisions that put corporate profits above human life.

5. There doesn't seem to be a death penalty for those who take us to war on false premises, thereby causing the deaths of thousands of people.

[no safe haven]

154. Oppose it in all cases

mostly for personal reasons. Back in the days when the Brits liked to hang certain "elements" of their people for little more than petty theft, my 3Xgreat-grandfather was tried, found guilty and sentenced to be hanged the next day. At the eleventh hour the judge decided for whatever reason to commute his sentence to transportation for life (exile). And here I am today sitting at my comp, writing on DU. The knowledge of my 3ggf's close call and the fact that hundreds of his descendants are alive today has shaped how I feel about capital punishment. It has made me realize how fragile and precious life is and that under no circumstance would I condone the killing of another human being, no matter what the crime. Nor would I like to live in a society or state that premeditatedly sentenced others to death in my name.

[Raiden]

156. I oppose it except in extreme cases

Crimes which warrent the Death Penalty IMHO...

Terrorism
High Treason
Mass Murder
Pedophilia
Serial Rapings (not statutory rape)

I think the Death Penalty is effective for no other reason that it keeps criminals from committing more crime. I would reserve the Death Penalty for people like Osama Bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. I also believe that DNA Testing should be essential for recieving the Death Penalty, except when you're dealing with people like OBL, when DNA evidence couldn't link someone with a crime. There should be no room for mistakes when it comes to Capital Punishment. Also, I believe that the Death Penalty should be used ONLY when there is little to no hope for rehabilitation, and that minors and the mentally ill should be exempt from the DP. And finally, I think that with the aforementioned stipulations considered, only if jury decisions are unanimous should the DP be considered for punishment.

[prolesunited]

157. Again I ask

"Death Penalty is effective for no other reason that it keeps criminals from committing more crime" <--- How would locking them up without parole not accomplish the same thing?

[chemp]

158. Against in all cases!

The Government does not belong in the vengeance business.

That being said, the big Dukakis Question. What if it was your loved one?
If something happened to my woman, my little girl, sisters, brothers, mother...
the person responsible will suffer greatly before I decide whether they may continue living.

Then I would expect the State to punish me for my actions.

[IronLionZion]

161. Life in prison is a much harsher and better punishment

Timothy McVeigh requested the death penalty because he wasn't man enough to serve a life sentence. Death is too easy for terrorists. When you are guilty of slaughtering hundreds or thousands of people and everyone hates you, you'd want death.

Prison will make someone think and examine their conscience and feel sorry or ashamed or something.

[meow2u3]

163. Permit it only by applying what I call the Theodore Bundy Standard

1. Condemned must have been justly convicted of multiple murders with evidence of heinous brutality; war crimes; crimes against humanity; genocide; or treason during wartime. In other words, serial killers, war criminals, dictators, and/or traitors would be eligible for the DP; all other murderers or traitors, including terrorists, would end up with a maximum of life w/o parole.
2. Guilt must be shown beyond residual doubt for the condemned who committed these atrocities (during the penalty phase of the trial) to opt for the death penalty.
3. Condemned has a history of escaping justice, whether it be physical escape from prison, or escaping conviction through wealth, political connections, or celebrity (to name a few examples), only to repeat his or her atrocities.
4. Condemned must be identified as irredeemable, shown by their pattern of contempt for the law, his or her fellow humans, etc.

[smirkymonkey]

165. You know, I am generally opposed to the dp, but your post

makes sense to me. I would agree with those conditions for the dp.

[IndianaGreen]

166. The State should not have the power of life and death over us

that includes the death penalty as well as conscription and abortion

I oppose the death penalty and the war. I also oppose State-mandated abortions as it is done in China.

[gator_in_Ontario]

167. I don't trust the government

with the power to make such an irrevocable decision...this group can barely pave a road properly....

[welshTerrier2]

168. anti-death penalty jurors are banned

first, i oppose the death penaly in all circumstances .. i believe the state should use "minimum necessary force" to protect its citizens ... once incarcerated, killing someone goes well beyond minimum necessary force ...

a second reason i oppose the death penalty is because there is a built-in bias in our jury system ... if we are going to make someone pay this extreme penalty, we must ensure that the juror is comprised of a fair cross-section of our society ... this is not possible when those who oppose the death penalty are excluded from sitting as jurors on death penalty cases ...

it just might be possible that those who support the death penalty are somewhat more pre-disposed to believe the prosecutors and the police than those who oppose the death penalty ... this hardly seems like an impartial way to try such important cases ...

[GliderGuider]

169. Totally opposed

Aside from the fact that our justice system is so prone to manipulation and error, the idea of a dozen people getting together and carefully, thoughtfully and deliberately deciding to murder a total stranger seems ... well ... utterly immoral.

[Solon]

170. To those who support it....

I'm against it for all circumstances because all human systems and organizations, like the humans themselves, are imperfect and therefore prone to mistakes. I prefer to be on the side of caution and to have those mistakes remedied through the appeals process and burden of proof, and also reversable.

Imagine this scenario: Your daughter or son is brutally murdered, tortured, sexually molested, think of the worse condition, whatever. Anyways, the police bring in a suspect for questioning, however, they do not have enough evidence to bring about an arrest or indictment. You find this as an atrosity, and you start planning to bring about your own brand of justice to him/her. You ambush them outside their home, shooting them several times and killing them and finally feel a sense of closure because you think justice was done.

You are now arrested, and that is when the police tell you that the man you just murdered was not the true murderer for the killing of your child. You are now up on capital murder charges, with the prosecutor demanding the death penalty for your case along with demanding the death penalty for the murderer of your child. Now on to the question: Do you deserve death as much as the man who murdered you child?

[Egnever]

178. This argument has many flaws

First in my opinion the death penalty should be reserved for extreme cases. Serial murderers, terrorists, child killers.

Were that the stipulations in place then I would be in no danger of capital punishment under your scenario.

Like many who do not support the death penalty you want to paint it with a wide brush as if every person who commits a murder faces the death penalty when in fact that is not even close to reality. It is used with a little less discretion than I would prefer at the moment but there are plenty of examples of people killing others and getting 8 year sentences. In fact the death penalty is not the norm in murder cases it is the exception.

[noahmijo]

175. Oppose it except in extreme cases put simply because

I wouldn't be able to turn the other cheek against someone who say rapes and brutalizes my wife then kills her after breaking into my home when I'm not there, and then kills my kids while they are at it.

Same for terrorists who slaughter innocent people.

Those types deserve no less than a hanging.

[noahmijo]

176. Actually I take that back

Those types deserve to be put into a cell with dangerous homicidal neo-nazis who like to use shivs to rape the "new guy"

Each and everyday for the rest of their lives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

177. Murder by any other name is still murder.

"Capital Punishment", "Collateral Damage", "Breaking the Enemy's will to resist", etc. It's all murder. Whether by an individual or by the state.

[ScreamingMeemie]

179. While I would like to say that I'm against it...I cannot. If someone

were to kill my family or any of its members I think I would be all for it...so to say any differently here would be wrong. I just can't answer that one.

[LeftishBrit]

180. Against the death penalty on principle

I think it just turns the state into revenge-killers. Plus the fact that there are always people who turn out to have been unjustly convicted. The UK abolished the death penalty in the 1960s, and even people like Thatcher never seriously attempted to bring it back. I am sure I would not feel any safer from crime if the death penalty were restored.

[prolesunited]

181. Very understandable

but that has nothing to do with justice. It is simply revenge. And what would it solve? Would it bring your loved ones back to life?

Society is ordered in a manner to keep us from exercising our basest instincts, making decisions based on logic and reason rather than emotion. I really think we need to evolve beyond capital punishment. It serves no purpose.

What about people who are mentally retarded? Mentally ill? Under 18? Are you in favor of killing them?

[unblock]

182. the GOVERNMENT should not have the right to kill its subjects

it's nothing but a recipe for bad governance. let 'em rot in prison.

[sans qualia]

183. Oppose in all cases

The death penalty essentially boils down to society taking revenge, and that's never a good reason to do anything. If somebody's really that dangerous, just keep them locked up. The justice system should be about protecting the innocent, not punishing the guilty.