Could this be a compromise on the Death Penalty issue?

[Walt Starr]

I had a thought last night and wanted to get it down in black and white. Please comment after reading this fully.

My proposal regarding the Death Penalty is simple. Everything happens as it does today. Jury first decides on guilt or innocence and if found guilty, decides on Life without Parole or death.

If Death is the sentence, all appeals proceed as normal at the state level.

Once all state level appeals have been thoroughly exhausted, a second jury trial is triggered. This second jury trial does not decide guilt or innocence. All this jury trial is for is confirmation or denial of the death sentence. Any new evidence uncovered during the itnerim of the first trial and this trial may be presented, by both the state and the defense.

After the State and Defense present their cases and make their closing remarks, the second jury then retires to deliberate, but only on whether the death penalty is justified or not. Guilt or innocence does not enter into this second trial whatsoever.

Of course, after this there will still be appeals to the federal level, but this second shot at life without the possibility of parole rather than death can insure that those who have raised a reasonable doubt will not be put to death.

Comments? Flames?

[DrDebug]

1. Since death penalty can never be reversed

it can never be the outcome.

[Walt Starr]

2. I'll take that as a "no compromise" n/t

[tx_dem41]

3. Your compromise addresses nothing towards people like me...

that do not want the State to kill in our name. Of course, that position leaves little room for compromise.

[Walt Starr]

4. And if there is no room for compromise

there can be no progress towards your position whatsoever.

[tx_dem41]

5. True, Walt....but can you suggest such a compromise....

...it gives me some "respect" for people that are anti-abortion as long as they compromise on nothing. At least, those people are sticking to a principle (which I disagree with, btw) that they remain consistent with.

[Walt Starr]

10. I support the Death Penalty

Especially after what happened to two little girls not far from me on Mother's Day.

[merh]

23. I don't support the death penalty.

And your compromise is still unfair and does not afford the accused all constitutional guarantees.

"This second jury trial does not decide guilt or innocence. All this jury trial is for is confirmation or denial of the death sentence."

Most death penalty cases that are reversed are reversed due to errors at trial related to the evidence (or lack there of) not the sentence. Your compromise does not address the errors at trial that deprive the defendant of his constitional rights.

To all arm chair lawyers who think they have the answers and who believe that because of technicalities, bad guys go free, you should have to experience what it is like to be unjustly accused of a committing a crime. It ain't no cake walk and every time a defense attorney performs his legal and ethical obligations by protecting his client's, the defendant's, constitutional rights, he is protecting yours.

Every time the prosecution gets away with violations of the constitutional rights of the accused, all of our rights are weakened and the prosecution will continue to try to do it a little more and a little more and a little more.

[Walt Starr]

25. Then you support the death penalty lasting even longer

because failure to compromise will mean the death penalty will continue as is for the forseeable future.

[merh]

32. There is no compromise.

Not with the death penalty or a woman's right to chose. I will not compromise my principles or my values just to be popular or safe. Never have and never will.

[Walt Starr]

34. Then the Death Penalty remains as is for at least two generations

There can be no solution in the courts, especially with chimp appointing judges.

your only option is compromise on the state level.

you won't compromise.

That means the Death Penalty remains as is until we have at least two double term anti-DP administrations back to back, and even then it's doubtful you'll get a change in the courts.

[merh]

38. Your compromise

does not address the issues that are involved. You just create more layers. That is no answer. Can't even give you good try since you have ignored constitutional rights and legal issues (as pointed out by the poster below).

[Walt Starr]

41. Look at it this way

IF you add the layer, then you can gather statistics on how many Death Penalty sentences are overturned on review by a second "jury of his peers".

My guess is there could be a shocking number and that, my friend, could be enough to alter the hearts and minds of folks like me who support the DP.

Get enough people like me to be swayed, and the legislative solution could start working. The courts certainly are not going to alter it in the forseeable future and a majority currently supports the DP. Failing to compromise when in the minority means the status quo continues.

[merh]

50. You will never get people swayed to "outlaw" the death penalty.

Our society mentality is one of vengeance, not justice. Layers will not change that. Hell, I have debated liberal DUers about the death penalty, providing them the statistics concerning the cost to house prisoners for life verse the cost to house inmates on death row and to put them to death (more expensive); I have provided the statistics relative to the types of death we use (lethal injection is a very difficult way to die, the person put to death just can't complain and doesn't wiggle in anguish); I have provided the numbers freed by the Innocence Campaign; and they don't give a rat's ass.

We don't care about justice, we want our eye for that other eye.

Compromises in the laws and the procedures will not change that.

[Walt Starr]

53. That's what the hard core anti-choicers said about abortion in 1980

look at how chipping away at it changed things.

[merh]

54. And there was a moratorium on the death penalty in the 1970's

until they came up with new ways to kill.

The pendulum always swings.

When we, as a society, accept that justice does not equate vengeance, then we will adopt laws that abolish the death penalty.

[Walt Starr]

55. The pendulum has been halted on teh far right

Chimpy has been appointing judges as fast as he can.

[merh]

56. The pendulum is never halted.

It is not controlled by politics or a president, it is controlled by society, by the people.

It has been slowed, but not halted.

[Walt Starr]

57. Nope, it's halted

And unless you regain the Senate AND the White House, it will never swing left again.

[merh]

58. See, I have faith in mankind.

These neo-cons, the evil that is trying to destroy my nation, will not succeed.

You allow them their power when you compromise on your values and principles, just to get some where. (imho)

[Walt Starr]

59. That's your mistake

Mankind has consistently throughout history allowed itself to fall under the sway of despots.

[merh]

60. And mankind has consistently survived.

:shrug:

[Walt Starr]

61. We came to the brink a bit over 60 years ago

but technology was not sufficiently advanced at that time.

:shrug:

[merh]

63. I just don't think it is our time yet!

The dog will pull the curtain away and folks will see the man behind the wizard.

[Walt Starr]

65. That never happened in Germany

It took the rest of the world to put the rabid dog down.

since our military spending will exceed the rest of the world combined within twelve months, I don't think anybody will be able to put the new rabid dog down.

Note to Government officials reading this post: My metaphor of "rabid dog" refers exclusively to the rise of fascism within this nation.

[merh]

66. Maybe the rest of the world will step in to save us.

I just don't believe we are at the end yet.

I do wish that the rapture would happen and they would leave. They are annoying.

(Hi Agent Mike :hug:)

[Walt Starr]

67. My point is, the rest of the world will be incapable of stepping in

we have too much military might for that to work.

It would mean the end of everything.

[merh]

68. Not really, our military is not as strong as we pretend

and hell, as badly as they are treated, they may turn on the evil and power.

[Walt Starr]

69. Actually, it's a lot stronger than you make out

We still hold an incredibly vast nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the planet.

[merh]

70. Oh, I agree with the nuclear arsenal

But that is why I believe the military would revolt before allowing the cabal to misuse it.

They live here too.

[Walt Starr]

71. They're too well trained

and we're the only nation on the face of the planet to explode a nuclear device on people.

[merh]

72. I don't think you can train an entire army or even a large group of

its members to destroy the planet. Survival is a basic instinct.

[Walt Starr]

73. They've been trained to do precisely that for more than fifty years

I've known many missilemen, bomber pilots, and submariners and I know for a fact that every last one of them would turn the key without any questions if the orders came.

That's how they are trained.

[merh]

76. But you see, that is where I have my doubts

or at least my blind faith.

Yes, trained, training exercises, training events, training, but in reality, when push comes to shove, will they be willing to turn the key that will destroy the world?

I don't believe so. Stupid, cockeyed optimist :shrug:

[Walt Starr]

79. Count on it. They'll turn the key

They've tested it, and the missilemen turn the key when they think the scenario is for real.

[Pithlet]

48. Compromise is impossible for this issue.

One is either dead, or they aren't. They are either killed, or left to live. Your "compromise" still ends with the state killing a person. Neither side, death penalty or anti, can compromise on this. Neither side can reasonably expect the other to compromise.

[MadHound]

6. Sorry, no go

Still morally opposed to the DP. In fact in terms of punishment, life in prison is infinetly worse than the DP, for the DP is mercifully quick, while life in prison is just that, a lifetime. In addition, for a number of reasons, I believe that the state shouldn't be granted the power of life and death. Too many verifiable mistakes have been made in the past, and many would be made in the future. The DP is irrersible, unlike a life sentence.

Besides, and this is the Republican in me speaking:eyes:, your compromise would add even further costs to the DP, which is already much more expensive than a life term.

[Goldmund]

7. Won't work,

because the same demographic who is pro-death penalty is very sensitive about spending too much money on making sure trials are fair. And this proposal of yours would cost a fortune to implement.

[sendero]

8. As I've said here many times..

... I think the standard of evidence required to seek the death penalty should be much higher. That is, if a prosecutor seeks the death penalty, he has to prove guilt "beyond any doubt", not just "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The problem is that a person can and has been sent to death on circumstantial evidence that would not pass the "beyond any doubt" test. And BTW, when I say "beyond any doubt", the testimony of even an eyewitness would not necessarily be enough. Eyewitness testimony has been proven to be very unreliable. To me, "beyond all doubt" would require overwhelming physical evidence.

In any event, I think the death penalty should be reserved for violent criminals who have a history of violence and who have shown no propensity or desire to change.

[Walt Starr]

9. There is always doubt

The "beyond any doubt" standard never works as there is always the shadow of a doubt, even if that doubt is unreasonable.

[AndyTiedye]

18. It Would Work Just Fine

Nobody could be executed under that standard.

[Walt Starr]

21. Then the Death Penalty will not go away.

you are in the minority on this one. Failure to compromise means you lose.

[AndyTiedye]

77. What Makes You Think

that saying we support it will make it go away.

[Hamlette]

19. and to all the innocent people we put to death, and will still

put to death under your plan, you say "thems the breaks?"

My greatest nightmare is as a mother having my only child falsely accused and executed for a crime he did not commit. (I used to be a public defender so my nightmares might be a tad odd.)

Can you imagine, visiting your child on death row, knowing the state will soon take his life, knowing he didn't do it and being helpless?

Ack.

Freaks me out.

That is just one of my objections, the innocent person nightmare. My other objection is that I am against state sanctioned killing. The only pupose it serves is revenge and I would like to think we would want to move beyond that base instinct.

(Too many studies to cite have shown it is more expensive to exectue someone than keep them in prison for life, that the death penalty does not deter people from crime. We do it in this country for revenge. Every other so called civilized society in the world abolished the DP years ago. You should fight it Walt.)

[sendero]

24. Not really...

.... take the guy who killed two little girls. There is no doubt. There is both physical evidence and a confession.

Maybe "beyond any doubt" is too strong, but something better than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[Walt Starr]

28. Beyond a reasonable doubt IS the best we can EVER do

If you have an unreasonable doubt, that should not hold you back from convicting and applying the law as it stands.

Those who oppose the death penalty cannot render a sentence in a DP case because their doubts about the application of the DP are unreasonable under the law.

[sendero]

33. On this I...

... vehemently disagree. With a tougher standard of evidence, a prosecutor would have to have an iron clad case to even attempt to get the death penalty.

As it is now, too many people are sent to death row based on very flimsy evidence because the prosecutors and jurors want to punish somebody.

[Walt Starr]

35. disagree all you want, but if you won't compromise, nothing will change

Those are the facts of politics. It's a lesson the anti-choicers took to heart and they are close to winning.

[aneerkoinos]

74. Compromise?

When did Gandhi compromise on independence and non-violent means to gain it?

When did MLK compromise on human rights for blacks and non-violent means to gain it?

Nothing changed? Recheck your "facts of politics".

[beyurslf]

11. It doesn't address the fundamental inequality of the death penalty and its

violation of the equal protection clause. The rich and connected are still far less likely to have death penalty cases brought against them and even less likely to be convicted and sentenced to death. Until this problem can be solved, the death penalty remains an inequitable system of justice and unconstitutional.

[Walt Starr]

14. Your argument does not hold with SCOTUS precedent

Failure to compromise means the Death Penalty stands as is and that will not change for at least two more generations.

[beyurslf]

16. Who says the SCOTUS's precedents are infallible? If we use that

logic then Dred Scott and Plessy would still be laws of the land.

I say the SC was wrong when they ruled the death penalty did not violate the equal protection clause. The SC has also ruled that having a attorney who is appointed by the state and SLEEPS during trial is not a violation of counsel. Sometimes the SCOTUS precedent needs to be overturned.

[Walt Starr]

20. SCOTUS precedent stands

so long as the SCOTUS allows it to stand.

Do you seriously entertain for even a moment that a future SCOTUS will overturn the precendent of the death penalty any time within the next two generations?

If you do, you are severely naive!

It took eight years to overturn the Dred Scott decision, and to do that it took a Civil War, thousands upon thousands of dead, and a constitutional amendment!

My compromise allows one step in the direction you want. Your failure to compromise allows no steps in the direction you want.

[hecate77]

12. Opponents of the DP will not compromise, so no, not a good compromise

I oppose the Death Penalty. Period. I laud all movement towards making it more and more difficult to use it. However, to accept this compromise as a compromise says I approve of the Death Penalty in some cases. I do not. On the other hand, I do not insist that everyone else on the planet do what I want them to do. Nor do I insist that everyone else on the planet agree with me on anything. All I can do is voice my opinion and use my voice where I can to convince people of my position, and use my vote as best I can.

I am not a one-issue Democrat, and would not vote for a Republican even if he opposed the Death Penalty. Voting for a Republican for any office is condemning uncounted numbers to death.

Why am I against the Death Penalty? It has nothing to do with whether someone who is innocent gets killed. It has to do with not wanting to be involved in killing another human being for any reason. You might guess by this that I am anti-war as well. You would be right. I think that humane incarceration for life is the answer to dangerous people. I do not believe that incarceration should be punishment or torture, either. As long as the person is isolated from society and can no longer do harm to others, I am satisfied. I do not need them to be treated badly on top of that. Incarceration is punishment enough.

[NorthernSpy]

13. no compromise, ever

In fact, schemes such as this are pernicious and amoral in the extreme. As it is now, the death penalty exists largely to make a statement about which victims society happens to value especially, and which it cares rather less about. Your proposal would only aggravate this effect.

Thumbs down.

[Walt Starr]

15. Then the Death Penalty will stand as is for at least two more generations

Without a compromise, there can never be a move towards no DP, ergo, the failure to compromise will contribute to the DP being in place for a longer period of time.

[AndyTiedye]

17. A Second Jury Still Can't Make it Right

The death penalty is still wrong. 2 juries don't make it right.
The death penalty is still primarily a tool (the ultimate tool,
to oppress minorities, and it always will be, as long as it exists.

Caving in on the death penalty won't help us politically either.

In any case, a second jury won't offer much additional protection.
The presumption will be that the defendant is guilty, and as long as
they continue to routinely disqualify death penalty opponents from
juries in capital cases, this second jury will nearly always vote
to fry 'em.

This 2-jury scheme could still help the defendent get a fairer trial
from the initial jury, if it eliminated the culling of death-penalty
opponents from that jury. I would support it as an additional barrier
to the use of the death penalty, but certainly not as part of any
compromise that either reaffirmed or expanded the death penalty.

Those who support the death penalty are much more inclined to believe
that defendants presented to them by the state are guilty.
They have to be, since the possibility of executing an innocent person
is too horrifying to accept. Those who support the death penalty have
to be able to put that possibility aside and convince themselves that
it cannot happen.

[Walt Starr]

22. Then the Death Penalty will stand as is.

How has the anti-choice movement been as successful as it has been?

They chipped away at Roe slowly but surely over thirty years, that's how.

Death Penalty opponents apparently are too foolish to see how politics works, thus nothing will change with the DP.

[G_j]

62. am I wrong

or does your 'don't compromise and be stuck with the DP' begin to sound like a threat? You sure are trying hard to beat people over the head with that.
I am against rape too. Would you think I could just compromise that principle because of "politics" also?

In all due respect to you Walt, I resent being browbeaten with the "this is about politics" "you're naive" stuff.

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, popular, or political; but because it is right."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[AndyTiedye]

80. I Am Not Sure What You Are Expecting Us To Do

Requiring 2 juries for a death sentence would be an improvement.
I already said that.

But would I pledge to support the death penalty forever after? Hell No!

[Nevernose]

26. The SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional

In Nevada we had something similar, where in a capital case the jury just determined guilt or innocence. A three-judge panel would determine whether or not to apply the death penalty, rehearing the evidence in the process. While it's not identical to your plan, it's very similar, and SCOTUS ruled that the same jury that determined guilt must be the same jury that gives the death penalty.

ALso, if under your plan the second jury isn't weiging guilt or innocence, then what would be the point in introducing new evidence?

Finally, "thou shalt not kill." It's wrong, especially when one is killing for revenge.

[Walt Starr]

31. Nope, different application of legal principal in my plan

The DP has already been determined in the case. The second jury just gives one last chance for it to be revoked.

[Nevernose]

46. Okay. Counterproposal:

DP cases already get an automatic appeal, correct? The second jury would be in addition to this judicial appeal, and would focus entirely on the evidence and the fairness of the process. In Texas, for instance, where there high court ruled that a disbarred, sleeping, drunk lawyer did not consititute a poor defense, a citizen jury would be able to hear the same evidence and commute the sentence to life. The second jury would essentially hear the same evidence over again, but would work sort of like a reverse grand jury -- the defense would present all the points that they feel were not adequate at the first trial (triggerman clauses not being properly applied, poor testing of DNA, poor representation, new witnesses or witnesses changing their story, etc.), while the prosecutors sole role would be to rebut the evidence. The important part, though, is that it would have to be presented to a jury of peers, and not remain solely in the realm of politically/ideaologically minded apointed and elected judges.

Is that sort of what you had in mind? I still don't think there's the slightest chance of any kind of compromise -- it's far too politically popular to get even tougher on people we're already going to send to the gas chamber.

[Bouncy Ball]

27. No compromise on death penalty.

If it is wrong for people to kill one another, then it is wrong for a group of people (the state) to kill a person, too.

It's like the parent in the grocery store, whacking their kid while yelling "DON'T HIT!"

It makes no sense and if it were truly a deterrent to crime, Texas would be the safest fucking state in the nation.

(We're not. In fact, we are in the top quarter in violent crimes.)

[Walt Starr]

29. Then the DP will not go away

If you oppose the DP, then take a lesson from the anti-choice forces. They are on the brink of succeeding in overturning Roe and will be moving on to their widespread agenda of ending all birth control because they compromised and weakened Roe one step at a time.

Failure to compromise only extends the time period in which the DP exists in this nation.

[Bouncy Ball]

37. I'm not in charge of this, the courts are.

Just because I say no compromise on a message board does not mean the DP won't be compromised out of existence.

I was merely speaking for MYSELF.

[Walt Starr]

42. Forget the courts, the courts will not alter the DP

Chimp has been making sure of that.

The only solution is legislative, and that means compromise.

[AP]

30. Sounds unconstitutional. You can't try people twice for the same thing.

Even thought the point is that you don't retry innconet people, I think it works the other way -- if someone is found guilty, you don't get a second trial to see if they're innconet. Unless the trial is defective, the findings of fact at a trial stand, and there's no way to undo them. If new evidence is found, that can potentially make the trial defective, but that happens already. You don't need your proposal to make that part of the law.

Appeal courts can only address legal errors. They have to accept the facts the trial courts find.

[Walt Starr]

36. Then don't call it a trial, call it a sentence review

The DP has already been handed down by the jury that convicted.

It's not a trial anyway because you are not determining innocence or guilt. you are merely reviewing the DP being handed down in the case and giving the defendent one more benefit of the doubt.

[AP]

40. It's a trial because you're reviewing facts and making a legally binding

judgment based on the facts.

Sentencing is already a part of the first trial and you want to have a second trial on the same issue -- it's probably not constitutional.

Maybe what you really want is for sentencing at the trial to be done by a separate jury? But that would mean that you'd waste a lot of time reviewing a lot of facts that would bring the second jury to the same conculsion, most likely. But I think you might be able to make a better argument that a new jury should be impaneled at that point than three or five years later when a jury has already made a decision about sentencing.

However -- the bigger picture -- rather than trying to find ways to make the death penalty better, why don't we try to find ways not to have a death penalty?

I'd rather see an effort -- a public philosophical debate and a legal debate -- over whether the government has jurisdiction over what happens under our skin. I have no problem with the government mediating my relationships with other people and with the government. But I have a problem with government that tries to get under my skin and into my head.

I don't think the government has any jurisdiction over my life and my thoughts -- it can't tell me what to believe, how to think, and whether I can exist.

By all means, take me out of society if I can't follow the rules to which we've all democratically agreed. But you can't brainwash me and you can't take me out of existence if I don't follow the rules that govern how I can interact socially.

[Walt Starr]

43. No, it's a sentencing review

Making certain the applied death penalty is appropriate in the case.

Hell, you could even limit it to the exiting court transcript and any new evidence as discovered during the interim.

[AP]

47. If you're rehearing facts that were already available at the first trial..

...and you're applying the rules of evidence to them (as you should) and making a legally binding judgment based on whether you believe those facts, then it's a second trial on an issue that has already been heard.

(If you're making a legally binding judgment not based on the facts, but on whether they got the law right, then it's an appeal.)

It would undermine the legal system to say that we don't trust it to get it right the first time. It would undermine the principle of res judicata. It's basically saying that for DP sentencing, you have to have two trials, and you have to sweep.

There are ways to have a retrial -- like when there are new facts that weren't previously availalbe. But we don't grant second trials just based on the subject matter -- it's totally contrary to our system of justice.

It's simply not going to fly.

I edited my previous post -- check it out.

[Chomp]

39. It's simpler than that.

No death penelty anywhere ever.

[Walt Starr]

44. That ain't happening

so don't compromise and keep it as is.

[AP]

51. Efforts to compromise with the Death Penalty are big reason we still...

...have it.

A lot of things that have changed about implementing the DP have simply been to make people more comfortable with the DP, and they work. People get so comfortable, they decide it has a valid place in the American justice system.

For example, we used to have public executions. Then people started realize how nuts they were. People started saying, maybe this isn't right -- look at how gruesome it is.

So, we took them indoors and invited only a small group of people to see them. Is it any less gruesome to strap a guy to a chair and zap him with electricity until he smokes just because a smaller group is witnessing it? No. But that reduced the groundswell of resistance to the DP.

Then people said, hmm, these electrocutions aren't all that pleasant -- the miracle of electricity is kind of violent and bloody. So then we switched to lethal injections. Is it really less disgusting to kill a person with an injection? No. But it was a compromise that kept the DP going.

Then in the state of Missouri, people found it kind of disgusting for a human being to be injecting poison into someone's veins, so they built this big, elaborate execution facility, where the prisoner is in one room, and down the hall there's a huge machine and you push a button and the MACHINE does the killing for you, so that people feel even more detached from the process of killing other human beings.

If we went back to public hangings, beheadings and shootings (with one executioner whose face we can all see, preferably another citizen picked by lottery whose civic duty is to kill for the state) and got rid of all these compromises which were meant to make the DP appear to be more tolerable, the DP would be abolished in two weeks.

Now I know that your legal, "two bites at the apple" proposal is supposed to be a legal protection, but I think it's not likely to be consitutional, nor is it likely to result in a lot of different verdicts. It just makes people think the process is fair and that there's always a chance for another review, so it's less important to get it right the first time.

People need to feel more responsible for their decisions about life and death and not like someone down the line is going to catch their mistake if they get it wrong.

[quaoar]

45. Here's another proposal

1. Create a state office of criminal defense lawyers and investigators independent of the attorney general to handle death penalty cases. Indigent defendants in capital cases would be able to retain this office as defense counsel and be guaranteed experienced specialists in capital cases.

2. Require all county prosecutors to first secure the permission of the state attorney general's office before seeking the death penalty. The AG must certify that the county has not practiced selective prosecution with regard to race and that capital charges are not being brought for political or personal motives.

3. Establish a separate lower-level appellate court to handle death poenalty cases with decisions appealable to the state Supreme Court.

4. Require DNA testing in all cases where it is applicable, such as rape/murder cases.

5. Require the state bar association to review all capital cases each year and determine whether defendants received adequate representation.

6. Create a federal capital appeals court in order to speed up the process. This court would have original jurisdiction on federal claims in death cases. Decisions appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[peacebaby3]

49. Whoa, you are soooo wrong, Walt Starr

I don't usually even waste my time getting into these conversations. 90% of people have no idea what they are talking about most of the time.

First of all, your "compromise" is so very little different from how the system works today that it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Secondly, your condescening assumption that we have not made any progress in the DP in this country is insulting.

Over the past 5 years, we have had USSC decisions such as Ring, Atkins, Roper, and a huge step for mitigation was the Wiggins v. Smith case in 2003. These are all huge!!! There was also the recent case in the USSC (the initials we use for the United States Supreme Court- shorter)that said the cutting down procedure in lethal injection was cruel and unusual, but we have a lot more work to do on that becuase it was too specific to the actual person, but a huge step in that direction. We also have death by electrocution as the sole method down to 1 state (I believe - Nebraska which only has about 8 ppl. on DR last I saw stats and rarely executes anyone) where it was the preferred method not too long ago by many states and unbelievably barbaric. Look at the work that the Innocence Project has done with regard to DNA. Unfortunately, DNA is only possible in less than 25% of cases in my state and the stats are close in general.

I think you should definitely rethink some of your statements. I am certainly open for hearing any possibilities regarding the DP in our country, but to make a comments about anti-DP advocates being foolish is completely uncalled for and saying they have made no advances is completely ignorant.

[AP]

52. I agree with this.

There have been huge shifts in the public's attitudes in the DP, and the OP does reveal a pretty serious misunderstanding of the criminal justice system.

[yurbud]

64. YES--cut the voltage in half.

If you are still alive after two shocks, we have to let you go (and you probably won't be very dangerous anymore anyway).

[aneerkoinos]

75. Greetings from EU!

We don't compromise on Death Sentence. No country can become member using death sentence, period.

Because of EU, moratorium in Turkey and many other places.

We think Death Sentence is barbaric, and those supporting it not part of civilized world. We're kind of fundamentalist in that respect.

I think you wan't others to "compromize", because you support Death Sentence and seek moral support for that support, when deep down in your soul you know that you seek not justice but vengeance. So there is hope for you.

[peacebaby3]

78. We are definitely in a very bad group of countries regarding human rights

with regard to executing our own citizens.

[Lilith Velkor]

81. Greetings from DC

I used to support the DP because I hadn't really thought about it and it is more socially acceptable to support it. Even then I thought it was stupid not to allow the condemned to commit suicide.

The war changed that for me. I now believe the state has no more right to commit individual murder than it does to commit mass murder.

Guess I should move to Europe...