Is Capital Punishment Ever Appropriate

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I believe in a culture of life. This belief leads me to oppose abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. I am also a civil libertarian. In a pluralistic society these competing values sometimes conflict therefore I must leave personal decisions to people and their consciences.


A few years back I watched the trial of David Westerfield on CourtTV...He kidnapped, murdered, and allegedly raped a seven year old girl. He was so easy to hate... IMHO, he was the worst of the worst...During the trial I wanted to see him found guilty and put to death...After he was found guilty and sentenced to death I found myself no longer having an emotional investment in seeing him dead and would have been content to see him put away forever... Oh, I have no doubt my thoughts would be different if it was my little girl...

I have come to a point in life where I nominally oppose the death penalty but I won't be holding candle light vigils for the Ted Bundys, David Westerfields, and John Wayne Gacys of this world...

Is capital punishment ever appropriate?

[shenmue]

1. I think so.

I don't relish the prospect. I don't like those people who stand outside the jail and wave signs and go "Wooooo!" I think it's a solemn responsibility. I can't even bear the thought that some freak who hurts children is going to breathe air and eat bad chicken from the commissary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Did Grad Work At FSU

I used to pass the Chi- Omega sorrority house where Ted Bundy went on his rampage... I had a sociology professor who had a student who played pool with Ted Bundy the night before he went on his rampage... When he was executed there were big parties outside the prison...It was macabre...

[Hamlette]

71. I went to law school with Ted Bundy, when the sorority women died we said "They'll try to pin that

on him too." It was odd to know someone that sick.

Ted Bundy is the only argument you can make for the DP in my opinion because he was such a good escape expert. They just couldn't keep him locked up and he killed each time he got out.

But, I'm still against it. It does not deter so the only reason is retribution which we should not allow ourselves.

[ThomWV]

79. I would make this argument against your point

I think we are generally on the same page here. Not a bad place to start from. I don't think that there is one execution in a thousand - make that ten thousand - that is justified, but every now and then someone does some series of things that they just need killin' for. Ted Bundy is one such example, Jeffery Dahmer comes immediately to mind too

I would argue that the DP is indeed a deterrent and not retribution in the cases of both Mr. Bundy and Mr. Dahmer. Certain each was deterred from killing again when he was executed.

[Hamlette]

106. Dahmer was not executed so no, the DP did not deter him.

He was given 15 life sentences and killed by another inmate in prison.

I am not sure how I feel about the DP for Bundy and there was another case in Wyoming where the guy killed someone then ordered the murder of the witness against him from jail. Can't think of the name right now, Gerry Spence prosecuted him (he had killed Spence's law partner and family and Spence, who was against the DP asked for it for this guy). But those are the only two cases where I'm neutral, if there is such a thing.

I was a public defender and criminal defense attorney for years. I used to follow dp cases and criminal cases all the time. I'm still interested in the dp and read up on it from time to time. (Didn't want you to think I was an unnatural freak to follow these things.)

[ThomWV]

119. I had forgot that a fellow inmate killed him.

Don't want you to get the wrong idea about me either, I just sort of had it my general information nook that he was killed by another inmate and it didn't register until the moment I saw your post.

I'm once again inclined to agree - there's no real deterrent effect to be had from a death penalty other than the person who is executed won't be doing anything bad again. Maybe as a physiological disincentive to murder a person who was just on the verge of being homicidal might reconsider a premeditated killing if threatened with death rather than an incarcerated life. I would personally find the latter a greater deterrent than the former, but I ain't everybody.

Oh! Another one comes to mind where it seems to me the death penalty probably wouldn't have bothered me a bit - weren't there some very bad actors somewhere down south or out west who chained a black man to the back of a truck and dragged him to death? Same thing out west a year or two ago when a young gay man was brutally killed in Laramie, Wyoming my some mad men.

[Hamlette]

131. but innocent people are executed, that freaks me out

what if I got framed? Or worse, my son.

But apart from even that. I just can't "do" it from a moral sense. Like I said, unless the person is an escape artist like Bundy or ordered more murders from inside prison. (Both of those things could be stopped but the argument more strongly favors the DP.)

Interestingly enough, Dahmer wanted the DP, said he deserved to die. And studies have been done that states with the DP have higher murder rates than states without the DP. Its the culture of life I suppose (sarcasm)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Didn't He Go To Law School In Washington State?

My mom used to work at the federal building in Orlando and saw him during one of his appeals...She said he was very nice looking... It's amazing how outward appearances can be deceiving... But at the beginning he was able to charm most of his victims before assaulting them... By the time he got to Florida he had abandoned all pretense...His last victim was a fifteen year old girl on the way home from school... That was his first non-adult victim...He was dying to get caught...

[Hamlette]

103. he took classes in WA state but didn't take the finals and started over in Salt Lake doing his first

year again here. He was arrested at the beginning of his 2nd year in Salt Lake. He was out on bail for the first semester of his 2nd year. There were only about 140 ppl in his class (my husband's class, I was a year ahead of them). I talked to him several times and attended every minute of his trial here for the abducting Carol DaRonch. We know the judge too. 2 reporters got access to Bundy on Florida death row and asked him questions which he would only answer hypothetically. (Like O.J. Simpson's book?) They sent the judge copies of the tapes. He said they were very scary.

His LAST victim, Kimberly Leach, was 12 years old. She was the youngest but he also abducted a 13 year old and a 15 year old before that. There were also 5 other women who were younger than 18.

I agree he wanted to get caught, even if subconsciously.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. Which Trial

Not the Chi-Omega trial...

It was "something" passing that sorority house every day... I guess with the passage of time it's not such a big deal...

What was he like to talk to ...

I think he worked for a Republican governor... Evans?

All this talk of the death penalty reminded of the sad, sad incident that I had buried in my mind... A young woman who I used to hang out with on Daytona Beach and taught me to play backgammon was murdered by Gerald Stano, a serial killer:



http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/gerald_stano/5.html

It was buried in the deep recesses of my mind... While she was missing my friends and I speculated on her disappearance which, of course, was in the news... Daytona Beach, being a "small town" back then I knew one of the detectives assigned to the case who was dating Carol's (we called her Carol) sister... Gawd, it hurts now to think about her... She was so pretty and nice...She'd be the same age as me...

[Hamlette]

112. no, I saw the trial here in Salt Lake, Carol DeRonch, she got away.

He was very charismatic and handsome. He worked for and apparently knew Evans. There's lots about him on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

The trial was odd. I went with my best friend KK. We were seniors in law school and worked for the public defenders' office. Criminal law was our first love. We had to get to court at 6 am to get a seat and couldn't leave (yeah, we sluffed school). I thought he was innocent until he testified. He was cocky and sure of himself, referred to the prosecutor by his first name. I hated him and decided he was guilty. My friend KK thought he was guilty UNTIL he took the stand. When she heard his testimony she was convinced he was innocent.

Since I was a public defender during his later crimes and trials we all followed them. My law partner when he was tried in Florida had defended him here in Utah and thought him innocent. Then Lake City, the 12 year old. There was a piece of evidence that could not be explained away in that case (his finger print on a license plate to the truck she was abducted in. It was found in a car he was driving). No doubt, he killed her and of course we then knew he did them all.

[Captain Hilts]

2. In theory, I'm against, but those guys in Connecticut.......nt

[porphyrian]

3. You can't say killing is wrong by killing.

That's my second biggest problem with it (the first being that it can't be undone).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. It's A Tough One

That's why I oppose it but don't lose any sleep when a truly bad guy gets it...

[porphyrian]

49. They better truly be bad guys, because it can't be taken back, know what I'm saying? - n/t

[Labors of Hercules]

10. Is killing always wrong?

I often wonder at the subjective and really silly way most Americans go about placing value on individual lives...

How does it make sense to spend so much money and energy sustaining people convicted of heinous crimes when there are good people dying of starvation every day that most Americans don't give a shit about? It's rediculous.

Better to remove the high maintenance malignant parasites of society and divert the money saved to the millions who deserve it.

Just my thoughts.

[jmowreader]

18. They tell me life imprisonment is less expensive than the DP

The cost of all the appeals required for a death sentence is higher than just locking the asshole in the deepest recesses of the prison for the rest of his life.

[porphyrian]

47. Simple, it can't be undone if you're wrong.

And, given the level of fallibility evidenced by recent DNA data clearing death row inmates (at 1 in 4 during a study in Illinois, which convinced the governor to suspend the death penalty there) and the demonstrable bias against minorities and the poor, it's use simply isn't just. Are some lives more valuable than others? To whom? And who gets to decide?

[riona]

77. I agree

[porphyrian]

130. It only seems fair to me. - n/t

[Labors of Hercules]

84. True. It cannot be undone...

and there is no-one truly qualified to decide, but the decision has to be made regardless. It is an argument that is changing as populations and resources reach breaking point. We will have to count the cost of preserving every human life, because the long and short of it is, in reality, this is a completely unsustainable concept. It's a sad thing to say, but the survival of our species and this planet will likely depend on deciding which lives are valuable and which are... for lack of a better way to put it... not.

[porphyrian]

128. The only decision is whether or not to say killing is right.

If you believe it is, you can have a death penalty. If killing isn't right, you can't use it to say so.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. There are many who say that murder is wrong, but killing is not

[Exiled in America]

24. I think all killing is murder.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Apperently that view is a minority in this country

[Exiled in America]

37. Like so many other correct views.

:)

[Clintonista2]

54. Good thing America is a Democracy, not a mob rule then. nt.

[porphyrian]

48. But who gets to say? You can't undo it, so you can't take it back if you're wrong.

And, given the demonstrable bias against minorities and the poor in our justice system and the number of death row cases being overturned due to emerging DNA evidence (sometimes after decades of incarceration), it's my belief that we should put it on hiatus until the system works correctly, anyway.

[Madspirit]

61. We Agree Again!...n/t

[porphyrian]

76. Heh, sorry. - n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

99. You can say "killing innocent people is wrong" by killing, though.

Or "killing people who haven't been tried and convicted of a capital offence", or "killing people unless you have government sanction", or "killing people who haven't done something bad", or any of a number of other similar messages.

There are very good arguments against the death penalty. I don't think that that one is one of them, I'm afraid.

[porphyrian]

127. Those are excuses, not messages. - n/t

[LeftishBrit]

6. No.

I think it just makes the state, and therefore all of us, complicit in revenge-killing. And there is too much danger of innocent people being convicted. You can let someone out of prison, but you can't bring them back to life once they've been executed.

Moreover, all the evidence is that it does not deter; and that places which have capital punishment do not show a reduction in murder rates as compared with places that don't (if anything, the reverse).

We haven't had the death penalty in the UK for 40 years, and I an glad of it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Are There People Who Want To Bring It Back?

Did the Conservative party oppose its abolition?

Is the British Conservative party to the right of our Republican party?


They strike me as followers of Edmund Burke and I can think of worse people to follow...

[LeftishBrit]

40. Yes, there are; but they're unlikely to get anywhere

Bringing back the Rope and if possible the Birch tends to be a cause for the right-wing of the Tory base, and some MPs still support it, but it will not happen.

It was abolished on 'free votes', which means that MPs could vote their conscience and did not have to follow the party whip. Since the main vote was in 1965, it would take some searching to find out exactly who voted for and against it; but presumably most Labour MPs supported abolition, and many or most Tories opposed it. Not all, however. Ted Heath, who was leader of the Conservative Party from the mid-60s to 1975, and Prime Minister from 1970 to 1974, was a strong opponent of capital punishment. So were a number of other Tories. Maggie Thatcher was personally in favour of capital punishment, but made no serious attempt to get it re-introduced.

The most recent votes to reconsider abolition of capital punishment were in 1994. At that time, there was a narrow but definite Tory majority in Parliament. It would not have changed much from the 1992 election, when 350 out of approximately 650 MPs returned to Parliament were Tories or members of allied parties from Northern Ireland. A vote to restore capital punishment for the murder of a policeman failed by 363 votes to 186, and a vote to restore capital punishment for murder in general failed by 403 votes to 159. So obviously quite a few Tory MPs opposed it by then.

As regards the general political position of the Tory Party: like our other political parties, it's a pretty broad spectrum. The most liberal wing of the party, as represented by former Prime Ministers Harold Macmillan and Ted Heath, would correspond to Democrats in the USA. The right wing of the party, as most notably represented by Maggie Thatcher, would be much more like the Republicans; though mostly without the religious fundamentalism. David Cameron, the current Tory leader, is on the more liberal wing (insofar as he has any definite policies) but is under considerable pressure from his own right wing, and would have to give in to them on some issues if elected. But these would not include bringing back capital punishment.

[alfredo]

101. Yes for those who make those stiff plastic packages that are

impossible to open. And that asshole who parks his car out front, leaves his boom box blaring while he is inside visiting. There's a special place in hell for him.

[leveymg]

7. In cases of gov't corruption or high crimes resulting in death, yes.

It's the breach of trust and abuse of power that deserves the harshest penalty.

[liberal renegade]

57. and they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....

[Madspirit]

62. That's SICK

You should move to PRC. They kill everybody. I don't support the death penalty at all but you actually support it for something other than 1st degree capital murder?! That's Sick. Once again, may I suggest The People's Republic of China...

Lee

[WildEyedLiberal]

74. Well, that's the sentence the Nuremburg trials returned

As far as I know, Goering, Streicher, and other top Nazis never personally committed first degree capital murder, but they were nevertheless sentenced to death and executed (well, Goering managed to weasel out of the gallows by swallowing a cyanide pill, but the rest were hanged).

Of course it goes without saying that these men were directly or indirectly responsible for the massacre of millions, but so, it could be argued, are all heads of state who commit war crimes. The point is, there is precedent for executing war criminals, and not just from countries with barbaric track records like China, but under international consensus.

That said, obviously, opposing the death penalty in principle would oppose execution under any circumstances, which is a position I respect, even if I'm not sure I agree with it completely.

[goaman]

9. capital punishment is an easy way out

the problem with capital punishment is that it gives the convicted person an easy way out of this life. It could be nothing more than a gift to leave this life that he/she basically destroyed for themselves already, than stay lifetime in jail with the possibility of being raped in the ass.
Life in prison is the most cruel punishment I think.
Yeah yeah, and do not start telling me that your tax dollars will be feeding them and jail are over crowded. Well, if you stop putting people in jail for stupid stuff like smoking a joint, then maybe we will only have room for true criminals who rape torture kill others!

[JerseygirlCT]

16. I agree about non-violent drug users not belonging in jail. Good

grief, especially pot convictions. If you're not selling, just using, you need HELP, not jail. Jail only prolongs the problem, as you then have children growing up without parents... and the cycle continues.

And if life without parole was used, you save money on appeal after appeal. It's actually less expensive than the costs incurred in executing someone.

[Sanctified]

31. self deleted.

[liberal renegade]

58. why do pot smokers need help?

[JerseygirlCT]

80. Why do they need jail terms? nt

[Madspirit]

63. I Don't Need Help. I LOVE Pot.

My shrink even tells me to smoke it. Jeez.

Lee

[JerseygirlCT]

81. I think you need to back off the defensiveness a bit.

We're talking about jail terms for non-violent drug users. If their use is to the extent that they're attracting the attention of law-enforcement, or they're not functional, OR they're getting into petty crimes, then they need help. And although I mentioned pot especially, I didn't limit the need for help to the occasional pot smoker. Harder drugs? No doubt they need help. Sorry if that offends.

And help most certainly = therapy. Why are you attaching a stigma to that by getting upset at my post?

If you wish to smoke, that's fine. As I said, my point is that it ought not to be a criminal offense, so long as you're not selling, and you're an adult. The jails are way too full of people who don't belong there, while people like this rapist do belong there -- for a very long time, too.

[Madspirit]

100. I don't think I was actually defensive enough

...and if no one sells it how will we buy it? They need to legalize it.

I posted the true facts in my other message.

80 million Americans have admitted to smoking pot. ...and pot smokers do not need therapy. I don't think there is any stigma attached to therapy. I have been seeing therapists longer than Woody Allen. ..and they all suggest I smoke pot. Including the man who used to be the head psychiatrist at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, (Brookline actually)...a Harvard teaching hospital, Jeffrey Gellar. Not thinking there is a stigma attached to therapy does not mean I don't think it's a wrong thing to suggest for people who smoke pot. There is nothing wrong with people who smoke pot. Every psychiatrist...and cop...I have ever known and I've known hundreds, think it should be legal. ...and there wouldn't be people mixed up in illegal activities with pot if it wasn't illegal. The prohibition created a whole class of criminals...gangsters...well and the Kennedys. It's the driving it underground that creates crime.

...and anti-motivational syndrome has been disproved, actually long ago. If someone is the kind of person who just wants to just sit around with their legs propped up, eating bags of BBQ potato chips, while watching re-runs of The Dukes of Hazard, you can't really blame the pot. Besides which, no other recreational activity has the added burden of being expected to make people NOT lazy.

Pot is great and much much better and safer than booze. Did you know that not one person has ever died from overdosing on marijuana alone? Not One. There is no such thing. Check it yourself.

I started smoking pot when I was 11 and I am 53 and I intend to go out with a joint in my hand.
Check facts before you make judgments about an activity that many of us partake, happily, in.

Lee

[Madspirit]

64. Something Just For You...

Marijuana Truths

Sun Apr 29th 2007, 06:15 PM
POT FACTS: www.norml.com

Who smokes marijuana?
According to recent statistics provided by the federal government, nearly 80 million Americans admit having smoked marijuana. Of these, twenty million Americans smoked marijuana during the past year. The vast majority of marijuana smokers, like most other Americans, are good citizens who work hard, raise families, pay taxes and contribute in a positive way to their communities. They are certainly not part of the crime problem in this country, and it is terribly unfair to continue to treat them as criminals.

Many successful business and professional leaders, including many state and elected federal officials, admit they have smoked marijuana. We must reflect this reality in our state and federal laws, and put to rest the myth that marijuana smoking is a fringe or deviant activity engaged in only by those on the margins of American society. Marijuana smokers are no different from their non-smoking peers, except for their marijuana use.


Why should we decriminalize or legalize marijuana?
As President Jimmy Carter acknowledged: "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

Marijuana prohibition needlessly destroys the lives and careers of literally hundreds of thousands of good, hard-working, productive citizens each year in this country. More than 700,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges last year, and more than 5 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses in the past decade. Almost 90 percent of these arrests are for simple possession, not trafficking or sale. This is a misapplication of the criminal sanction that invites government into areas of our private lives that are inappropriate and wastes valuable law enforcement resources that should be focused on serious and violent crime.


What about kids and marijuana?
Marijuana, like other drugs, is not for kids. There are many activities in our society that we permit adults to do, but forbid children, such as motorcycle riding, skydiving, signing contracts, getting married and drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. However, we do not condone arresting adults who responsibly engage in these activities in order to dissuade our children from doing so. Nor can we justify arresting adult marijuana smokers on the grounds of sending a message to children. Our expectation and hope for young people is that they grow up to be responsible adults, and our obligation to them is to demonstrate what that means.

The NORML Board of Directors has adopted a set of principles called the "Principles of Responsible Cannabis Use," and the first principle is "Cannabis consumption is for adults only; it is irresponsible to provide cannabis to children."


Critics claim that marijuana is a "gateway drug." How do you respond to this charge?
There is no conclusive evidence that the effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent use of other illicit drugs. Preliminary animal studies alleging that marijuana "primed" the brain for other drug-taking behavior have not been replicated, nor are they supported by epidemiological human data. Statistically, for every 104 Americans who have tried marijuana, there is only one regular user of cocaine, and less than one user of heroin. Marijuana is clearly a "terminus" rather than a gateway for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers.

For those minority of marijuana smokers who do graduate to harder substances, it is marijuana prohibition -- which forces users to associate with the illicit drug black market -- rather than the use of marijuana itself, that often serves as a doorway to the world of hard drugs. The more users become integrated in an environment where, apart from cannabis, hard drugs can also be obtained, the greater the chances they will experiment with harder drugs.

In Holland, where politicians decided over 25 years ago to separate marijuana from the illicit drug market by permitting coffee shops all over the country to sell small amounts of marijuana to adults, individuals use marijuana and other drugs at rates less than half of their American counterparts.


But isn't marijuana addictive?
Substantial research exists regarding marijuana and addiction. While the scientific community has yet to achieve full consensus on this matter, the majority of epidemiological and animal data demonstrate that the reinforcing properties of marijuana in humans is low in comparison to other drugs of abuse, including alcohol and nicotine. According to the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM), fewer than one in 10 marijuana smokers become regular users of the drug, and most voluntary cease their use after 34 years of age. By comparison, 15 percent of alcohol consumers and 32 percent of tobacco smokers exhibit symptoms of drug dependence.

According to the IOM, observable cannabis withdrawal symptoms are rare and have only been identified under unique patient settings. These remain limited to adolescents in treatment facilities for substance abuse problems, and in a research setting where subjects were given marijuana or THC daily. Compared with the profound physical syndrome of alcohol or heroin withdrawal, marijuana-related withdrawal symptoms are mild and subtle. Symptoms may include restlessness, irritability, mild agitation and sleep disruption. However, for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers, these symptoms are not severe enough to re-initiate their use of cannabis.


The Supreme Court recently ruled that the U.S. Justice Department, including the Drug Enforcement Agency, may prosecute state-authorized medical marijuana patients for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. What does this decision mean for seriously ill patients and for the ongoing tension between state and federal laws?
Laws in twelve states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) remain in effect despite the Supreme Court's decision.

The US Supreme Court decided 6-3 in Gonzalez v. Raich that the Justice Department has the authority to prosecute state-authorized medicinal cannabis patients for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The Ninth Federal Circuit Court had previously ruled 2-1 in December 2003," The intrastate, non-commercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician - is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking," and issued an injunction barring the US Justice Department from taking legal action against the appellants, California medical cannabis patients Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Justice Department appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which ruled on June 6, 2005.

The Supreme Court's 2005 decision did not expand the powers of federal law enforcement agencies like the DEA; it only affirmed that they can enforce federal laws prohibiting the use of controlled substances, regardless of state, county, or municipal law. It is not anticipated that federal agents will step up efforts against state-authorized growers, dispensaries, or patients because of this decision. State and local law enforcement officers, who are responsible for the enforcement of state and municipal laws, will most likely continue to honor the democratic decisions that their residents have made about marijuana policy.

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that he longs for the day when medicinal cannabis advocates "may be heard in the halls of Congress." NORML's chief complaint is directed at Congress, not at the Court, for allowing the federal/state inconsistency in medical marijuana laws to exist.


Why does Congress refuse to reschedule marijuana to permit its use as a medicine under federal law?
Many members of both parties in Congress have confused a public health issue, medical marijuana, with the politics of the War on Drugs. In doing so, they have denied an effective medication to the seriously ill and dying.

Pending legislation H.R. 2087, on this specific proposal.

Didn't Congress vote on a measure to prevent the federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients in 2005?
On June 15, 2005, the House voted 264 to 161 against a bi-partisan measure, sponsored by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), that would have barred the US Department of Justice (DOJ) from targeting patients who use marijuana medicinally in accordance with the laws of their states.

The 161 House votes in favor of the patient-protection provision was the highest total ever recorded in a Congressional floor vote to liberalize marijuana laws. Of those who voted in support of the Hinchey/Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment, 15 were Republicans and 128 were Democrats. The House's only Independent Congressman also voted in favor of the amendment.

Many Congressional battles are won only after several failed attempts. Please contact your representative now and urge their support for federal medical marijuana legislation.


Critics of the medical use of marijuana say (1) there are traditional medications to help patients and marijuana is not needed; and, (2) permitting the medical use of marijuana sends the wrong message to kids. How do you respond to these concerns?
For many patients, traditional medications do work and they do not require or desire medical marijuana. However, for a significant number of serious ill patients, including patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain among others, traditional medications do not provide symptomatic relief as effectively as medicinal cannabis. These patients must not be branded as criminals or forced to suffer needlessly in pain.

Dronabinol (trade name Marinol) is a legal, synthetic THC alternative to cannabis. Nevertheless, many patients claim they find minimal relief from it, particularly when compared to inhaled marijuana. The active ingredient in Marinol, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is only one of the compounds isolated in marijuana that appears to be medically beneficial to patients. Other compounds such as cannabidiol (CBD), an anti-convulsant, and cannabichromine (CBC), an anti-inflammatory, are unavailable in Marinol, and patients only have access to their therapeutic properties by using cannabis.

Patients prescribed Marinol frequently complain of its high psychoactivity. This is because patients consume the drug orally. Once swallowed, Marinol passes through the liver, where a significant proportion is converted into other chemicals. One of these, the 11-hydroxy metabolite, is four to five times more potent than THC and greatly increases the likelihood of a patient experiencing an adverse psychological reaction. In contrast, inhaled marijuana doesn't cause significant levels of the 11-hydroxy metabolite to appear in the blood.

Marinol's oral administration also delays the drug from taking peak effect until two to fours hours after dosing. A 1999 report by the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded: "It is well recognized that Marinol's oral route of administration hampers its effectiveness because of slow absorption and patients' desire for more control over dosing. ... In contrast, inhaled marijuana is rapidly absorbed." In a series of US state studies in the 1980s, cancer patients given a choice between using inhaled marijuana and oral THC overwhelmingly chose cannabis.

As to the message we are sending to kids, NORML hopes the message we are sending is that we would not deny any effective medication to the seriously ill and dying. We routinely permit cancer patients to self- administer morphine in cancer wards all across the country; we allow physicians to prescribe amphetamines for weight loss and to use cocaine in nose and throat operations. Each of these drugs can be abused on the street, yet no one is suggesting we are sending the wrong message to kids by permitting their medical use.


Don't alcohol and tobacco use already cause enough damage to society? Why should we legalize another intoxicant?
While there are indeed health and societal problems due to the use of alcohol and nicotine, these negative consequences would be amplified if consumption of either substance were prohibited.

Marijuana is already the third most popular recreational drug in America, despite harsh laws against its use. Millions of Americans smoke it responsibly. Our public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.

In addition, marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. It fails to inflict the types of serious health consequences these two legal drugs cause. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat than alcohol or tobacco."

No one is suggesting we encourage more drug use; simply that we stop arresting responsible marijuana smokers. In recent years, we have significantly reduced the prevalence of drunk driving and tobacco smoking. We have not achieved this by prohibiting the use of alcohol and tobacco or by targeting and arresting adults who use alcohol and tobacco responsibly, but through honest educational campaigns. We should apply these same principles to the responsible consumption of marijuana. The negative consequences primarily associated with marijuana -- such as an arrest or jail time -- are the result of the criminal prohibition of cannabis, not the use of marijuana itself.


What is industrial hemp? How does it differ from marijuana?
Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. It is a tall, slender fibrous plant similar to flax or kenaf. Farmers worldwide have harvested the crop for the past 12,000 years for fiber and food, and Popular Mechanics once boasted that over 25,000 environmentally friendly products could be derived from hemp.

Unlike marijuana, hemp contains only minute (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. In addition, hemp possesses a high percentage of the compound cannabidiol (CBD), which has been shown to block the effects of THC. For these reasons, many botanists have dubbed industrial hemp "anti- marijuana."

More than 30 industrialized nations commercially grow hemp, including England and Canada. The European Union subsidizes farmers to grow the crop, which is legally recognized as a commercial crop by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Nevertheless, US law forbids farmers from growing hemp without a federal license, and has discouraged all commercial hemp production since the 1950s. NORML is working to allow American farmers to once again have legal access to this agricultural commodity.


How can I help?
The most important step you can take is to contact your elected officials at all levels of government (local, state and federal), and let them know you oppose arresting responsible marijuana smokers. As a constituent, you hold special influence over the politicians who represent your district. It is critical you let them know how you feel.

Because the marijuana smoking community remains largely "in the closet" and is all too often invisible politically, our core constituency currently exercises far less political power than our numbers would otherwise suggest. The only way to overcome this handicap is for more of us to take an active role, and routinely contact our elected officials.

A majority of the American public opposes sending marijuana smokers to jail, and 3 out of 4 support the medical use of marijuana. Yet many elected officials remain fearful that if they support these reform proposals, they will be perceived as "soft" on crime and drugs and defeated at the next election.

Tell your elected officials that you know the difference between marijuana and more dangerous drugs and between marijuana smoking and violent crime, and that you do not support spending billions of dollars per year incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders.

To make that easy, NORML has a program on our web site that will identify your state and federal elected officials, and provide a sample letter that you can fax to Congress or e-mail to state legislators. Additionally, we encourage you to join NORML and help us with this fight for personal freedom. We depend on contributions from private individuals to fund our educational and lobbying campaign, and our ability to move reform efforts forward is partially a question of resources. Please join with us and let's end marijuana prohibition, once and for all.

[Sanctified]

28. I don't think life in prison is worse than death.

If it were people on death row would not be using their appeals to get off of it and live longer.

[spanone]

11. what part of 'thou shalt not kill' don't people understand.

[Common Sense Party]

68. You realize that's from the book where people are killed left & right.

And the true translation of that is: "Thou shalt not murder." That is, don't unlawfully kill an innocent person.

See Exodus 21:12, and you'll see that capital punishment was clearly copacetic back in Moses' day.

[mitchum]

96. You are absolutely correct about the translation, but that won't change the poster...

if they acknowledge the correctness of the translation...well...there goes their handy little utterance of sophomoric rhetoric.

[mainegreen]

12. Sure. I'd say Hilter would have been a good candidate.

Clear, 100%, undeniable guilt.
Mass murder.
Dangerous alive, focal point for nazism.


Not many people fit that category though. One or two a century.

[bunkerbuster1]

14. No.

There are plenty of people I've wanted dead over the years. But it's stupid and pointless and wrong for the state to be the facilitators of anyone's sick revenge fantasies.

Lifetime incarceration without parole is an appropriate (and horrible) punishment for murder. We should make that the law of the land and move on.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. No,never. A just society does not kill in the name of justice

That's vengeance, not justice. And I want no part of being involuntarily responsible for someone's death like that. (Or, for that matter, in Iraq).

I *am* for life with no chance of parole, however. There are certain people who will never be safely integrated into society, whose crimes were so heinous that they cannot be part of society again.

[lapislzi]

17. It's punishment, but is it justice?

As a society, we seem far more interested in punishment than justice, which often diverge and may never be reconciled. I don't know what would constitute "justice" in the case of people convicted of heinous crimes. Maybe my interpretation of how justice can be served is different from yours, or from the victims' (or their families), and it will almost surely be different from the convicted's. How to weigh these? How to practice humanity and compassion in an inhumane and cruel society?

I have none of these answers, but I don't believe in putting people to death.

[Mike Daniels]

19. In the case of mob/gang leaders who are in prison but give the go ahead

to have someone killed on the outside I would have no problem with them receiving the death penalty.

That type of reach/influence proves that these people are still a threat and if they can't be put in near total solitary or isolation then they need to be removed.

[cobalt1999]

20. I have no real issue with capital punishment

Maybe I'm not the best bleeding heart liberal, but as long as there is solid proof and the crime is heinous, then I'm okay with their execution.

[JitterbugPerfume]

21. For a time I hated the drunken driver that killed my son

Then I began to understand what a pathetic , alcoholic loser he really was.

I found no pleasure in his daughters death (in a fire) vengeance was not a consideration .

When he died , (as a result of hs alcoholism)I felt nothing but profound sorrow.

My son is still dead to soon and there is no sense of closure , just because the one responsible is also dead.


killing is killing , whether done by the state , or an individual

[iverglas]

22. I'm right with you

I began to understand what a pathetic , alcoholic loser he really was.

Exactly ditto for the man who abducted, sexually assualted and wanted to kill me. Add "illiterate".

I very firmly believe that the best thing a victim can do, for him/herself, is get the offender out of his/her life. Play the role that s/he is assigned by the criminal justice system -- as witness to the crime, and as the witness best placed to inform the public about the acts committed and the effects of those acts. And then stand back and let the rest of the system play its role, and walk away and resume one's life.

I was given more responsibility in the plea bargaining process than I should have had: the prosecutor, out of sincere consideration for me, would not agree to a deal unless I did. That wasn't my job, it was his. Essentially, I think he was hesitant to agree to what was a somewhat lenient sentence, but thought it might be best to "spare" me the distress of a trial. It would have been better for me if he had done what he, in his own professional judgment, thought was best.

When victims focus on what happens to the offender, their lives are still tangled up with the offender's life in a way that is not in their interests.

Too often, victims' feelings about their experience depends too much on public perception of it -- they rely on the public response to their experience to legitimize their feelings. An acquittal, however necessary it may have been under the rules we follow, becomes disrespect for their experience; a lenient sentence, however appropriate it may be in terms of the principles and purposes of sentencing, becomes a lack of concern for victims; and a harsh sentence is essential to validate their experience and their feelings about it.

And then it goes on ... victims appearing at parole hearings, victims seeking public attention for the crime and their feelings about it long after it happened. Victims being endlessly enmeshed in the crime and the criminal's life. We have a system to deal with the criminal, because we recognize that crime is a public concern, not merely the private concern of the victim. All of this victim involvement is a step backward toward privatizing crime, and I find it unwise. (I do recognize that people do not feel confident in the justice/parole system to deal appropriately with offenders, and this is one reason why victims and victim advocates promote this involvement; I also think that people have unrealistic expectations of all systems, and that improvements can and should be made to them rather than downloading their functions to individuals.)

It should not be that way, and it doesn't help victims to feed that dynamic. In too many cases, it just sets the victim up for a fall, when the system doesn't come down on the offender's head with the full force of what the victim thinks is needed to validate his/her feelings.

The reasons why many people advocate capital punishment are closely tied to this dynamic -- a person has been deprived of his/her life, and the only way that the state can validate the feelings of the family and friends, and society as a whole, is to deprive the person who did it of his/her life. And that just takes us back to an eye for an eye.

One of the purposes of sentencing is indeed to denounce acts that are abhorrent to the public. There is a need for denunciation, for a collective expression of the rejection of bad behaviour. But there is not just one way to meet that need.



My son is still dead to soon and there is no sense of closure , just because the one responsible is also dead.

And that's just the long and short of it. I would not have felt any better, really, if the man who committed crimes against me were given 20 years in prison. I might have felt worse; in fact, I probably would have. As I am sure you would have, if that offender had been executed. There isn't any way to feel good about any of it, and there needs to be more recognition of that simple fact. Bad things do happen to good people. The bad things aren't just some glitch in the prosperity theology paradigm that can be fixed and the righteous put back in their rightful place, by arranging some equal but opposite reaction.

Thank you for the contribution from someone who's been there, a very awful place to be.

[wicket]

27. I am so sorry about your son

Thank-you for sharing :hug:

[Madspirit]

65. I am so sorry for you loss.

You are a very compassionate person. I agree with you too.

Lee

[Exiled in America]

23. Nope. Never.

[yodermon]

25. I am anti-death penalty, across the board, BUT

I do not feel the need to brow-beat or proselytize my position to death penalty supporters because, like you say, if it was my wife or son, I would have a very hard time.

[wicket]

26. NO!

[uppityperson]

29. No, but I don't include abortions in with Capital Punishment.

that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, to be debated elsewhere, just including it here briefly since you did in your OP. Oh yes, I believe in right to die with dignity, assisted suicide for terminally ill, but that also I will debate elsewhere, not hijack this topic on Capital Punishment.

editeeeddd for typo

[EFerrari]

30. No. TX alone has executed 400 people this year. And lookit this

story. This man has been sentenced to death because someone who was riding in his car got out, into a fight and shot someone.



Three weeks from today, a 30 year-old African American man on death row in Texas is scheduled to be executed. Kenneth Foster was sentenced to death ten years ago in a San Antonio court for the murder of Michael LaHood, a white man, in 1996. What makes Foster's case unique is that he didn't commit or plan the murder. Even the trial judge, the prosecutor, and the jury that sentenced him to die admit he never killed anyone.

Foster is scheduled to be executed under a controversial Texan law known as the law of parties. The law imposes the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred. In Foster's case he was driving a car with three passengers, one of whom left the car, got into an altercation and shot a Michael LaHood dead. At the time of the shooting, Kenneth Foster was 80 feet away in his car. Since Foster's original trial, the other passengers have testified that Foster had no idea a shooting was going to take place.

On Tuesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied death row prisoner Kenneth Foster's final appeal. In a six-to-three decision the appeals court denied Foster's final writ of habeas corpus. Foster's last recourse is the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and Texas Governor Rick Perry. According to Foster's criminal attorney, Keith Hampton, five of the seven board members must recommend clemency in order for Governor Perry to consider granting it. Kenneth Foster's scheduled execution date is August 30th.

Today, Kenneth Foster's family joins us from Austin, Texas. His wife, Tasha Narez-Foster, his eleven year old daughter Nydesha Foster and his grandfather Lawrence Foster as well as Bryan McCan from the Save Kenneth Foster Coalition. Here in our firehouse studio we are joined by former KPFT News Director Renee Feltz. Over the last five years she has interviewed more than 20 men and women on Texas Death Row, including Kenneth Foster.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/09/140214&mode=thread&tid=25

[tammywammy]

82. Texas has not executed 400 people this year

[EFerrari]

93. Really? That was the number given on Amy's show, unless I misheard.

Do you know what the right one is?

[tammywammy]

94. Texas has executed 19 people this year

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm

If it was over 400 this year alone, that's like 2 people a day.

They've executed 398 people since 1982.

[EFerrari]

95. LOL! Whew! I thought that was bad, even for TX!

[Sanctified]

32. No Government should have the ability to end the lives of it's citizens. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

33. Only for crimes of office

Corrupt CEOs and politicians should be executed in public, by hanging or some other method that is obviously hideously painful.

Their struggling, purple, dying faces should be televised widely as a warning to those who would step into their shoes. That's what I call a deterrent.

The dp as applied now is appalling. You want to help the victims? How about treating schizophrenic, drug-addicted, developmentally disabled people BEFORE they kill?

No one has ever said, "Ooh, I'd better not rape and murder this little girl, because they might give me the DEATH PENALTY." Only rational crimes can be deterred by harsh sentencing, and even there (drugs) it often backfires.

[Balbus]

34. Yes, I believe there are crimes that deserve death as the penalty.

But human beings are not infallible. Therefore, human beings have no right to administer a sentence that is not reversible.

[Madspirit]

66. Interesting

Your own conundrum. You believe some crimes deserve the death penalty but that no human can morally administer it. Very interesting.
Lee

[Greyhound]

36. Absolutely No.

In addition to the religious beliefs that so many claim to hold, but so few adhere to, giving the power of death to the state is simply never a good idea.

State sanctioned murder is not a deterrent to others. There is no perfect or infallible system of justice, therefore it is inevitable that innocent people will and have been killed by the state. Finally, the abuse of power is demonstrated regularly and there is no way to correct a death sentence.

[Zavulon]

38. Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy - they all deserved to die.

I personally think the death penalty is too much power for government to have, but when the truly deserving die (death penalty, beaten to death in prison, whatever) I find it hard to complain.

[iverglas]

43. that's all very well

Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy - they all deserved to die.

And I deserve a pink Cadillac. Is the state entitled or required to give it to me?

What people deserve, in any individual's opinion or the opinion of any collection of individuals, is not the sole or most important consideration of the criminal justice system, nor is making sure that they get what they deserve its sole or most important function. Sometimes, it is completely irrelevant.

when the truly deserving die (death penalty, beaten to death in prison, whatever) I find it hard to complain.

First, they came for Dahmer, Gacy and Bundy.

The essence of human rights is that everyone has them. Once a significant number of people stop caring when human rights are denied to anyone or any group, and stop complaining when that happens, the entire edifice is standing on shaky foundations.

There really isn't any difference between someone who doesn't care about Dahmer, Gacy and Bundy being killed by the state and someone who doesn't care about Matthew Shepherd being killed by someone who thought he was truly deserving of death.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. That Is The Most Stupid Thing I Have Ever Read On The "Internets"

"There really isn't any difference between someone who doesn't care about Dahmer, Gacy and Bundy being killed by the state and someone who doesn't care about Matthew Shepherd being killed by someone who thought he was truly deserving of death."

-iverass

As Orwell said "There are some ideas so preposterous only an intellectual can believe them."

Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy have the blood of innocents on their hands...Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate parts of fifteen men... John Wayne Gacy raped and murdered 33 boys and disposed of most of them in his attic, Ted Bundy raped and murdered dozens of women and had sex with some of them after they were dead....

Matthew Shepard was an innocent who was robbed, pistol whipped, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die because he happened to be gay...

P.S. You need to bone up on your American history...Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to life in prison...He was killed by a fellow inmate who was appalled by his crimes....

[iverglas]

109. I don't need to do a damned thing, sweetie

But I might be able to help you understand what I said, just so you could respond coherently. Maybe.

I add emphasis for your benefit:

"There really isn't any difference between someone who doesn't care about Dahmer, Gacy and Bundy being killed by the state and someone who doesn't care about Matthew Shepherd being killed by someone who thought he was truly deserving of death."

I didn't say anything about people who didn't care whether the people in question died. I don't really care whether you die. I would care if you were killed by the state.

Anyone who doesn't care whether someone else, anyone else, is killed by the state is someone who cannot be trusted to protect the human rights of anyone.

My mother was on the way home from Florida on the morning of Bundy's execution. The clerk in the convenience store where she and my father stopped for coffee was in a paroxysm of glee over the whole thing. My mother suppressed her gag reflex, got out as fast as she could, got in the car and said "drive". She never accompanied my father to Florida again.


P.S. You need to bone up on your American history...Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to life in prison...He was killed by a fellow inmate who was appalled by his crimes....

You apparently need a refresher course in reading comprehension.

Let me just add that when the state fails to prevent the death of someone in its custody at the hands of someone else in its custody, well, ya got yerself a human rights violation, and a situation not much different from an execution.


"-iverass"

Aren't you just cute as a button?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. You're On A Roll

"I didn't say anything about people who didn't care whether the people in question died. I don't really care whether you die..."

-iverglas

For the record the young woman who was my friend and taught me to play backgammon was killed by a serial murderer, Gerald Stano... He picked her up and was going to give her a ride from one club to a next... She wanted to go from the Holiday Inn Top Of The Boardwalk in Daytona Beach to Fanny Farkels, a distance of about two miles... He demanded, out of the blue, sex, and she laughed at him...For that she got a knife in her back...The state eventually took his life for that murder...He murdered dozens more:


http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/gerald_stano/5.html - Carol's picture... That's what we called her not by her birth first name...


I oppose the death penalty but I was infinitely sadder when he took Carol's life than when the state took his...

[piedmont]

111. If you'd take a more civil tone you might not seem so irrelevent.

Several of your posts in this thread don't belong on DU.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. I guess calling my original post "utter bullshit" and calling me disingenuos is acceptable dialogue.

iverglas (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-10-07 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
39. it does just need to be pointed out
that this

I believe in a culture of life. This belief leads me to oppose abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. I am also a civil libertarian. In a pluralistic society these competing values sometimes conflict therefore I must leave personal decisions to people and their consciences.

is utter bullshit and utterly offensive.

It is supremely disingenuous to use a term like "life" in this context. A culture is made up of human beings. They have lives. "Life" has nothing to do with it; human beings' lives do. "A culture of life" is what I would expect to find in a petrie dish. It does not belong in civil, democratic discourse. It is merely an attempt to assume a cloak of righteousness and cast dissenters in the role of deathmongers.

Myself, I choose a culture of human rights. A culture whose members, human beings, are able to exercise their rights to the fullest extent possible, in the ways that they choose for themselves.

And that means that I support the legal availability of abortion, oppose the death penalty and support the legal availability of means to end one's own life. I also support the publicly funded availability of information and resources so that individuals are able to exercise their rights in respect of a range of types of choices. And I tend toward supporting active euthanasia in the interests of the individuals concerned and under strict public oversight.

And my positions are actually 100% coherent and consistent, unlike the positions that this disingenuous "culture of life" results in, which are flatly contrary to respect for human rights more than half the time.


Alert Printer Friendly | Permal


I guess calling my original post "utter bullshit" and calling me disingenuos is acceptable dialogue....



Oh, and somebody loves me




PerfectSage (454 posts) Sat Aug-11-07 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
56. Hi democratsincebirth...
...I remember you from 2004, I bless you and thank you.

Is capital punishment ever appropriate? Nope.
In a ideal world, what's the raison'detre of the state?
To help individuals reach their full potential as a human being?
Why should the state have the right to kill human beings? I can't think of any reason? What nation's political elite is infalliable? The political elite in the US is geopolitically incompetent. What kind of punishment do they deserve? lol


Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

And somebody else loves me too:



mvd (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-11-07 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
55. No, and my death penalty stance mirrors yours
I am against the DP in all cases. I am morally against all killing, and the system can never be perfect enough to prevent someone innocent from being executed. John Grisham's The Innocent Man shows how corrupt police and judges add to the problem. If this was some third world country without means of keeping people safe from murderers, then I could at least see the reasoning behind the DP. But America's jails generally do a good job. I also supported the death penalty for extreme cases when I was younger, but I had a change of heart. Executions of the Westerfields of the world still don't bother me much, but I do not advocate for their executions. Like you, I'd like to see abortions limited, but I don't want to be the decision maker for the pregnant woman.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top





I don't know why you are trying to picking a fight with me...I try to be civil to everbody in cyberlife and internet life but if someone disrespects me I reserve the right to respond in kind...

on edit- It's hard to be irrelevant when the thread you started has 1,634 views and 115 responses...

PEACE

BRIAN

[iverglas]

116. I wouldn't know

I guess calling my original post "utter bullshit" and calling me disingenuos is acceptable dialogue.

I can't see much wrong with calling bullshit bullshit. And what I actually did was call saying what you said disingenuous:

It is supremely disingenuous to use a term like "life" in this context.

so hey, I guess it's acceptable to misrepresent what another poster said. Or you wouldn't have done it.

I believe in a culture of life. This belief leads me to oppose abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia.

Yeah. I believe in the mystery of love. This belief leads me to oppose roller skating, cake baking and pink socks.

What you believe is that you're entitled to control other people. That's what you believe. If you've been brainwashed into thinking that "I believe in a culture of life" means something, that's unfortunate. It's a slogan invented and used to vilify and demonize and generate hatred of people who dissent from your belief that you (or the Pope of the day, or the Bush of the day) are entitled to control their lives, and that's all it is.


Oh, and somebody loves me

Why do you think this matters?? -- to me, you, or anyone else??? If someone whose judgment I regarded as ordinarily sound said something about something under discussion, it might be worth pointing it out to me; I would consider it, and decide whether it had merit, on its own merits, nonetheless.

This is not about you. And, despite so many people's urgent efforts to make it that way, it is not about me.

In this particular instance, it is about women's rights as human beings, and your vile comments about women and our rights.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. I Love And Respect The Women In My Life...

They are free to do what they want with their own body, soul, and mind... I am for the autonomy of the individual...Remember...

I believe in a culture of life:


The moral test of government is how that government
treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children;
those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and
those in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy,
and the handicapped.

-Hubert Humphrey

That's why I am a Democrat, your nonsense about me wanting hegenomy over other individuals, notwithstanding...

Oh, I'm not particularly fond of guns...My favorite quote is from the late Dan Blocker (Hoss on Bonanza) - "I told my kids they can hunt when the animals can shoot back."

[iverglas]

115. nah, you're mistaken

What doesn't belong on DU are the misogynist screeds about women and our bodies and our lives that are on hourly display. The notion that such things are "progressive" or "liberal" or "democratic" (I don't presume to judge when it comes to "Democratic") passeth all understanding.

But hey, once again, if you have some disagreement with something I've said -- what, you aren't all pro-choice like all the big brave fellas in the Guns forum constantly claim to be? you think it's just dandy for someone here to say s/he "opposes abortion" because s/he adheres to "a culture of life", i.e. that women who have abortions are murderers? -- anyhow, you feel free to come out and state your disagreement and the reasons for it. I'd think that anybody who constantly claims to be all pro-choice might have had something to say TO THE PERSON WHO SAID THAT, rather than to the person who called it what it was ... but hell, many a thing passeth my understanding.

But more hey: if you'd rather post pointless yammering containing nothing but your opinion about my opinions and how I express them, well then you feel quite free to do so.

[piedmont]

124. Would you mind next time checking who I was actually replying to before getting mad at me?

Not Canadians! :hi:

[iverglas]

125. aargh

The colour red.

Pink will have to do.



Paint me.


By the way, I didn't get a chance to say thumbs up on the AA crapola. So: thumbs up.

[piedmont]

129. S'okay. Amukans are prone to attention lapses and Canucks are prone...

to jumping to conclusions without double-checking the situation.

"Paint me."

Okie dokie:




Did you know that a search of "iverglas" and "witch" will turn up waaaaaay too many threads to sort through?


By the way, I didn't get a chance to say thumbs up on the AA crapola. So: thumbs up.

Thanks. And thanks for telling the guy who didn't like the political compass questions all the things I would have told him if I wasn't too lazy to type the 1500 word response it required. :thumbsup:

[iverglas]

132. and not all at DU!

I type veryveryfast, by the way. Have to, or I wouldn't make nearly so much money ...

[iverglas]

46. Marshall, Milgaard, Morin - how about them?

Well, you've probably never heard of them. They were all convicted of murder in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wrongfullyconvicted/

David Milgaard

Milgaard was sentenced in 1970 to life imprisonment for the 1969 murder of Saskatoon nursing aide Gail Miller. Milgaard spent 23 years in prison. The Supreme Court of Canada set aside his conviction in 1992. He was subsequently cleared by DNA evidence five years later. In 1999, the Saskatchewan government awarded Milgaard $10 million for his wrongful conviction. In the same year, Larry Fisher was found guilty of the rape and stabbing death of Gail Miller.

Donald Marshall Jr.

Marshall was sentenced in 1971 to life imprisonment for the murder of Sandy Seale. He spent 11 years in prison before being acquitted by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in 1983.

Guy Paul Morin

Morin was sentenced in 1992 to life imprisonment for the murder of nine-year-old Christine Jessop. He was exonerated in 1995 by DNA testing.

Morin looks like one of the ones that a lot of people here would have put to sleep if they had their druthers: convicted in the sexual assault/murder of a child.

Fortunately, Canada had not used the death penalty since 1962. It was abolished for all but police/prison guard murders in 1966, and for all but a few military offences in 1976; they were in different legislation, which was finally amended in 1998 to eliminate the death penalty provisions.
http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php

Here's what the Supreme Court of Canada had to say about the practice of capital punishment in the United States fairly recently:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2001/2001scc7/2001scc7.html

Section 7 <of the Constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms> (“fundamental justice”) applies because the extradition order would, if implemented, deprive the respondents of their rights of liberty and security of the person since their lives are potentially at risk. The issue is whether the threatened deprivation is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Section 7 is concerned not only with the act of extradition, but also with its potential consequences. The balancing process set out in Kindler and Ng is the proper analytical approach. The “shocks the conscience” language signals the possibility that even though the rights of the fugitive are to be considered in the context of other applicable principles of fundamental justice, which are normally of sufficient importance to uphold the extradition, a particular treatment or punishment may sufficiently violate our sense of fundamental justice as to tilt the balance against extradition. The rule is not that departures from fundamental justice are to be tolerated unless in a particular case it shocks the conscience. An extradition that violates the principles of fundamental justice will always shock the conscience.

... Countervailing factors favour extradition only with assurances <by the prosecution in the US, that the death penalty will not be sought>.

First, in Canada, the death penalty has been rejected as an acceptable element of criminal justice. Capital punishment engages the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It is final and irreversible. Its imposition has been described as arbitrary and its deterrent value has been doubted.

Second, at the international level, the abolition of the death penalty has emerged as a major Canadian initiative and reflects a concern increasingly shared by most of the world’s democracies. Canada’s support of international initiatives opposing extradition without assurances, combined with its international advocacy of the abolition of the death penalty itself, leads to the conclusion that in the Canadian view of fundamental justice, capital punishment is unjust and should be stopped. While the evidence does not establish an international law norm against the death penalty, or against extradition to face the death penalty, it does show significant movement towards acceptance internationally of a principle of fundamental justice Canada has already adopted internally -- namely, the abolition of capital punishment. International experience thus confirms the validity of concerns expressed in the Canadian Parliament about capital punishment. It also shows that a rule requiring that assurances be obtained prior to extradition in death penalty cases not only accords with Canada’s principled advocacy on the international level, but also is consistent with the practice of other countries with which Canada generally invites comparison, apart from the retentionist jurisdictions in the United States.

... Fourth, the accelerating concern about potential wrongful convictions is a factor of increased weight since Kindler and Ng were decided. The avoidance of conviction and punishment of the innocent has long been in the forefront of “the basic tenets of our legal system”. The recent and continuing disclosures of wrongful convictions for murder in Canada and the United States provide tragic testimony to the fallibility of the legal system, despite its elaborate safeguards for the protection of the innocent. This history weighs powerfully in the balance against extradition without assurances when fugitives are sought to be tried for murder by a retentionist state, however similar in other respects to our own legal system.

Fifth, the “death row phenomenon” is another factor that weighs against extradition without assurances. The finality of the death penalty, combined with the determination of the criminal justice system to try to satisfy itself that the conviction is not wrongful, inevitably produces lengthy delays, and the associated psychological trauma to death row inhabitants, many of whom may ultimately be shown to be innocent. The “death row phenomenon” is not a controlling factor in the s. 7 balance, but even many of those who regard its horrors as self‑inflicted concede that it is a relevant consideration.

... A review of the factors for and against unconditional extradition therefore leads to the conclusion that assurances are constitutionally required in all but exceptional cases. This case does not present the exceptional circumstances that must be shown. A balance which tilted in favour of extradition without assurances in Kindler and Ng now tilts against the constitutionality of such an outcome.

-- i.e., no extradition to the US without assurances that the death penalty will not be sought.

France imposed the same condition before extraditing James Kopp (who murdered Dr. Bernard Slepian) for trial in the US. (Some day, Canada may get a kick at prosecuting Kopp for attempted murder here.)

How civilized societies behave.

[iverglas]

39. it does just need to be pointed out

that this

I believe in a culture of life. This belief leads me to oppose abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. I am also a civil libertarian. In a pluralistic society these competing values sometimes conflict therefore I must leave personal decisions to people and their consciences.

is utter bullshit and utterly offensive.

It is supremely disingenuous to use a term like "life" in this context. A culture is made up of human beings. They have lives. "Life" has nothing to do with it; human beings' lives do. "A culture of life" is what I would expect to find in a petrie dish. It does not belong in civil, democratic discourse. It is merely an attempt to assume a cloak of righteousness and cast dissenters in the role of deathmongers.

Myself, I choose a culture of human rights. A culture whose members, human beings, are able to exercise their rights to the fullest extent possible, in the ways that they choose for themselves.

And that means that I support the legal availability of abortion, oppose the death penalty and support the legal availability of means to end one's own life. I also support the publicly funded availability of information and resources so that individuals are able to exercise their rights in respect of a range of types of choices. And I tend toward supporting active euthanasia in the interests of the individuals concerned and under strict public oversight.

And my positions are actually 100% coherent and consistent, unlike the positions that this disingenuous "culture of life" results in, which are flatly contrary to respect for human rights more than half the time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. You Need To Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

"And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

-William Shakespeare

I do more to to help folks in the dawn of life, the shadow of life, and the twilight of life than some self important , self aggrandizing, self absorbed, loser on an internet bulletin board...


I have mentored at risk kids... I have volunteered and spent time with the ill and dying at hospices and nursing homes... I have taken care of my eighty nine year old mother, in my own home, for the past eleven years who is confined to a wheel chair because she is an amputee...She also has stage 3 colon cancer...My experiences are real and they are mine and they don't come from a fucking
textbook...And these experiences make me support life in all its forms...



So go take your condescending, patronizing, and hateful remarks to whatever salon you discuss those things...


P.S. I try to be a civil poster as I try to be a civil person but your condescending remarks make me apoplectic... Mere words can not describe the anger I feel...

[iverglas]

108. how fascinating

Not.

If I'm interested in your advice on posting, I will request it. If I wish to put you on an ignore list (I don't have one), I don't need your advice in that matter either. If I need your opinion of me, I'll be sure to ask. Meanwhile, if you feel the need to PM me again informing me of how you plan to respond i future, well, feel free.

If you need to know anything about the decades of service I have given to victimized tenants, tortured refugees, abused women, disadvantaged neighbours and their kids, a political party working in their interests, or my dad who died of metastasized melanoma, your gold star should help you out. You're probably no more interested in my exploits than I am in yours.

Meanwhile, if I have an opinion I want to state regarding the "culture of life" or anything else, I'll probably do it. And if you want to feel real anger, you could try imagining how women feel when they find some jumped-up little nobody discussing their lives and bodies and choices as if they were objects or abstract concepts for his personal amusement.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Thank God There Is A Record

The fact that you dismissed how I arrived at my world view and what I did as an individual to alleviate the pain I saw in my life by saying "how fascinating?, not" reveals more about you than it can ever reveal about me...

Oh, for the record my father died of a massive heart attack when I was fourteen... He had his first heart attack when I was twelve that destroyed seventy five percent of his heart... He was also a disabled WW ll vet who was blind in one eye from shrapnel he took during the Italian Campaign... When he was drafted he was a Golden Gloves boxer with hopes of going pro... That's what kids with a ninth grade education aspired to be... He was a saint...

Sorry to have bored ya...

Have a day or evening...

[MrCoffee]

41. Capital punishment is NEVER appropriate

There's no crime for which capital punishment is an appropriate retribution.

[Colobo]

42. Yes. Serial killers and people that rape and kill children.

[dkofos]

44. For the *ush crime family I would say YES.

[flashl]

45. No Murder in MY Name

I have great sympathy and compassion for families who have lost a love one to senseless acts of violence. But, the CJ system in this country is hosed. I strongly agree that the U.S.’s death penalty system is as some say 'a death lottery' because it is inequitably applied. If anyone spent any time studying the macabre state of affairs in the death penalty systems in Texas and Alabama, in particular, I do not believe that you would ever be the same. In each of these states, there is a small band of souls who work tirelessly to change a system that has gone horribly wrong.

[Rex]

50. Syre

[Nutmegger]

51. The death penalty is nothing but state sanctioned revenge killing.

Not. In. My. Name.

Never in my name.

[Neurotica]

52. Read Scott Turow's "Ultimate Punishment"

A gripping tale of how his views of capital punishment evolved and why he is now against the death penalty.

I agree with him that although there are monsters that probably deserve the death penalty, the chance that an innocent person could be put to death is just too great. Which is worse -- letting a guilty person live (no matter the monstrosity of their crimes) or condemning an innocent person to die.

[mitchum]

53. Yes, it is an occupational hazard for the predator

[Common Sense Party]

69. Bingo. You mess with the bull you get the horns.

There are some people too sick, too irreparably evil, that they don't deserve to exist on the same planet as decent humans.

I think that number is very, very small, however.

[mvd]

55. No, and my death penalty stance mirrors yours

I am against the DP in all cases. I am morally against all killing, and the system can never be perfect enough to prevent someone innocent from being executed. John Grisham's The Innocent Man shows how corrupt police and judges add to the problem. If this was some third world country without means of keeping people safe from murderers, then I could at least see the reasoning behind the DP. But America's jails generally do a good job. I also supported the death penalty for extreme cases when I was younger, but I had a change of heart. Executions of the Westerfields of the world still don't bother me much, but I do not advocate for their executions. Like you, I'd like to see abortions limited, but I don't want to be the decision maker for the pregnant woman.

[PerfectSage]

56. Hi democratsincebirth...

...I remember you from 2004, I bless you and thank you.

Is capital punishment ever appropriate? Nope.
In a ideal world, what's the raison'detre of the state?
To help individuals reach their full potential as a human being?
Why should the state have the right to kill human beings? I can't think of any reason? What nation's political elite is infalliable? The political elite in the US is geopolitically incompetent. What kind of punishment do they deserve? lol

[piedmont]

59. Yes, but the burden of proof should be much higher to impose the death penalty.

There are some "slam dunk" cases-- like the one in CT-- that are both heinous and there's just no doubt at all that the accused are guilty. I don't have a problem with the death penalty in those cases. But for cases in which guilt is established on circumstantial evidence, say, and the error rate is higher, I don't think it should be on the table.

[sendero]

78. That's pretty much where I'm at..

... some people deserve to die. A person who kills numerous people for no reason is about as human as a rabid dog is still Fido.

That said, our justice system is too unreliable, eyewitness testimony is too unreliable, etc, etc, etc to send someone to death under the present system.

There should be a totally different standard of evidence and "reasonable doubt" for a prosecutor seeking the death penalty. he should have to prove his case "beyond any doubt".

[Madspirit]

60. Never. Under No Circumstances

You know what changed my Republican mom's mind about the death penalty? She had always been pro-death penalty. She ONLY thought of the victim. That is an understandably easy way to think. It is obvious and requires no soul searching. Of course we should have compassion for the victim. Always.

Then one day she thought to herself, "what if the KILLER was my child?" She realized that regardless of what her child had done, she would plead for mercy and ask that his/her life be spared. She decided then that she could no longer demand death for someone else's child.

For me, it's simply wrong to kill except in absolute self defense. What I mean by "absolute" is, I think you are required morally to try everything else first and then if the only way to stay alive or to keep someone else alive, is with deadly force, so be it. Extending that to the law as a whole, as long as we have life without the possibility of parole, there is NO valid, humane or ethical reason to support the death penalty.

The state should not have that kind of power. You cannot kill people to show people who kill people that killing people is wrong. The killer had no right to take a life and we don't either. The pound-of-flesh philosophy is entirely barbaric, in my opinion. ...and it really does not bring the victim's family closure. That's a myth. Feeding that kind of rage and despair and vengeance brings nothing except an angry fiery pit in your stomach. Most of the families who get all into the pro-death penalty stuff, claiming it is all that will bring them closure and they DEMAND it and they go to the death chamber and they weep and wail and gnash their teeth and growl...they don't get HEALED when the killer dies. Surprise surprise, it didn't bring their loved one back. Then they get really involved in the "movement" and it consumes them. I've seen it. Vengeance is NEVER sated.

These are the ones who heal: There are groups out there of righteous folks, the families and friends of VICTIMS of violent crimes...who OPPOSE the death penalty. One of the father's of one of the victims of Tim McVeigh fought for mercy for him. He said his daughter was opposed to the death penalty and it would not honor her memory to demand the death penalty in her name. Anyway, these groups are very cool. If anyone is interested just google. There are several. They have love and integrity and each other and healing and calm. They have some semblance of peace. The vengeance seekers never have calm. They never have peace. It's a myth.

You cannot combat barbarism by committing a barbaric act.

...and just fyi, regardless of all the macho bravado and "woohoo kill 'em kill'em" you will see on this thread because they always show up, the poll results will and always have, stand with the righteous. The polls on this topic usually overwhelmingly show anti-death penalty sentiment.
Lee

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. Oh please

"I oppose the death penalty in general, but in these specific cases...."

Gimme a break.

Go buy a fucking principle and go with it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. Where Did I Equivocate On My Opposition To The Death Penalty?

I said I oppose the death penalty but I am not troubled when some child rapist/murderer or serial murderer gets the penalty...


The young woman who I used to hang out with on Daytona Beach and taught me to play backgammon , Mary Carol Maher, was killed by Gerald Stano, a serial killer:


Mary Carol Maher, a good-looking, twenty year old hitchhiker, made a bad decision one day in 1980, one that cost her dearly. After some time at a bar, she walked out of the bar, looking for a ride. It wasn’t long until a man took notice and pulled over. Mary Carol got in. They drove only a short distance before she could realized she was in trouble. At a red light, the man put his hand on her leg and said,”I want some right here”, where he was met with mocking laughter. She did not laugh long. Her hysterics turned to terror in only moments when he exposed the blade. She lunged for the door, but his grip was too strong. Gerald began screaming repeatedly, ripping the knife into her chest. Her body hung forward, limp, except for her right arm, which still attempted to open the door. Stano abruptly pulled her back, and punched many new holes in her, until she moved no more. Then he looked for a quick place of disposal before his blood-stained upholstery was ruined. They found her decomposed remains approximately two weeks later.

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/serialkillers/stano.htm

Daytona Beach was a "small town"... I even knew one of the detectives assigned to the case who dated Mary's sister... If I was a juror I couldn't have voted for death but I didn't shed a tear when he was executed...I hope that adequately describles my feelings...


Gawd, I haven't thought about it so long... When she was missing my friends and I would speculate about what happenened... For some reason it hurts more right now...

PEACE

DSB

[Maru Kitteh]

70. I voted no, but I have to qualify that.

It is never appropriate for the STATE to administer the death penalty - but - some people really do need killin'. I'm more of a death by general population kind of a girl when it's appropriate. Then of course there's the Samuel L. Jackson.

[ConsAreLiars]

72. If you (the yes voter, not the OP) are just one more murderer, then vote yes.

You like killing people? Then you are as evil as those who kill for other insane "reasons." My opinion.

(edit typo fuckups)

[Vidar]

73. Yes--for high treason: which includes Bush, Cheney & many of their cohorts.

[terrya]

75. No

It is not appropriate under any circumstances.

[marmar]

86. No. Never.

A society does not become better by doing what it claims to hold in contempt.



"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

[PA Democrat]

87. No. As a close observer of our country's criminal justice system, I cannot support the death penalty

Besides being morally opposed to the death penalty, I have problems with it due to the fact that it is inconsistently and unfairly applied. There are so many factors which enter into the outcome of a trial which have little to nothing to do with the accused's guilt or innocence, let alone the appropriate sentence.

-competency of the lawyers involved
-personalities of individual jurors
-race of the accused and of the victim
-truthfulness of the witnesses
-police interrogation techniques
-impartiality or lack thereof on the part of the judge
-financial status of the accused

If you support the death penalty, where do you draw the line? At what exact point does a crime cross the threshold of being deserving of the death penalty? How do you guarantee that one or more of the above factors have not unfairly influenced the outcome of a trial?

Ideologically, our system of justice is designed to protect the rights of the accused, but in practice it is not fail-proof.

[timtom]

89. I voted "Yes"

and I had specifically the PNAC crowd in mind.

These are mass murderers of the most profound and staggering proportions and there can be no "rehabilitation".

That's my opinion on the matter. It's how I strongly feel. It does not address the rightness or wrongness of my position.

[Rosemary2205]

91. I support the death penalty for several reasons.

1. The only way to stop people who continue to kill or order killings/extreme violent crimes while in prison is the death penalty. Anything less is putting other prisoners, visitors and guards at risk.

2. It is my humble opinion that lifetime prison sentences are cruel on a number of different levels, especially considering the state of our maximum security prisons and their inhabitants. I share the belief held by our nation's founding fathers, that execution is more humane than long prison sentences.

[SarahB]

92. Of course some people deserve it.

Too often though, those who end up getting the death penalty are disproportionately poor, uneducated, and non-white. That's my opposition. Some people deserve it, but if someone innocent is falsely executed (usually related to poverty and poor legal representation), there's no going back.

[Retired AF Dem]

97. Yes

Two people in their early 20s — Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom — went out for a bite to eat on a cold Jan. 6, 2006. The SUV they were riding in was carjacked.

Rather than letting the couple go, which is usually the case, their assailants drove them to a house where Christopher was raped by multiple attackers, assaulted and, according to some reports, mutilated. He was then taken to a remote area where he was shot and his body disposed of in multiple bags.

Channon was made to watch all of this, then she was raped repeatedly and a bleaching-type chemical was poured in her mouth to "clean away DNA," according to one of the accused attackers. Some reports say she too was mutilated, beaten and burned and her mutilated torso spread over five trash bags.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070616/OPINION03/706160329/1054

As some have said the death penalty might not be a deterrent, but at least these sick fuckers wont ever do it again.

[OzarkDem]

122. That story was passed around

on a lot of right wing web sites. What was it about that particular crime that got them so riled?

[OzarkDem]

123. Its not our decision to make

I had always opposed the death penalty but found real conviction after reading Sister Jean Prejean's "Dead Man Walking". If you are a person of faith, then you have to accept that as mortals, its not our place to make the decision to take a fellow human being's life, no more than it is the murderer's to do so.

Lock them up and throw away the key and let God take care of the rest.

[iverglas]

133. do you suppose ...

What was it about that particular crime that got them so riled?

... it was because the victims were white and the accused black, and the mainstream media (per the right wing web sites you cite) just didn't get quite riled up enough about it for them?

I'll bet you do. ;)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp

There are just thousands of these sorts of crimes hushed up by the MSM, doncha know. Forgive the nature link, but it's offered for educational/informational purposes about the kind of people who maintain such sites, which is readily inferred from the site itself ...

http://www.forgottenvictims.com/

(You'll see a couple of black faces in the gallery, but don't be alarmed, the MSM wasn't really ignoring the deaths of black people on purpose -- the MSM only ignored their deaths because the black accused also killed some white people ...)


edited to add fyi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=146554&mesg_id=146730

and posts before and after ...

[OzarkDem]

139. Kinda interesting

that a DU'er would be so interested in that case, no? Or maybe they get some of the same junk emails my right wing relatives send me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. It is never appropriate to execute someone. There may be some people it is appropriate to execute.

People sometimes do things so terrible that I do not think that killing them is a disproportionate punishment.

Even so, I do not trust the state, or anyone else, to kill those people without killing other people too - either innocent people, or people who have done bad things but not things bad enough to justify killing them.

As such, capital punishment is never appropriate.

And I will never loose even a second's sleep because someone bad *hasn't* been killed, provided they're jailed.

[saltpoint]

102. "The sea refuses no river," and I personally don't feel that imperfect

humans may take the life, no matter the medium of killing, of another human, despite social perceptions of "degrees of imperfection."

I am reminded -- not happily -- of then-Governor George W. Bush, taunting the pleas for life from Karla Faye Tucker. http://www.commondreams.org/views/102500-101.htm

Not myself a Christian, I nevertheless admire the moment in the New Testament when What's-His-Face admonishes the crowd, which has gathered with stones in their hands to kill a woman accused of adultery.

For my 2 cents' worth, I would oppose capital punishment.

[SoonerPride]

104. You support capital punishment = you're in league with scum nations

All civilized countries abandoned it as counter productive and error prone.

Never is it right to kill.

[Alexander]

105. No. There is always the possibility an innocent person will be executed.

[Tiggeroshii]

110. No

Of course with maybe a personal sense of responsibility, I would feel that if I ever took the life of a person not in war, but unjustly and purposefully, then I myself would volunteer to die for my crime -I don't believe I could live with that sort of burden and realization on my chest. Just the same would go if I ordered an execution. In my mind that would be equally unjust and purposeful. That is my decision over my own life. We have no place to decide the fate of other human beings, and are only prone to failure and universal ineptitude when taking a hand for a hand and an eye for an eye.

[Colobo]

118. I'm proud to be a 37 percenter

[SmokingJacket]

121. In a perfect world, yes, BUT we live in far from a perfect world.

I read a lot of true crime. There are people out there who will kill and rape and mutilate people for the fun of it till the end of time if they're not stopped. They are, as far as I'm concerned, monsters who are in all likelihood totally unrehabilitatable.

But our criminal justice system -- and probably ANY criminal justice system -- has no way of distinguishing between those conscience-free monsters and everyone else. And it has a long, long history of unfairness and of implicating the wrong people. We may have no choice but to occasionally imprison an innocent person, but I do think we MUST allow prisoners to prove their innocence after a trial, if more evidence comes out, and therefore must not kill them. There's no way of undoing an execution.

I think the death penalty is wrong, though, like you, I'm not crying over the Ted Bundys. They should probably die. BUT... when we make a law saying the Ted Bundys must die, we also will end up killing the railroaded poor minority fellow who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I think there are a LOT of them.

[orleans]

126. i didn't vote in your poll. here's why

i never liked the death penalty--or capitol punishment or whatever we call it. i always thought it was barbaric.

and then john gacy came along. i was so GLAD he was killed, i hated him so much.

i had a lot of cognitive dissonance over this. and i guess i still have some. i still am glad he was killed. same with jeffery dahmer.

so--is it appropriate? i want to say no, but i suppose i believe in extenuating circumstances it really is appropriate.

of course, the next question i have asked myself is: how many people does someone have to kill for it to be appropriate? three? five? twenty? thirty? and my answer--since 1978 when they arrested gacy--is that i don't know. i've never been able to answer that question to myself.

[mudesi]

134. You're not progressive if you say yes. (nm)

[Colobo]

136. Who are you to determine that?

[iverglas]

137. if you disagree

you apparently believe the oposite: one IS progressive if one says yes.

So ... who are you to determine that?

[Colobo]

140. I consider that one issue should not be the only one to determine

how progressive someone is.

[iverglas]

145. But you apparently think someone can be progressive and advocate use of the death penalty

Well (if that's what you think), I disagree.

I consider that one issue should not be the only one to determine how progressive someone is.

No one issue, or just not this one, or just not certain issues?

Can one advocate permitting racial discrimination in eating establishments and be progressive? Can one advocate outlawing divorce and be progressive? Can one advocate abolishing the public schools and be progressive?

We all draw our lines. Draw yours where you like. And try to recognize statements like "You're not progressive if you say yes" as statements of opinion, since that's what they actually are, and feel free to disagree and state why, but try not to pretend to believe that people who say such things are claiming that god died and they got the job. They really aren't.

[mudesi]

143. By definition

Progressive implies progress from barbaric social practices to civilized ones. Every progressive society on this planet has abolished capital punishment.

[Colobo]

144. I love your assumptions and premises

But I just don't agree with them.

[mudesi]

146. There are no assumptions

It's a definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters.

2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.

[MasonJar]

135. Too many errors are made.

[MrSlayer]

138. Yes.

And it should be expanded and expedited.

[ecstatic]

141. Yes: Pedophiles (particularly murderous ones), serial rapists & serial murderers

I'm anti-DP because as someone who does not believe in Hell, I think that death is perhaps the "easy way out."

However, when it comes to people who present a constant threat to society, especially children, NO SYMPATHY!

[BlooInBloo]

142. (a) Although it may be the case that certain people deserve to die, I don't want *The State*...

... to have that power - they can't be trusted to implement correctly. It's partly The State's fault, and it's partly just theoretical constraints.



EDIT: Forgot a word in the subject.