The death penalty

[Pale Blue Dot]

Poll question: The death penalty

Now thank Carlie's body has been found, emotions are running high. Has your opinion of the death penalty been altered?

[Az]

1. You can't say oops to a corpse nt

[Fla_Democrat]

113. Sure you can

they just can't hear it.

[Fovea]

2. but if there is no death penalty

then a certain percentage of the prison population should be
medicated for the safety of other prisoners and staff.

[demsrule4life]

3. Turn him over to the girls father

[roughsatori]

10. A return to vigilante justice, how quaint and un-Constitutional NT

[demsrule4life]

11. After a fair trial

:)

[Rooktoven]

24. I like that or

Sentence him to death, but NO protective custody--i.e. let him mingle with the prison populace until the day he's set to go. If he wants the chair at that point, stay the execution.

There is nothing too horrid to do to predators of children, IMO.

[prolesunited]

65. So basically what you're saying

is you believe in a system based on revenge, not justice.

Why not torture him? How about hanging him high in the center of town for all to see? Perhaps we could have some sort of televised event?

Yes, emotions are running high, but that's why we have the rule of law, to keep us from exercising our basest instincts.

Granted, the death penalty is an option in the U.S., but I'm opposed to it in all cases, even this one. What purpose does it serve? Will it bring the girl back?

I would never want this man on the street again. A true victory in this case would not be death, but for the man to realize the horror of what he has done and have to live with that the rest of his imprisoned life.

[Granite]

94. In some cases, retribution is the point

My stance on the death penalty is that it should be humane, legal, and rare. My biggest problem with the death penalty has always been issues regarding guilt and innocence, and its unequal application based on race and social class.

But the fact remains that there are people who are proven (without question) to have committed attrocious and horrendous crimes - crimes where the state has a right to decide have crossed a line beyond which the guilty party should be able to reenter society. In my mind, if this guy did it, and its proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he deserves to die. If this was my daughter, and the state wouldn't do it, I'd probably do it myself.

Maybe I'm overreacting and my stance on this particular case is the result of being an emotional father of a 5 month old girl who is always going to be a target solely based on her gender. I'll readily admit that I would never be able to impartially sit on this jury.

[Az]

98. WIthout question

Not sure what process there is using rational thought and the evidentiary process that leaves no question of a matter. Pretty much everything I ever learned about logic and critical thinking insists that you must remain open ended in the process in case any new evidence comes along that refutes your argument. Perhaps you are willing to lay your life on that line. I am not.

[Richardo]

108. I've never understood the "it won't bring her back" argument...

...has anybody claimed it would? Same with "it's no deterrent". Who cares? The deed is done. It's P-U-N-I-S-H-M-E-N-T and in many cases a perfectly just punishment.

Yes, I know that it's often applied in a racist manner and I think that that must change. Convictions must be iron-clad, unlike many cases that have been socially or racially motivated. Those convictions are wrong and I do not support them.

But I have no philosophical problem the death penalty. and race is not a factor in this case.

[Rooktoven]

122. Yeah, I guess I'm for retribution.

Unabashedly and unashamedly. Perhaps it isn't a deterrent for others, but it will permanently deter him. And yeah, he deserves to feel pain and terror. God can show this filth mercy, we don't have to.

[prolesunited]

123. What a nice, Christian thought

I guess the teachings of Jesus and King and Gandhi hold no validity for you.

[demsrule4life]

124. I have news for you

guys like this don't have any remorse for what they did. Let them out and they would do it over and over. Society is better off with them dead. And unless you have been a cop or better yet worked in a prison you don't know squat about the subject.

[mopinko]

4. opposed, but

in recognition of reality, i would almost accept a standard of "overwhelming evidence". a couple of dozen boys buried in your basement, or a freezer full of body parts, it's hard to argue. a jail house snitch, a single eyewitness, bartered testimony, a testilying cop- if this is all you got, you shouldn't even be in the courtroom.

[lovedems]

8. I agree with you, sometimes there's room for an exception

but the evidence would have to be overwhelming.

I think if you want to "punish" a guy like Smith, the best thing to do is let him spend the rest of his life in prison. I have heard that child molesters and child killers aren't very "popular". Let him live the rest of his life in fear, just like that poor girls last hours. He will be reminded everyday of what he did.

That to me is far worse than sitting in a cell by yourself waiting for a process that takes 12 years at least.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. How about a video

Of you dragging the poor girl away?

[demsrule4life]

15. It happened in FL

he will have a date with old sparky.

[SOS]

36. Sadly, these 112 innocent men had no video

to prove their innocence:

112th Innocent Released From Death Row

"A Pennsylvania man today became the 112th person to be freed from death row because of factual innocence after prosecutors announced they are dropping charges against him.

Nicholas James Yarris, 41, has spent 21 years on death row for a crime he did not commit."

[lcordero]

5. I always favored the death penalty being used against:

1. mass murderers
2. serial killers
3. (most of all) corporate white-collar supercriminals

[oldshoe]

6. Kevin Cooper

Read about the upcoming execution of Kevin Cooper, and the large controversy on whether he was railroaded or innocent. There are many holes in the state's case, and his death is scheduled for Tuesday. Read this and petition Schwatznegger if you think his death should be delayed until all the uncertainties are resolved.

There is not much time, so go straight to the second link below.

http://www.savekevincooper.org/

http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_contacts.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0259824688.1076078487@@@@&BV_EngineID=iadcjhkgflggbemgcfkmchcog.0

[karabekian]

93. kevin cooper is guilty and should die

he is guily and should die. He killed 4 people including 2 children at night and left another for dead who survived. His DNA was found at the scene, in the stolen car, and at the other house. There were shoeprints found at the crime scene that matched his size and the only people who would have had those shoes were people who were at the same prison as cooper. They also found tobacco that would only be availible in that prison. His hair was found clutched in the hand of one of the victims. The sheaths for the murder weapons were found at the house he admitted to hiding out in. This guy deserves death and I will lose no sleep knowing this butcher has met justice.

I have read the "holes" in the case and they don't change my mind that he was the murderer and that der schwartz was right in rejecting clemency.

[TSElliott]

7. I am against the death penalty, however

I do believe that convicted criminals should be executed upon their request. If I were convicted of a heinous crime I would much rather choose immediate execution than to spend the rest of my life in prison. I prefer to call it death with dignity.

[arwalden]

12. You Can Release The Wrongfully Imprisoned... You Can't Un-Execute Someone

who was wrongfully convicted.

The death penalty is revenge only.

-- Allen

[Tim4319]

13. I don't like the death penalty but, in some cases it is a must.

I think in order to put someone to death, all evidence and appeals must be exausted first. People with chemical embalances or retardations should be off limits. There are times people were put to death when there was evidence that was not allowed, or the court appointed attorney falls asleep during the trial (happened in Texas, remember).

In the case of Carlie, if this man is found guilty, and the prosecution leaves no stone unturned and all evidence points to him, put him to sleep.

Basically, what I am trying to say is, too many people are put to death who are found innocent after they are gone. Plus, some of these judges/juries are so "gung-ho" about finding someone guilty, they don't allow all of the facts into the case.

[arwalden]

22. But It's Still Revenge... Not Punishment

I appreciate that you want to be careful and certain that the right man is being executed and that he actually DID the crime he's accused of. However... no matter how careful you are in collecting evidence, eyewitnesses, and videotaped confessions, it's still revenge and nothing more.

The guilty man is not being punished after he's dead. He's simply dead. He's not caring any more because he doesn't *exist* anymore. He's just a corpse. The punishment has ended early. (While drug dealers serve longer sentences for lesser crimes.)

The possibility of receiving the death penalty didn't deter him from his crime. Hmmph. <scratching head> Go figure.

I agree that the raw emotional response is to execute the bastard. That's an expected reaction, but it's not acceptable to me. A long lonely isolated and laborious punishment would be most appropriate.

-- Allen

[Violet_Crumble]

116. Exactly...

The only people that end up being punished by the death penalty are the family of the person who's been executed. I've heard of some cases where criminals on death row want nothing more than to die, so I can't see where the punishment is in killing someone who wants to die anyway...

Violet...

[Az]

14. Emotions and Reason

We are an emotional species. We react to things based on experiences that we weight according to their emotional weight. Things which have a higher emotional impact occupy a larger awareness to us.

The state has to operate as a reasoning entity. It cannot respond emotionally. Thus it has to apply logic and rational thought when dealing with issues. The terminiation of a human being is an absolute solution. In other words it is the ultimate action you can take against a person. There is no return from it.

The criteria for such a reasoned descision requires absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is not possible within a reasoned approach to real world events. This is simply an anomaly of the process. Thus the state cannot take an absolute action without an absolute certainty.

This often grinds our sensibilities because our emotional reaction to the crime is so greatly insensed that we demand retribution. But this is exactly why the state must remain reasoned as opposed to emotional. Strong emotions override our learned logical and reasoned approaches.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. States can and must do so all the time

There are few absolute certainties in life. Nevertheless, states must take action to protect society. A convicted murdering child molestor poses a PERPETUAL threat. As long as that creature survives, it is a threat to all other members of society.

Yes, it's an easy choice.

[Mandate My Ass]

25. It's an easy choice for YOU

not for me and certainly shouldn't be for the state. Society is sufficiently protected by putting violent criminals behind bars for natural life. That *creature* is a fellow human being and I'd rather not have him killed in my name especially the in a death carnival like executions have become. Homicides actually go up immediately before and after high-profile executions but hey, those people are expendable aren't they, just so long as we satsify our bloodlust.

The system is flawed. It works neither in theory nor practice. Lots of other murderous child molesters have been executed and yet this one went ahead and did it anyway. Hmmmmmm.:shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Here I disagree

I will not lower myself to say that someone who rapes and murders a child is a fellow human being. No. It's not.

That is animal behavior -- the kind of rabid dog action that you can only expect from a wild animal. Out here in the country, if a wild animal comes after me, I shoot it. If a wild human does the same, he gets the same results.

Yes, the system is flawed and I say fix it. I say we set up an expedited appeals process with experts who ensure trials were fair, investigations were honest and scientific evidence is solid. Then we execute them if all of that is the case.

Yes, many (not enough) murderous child molestors have been executed. You know what? Not ANY of them have ever harmed a child ever again.

[Mandate My Ass]

41. He is a fellow human being

Dehumanizing another human being is the characteristic of anti-social personalities. I refuse to engage in it but feel free if it gets you off.

I've repeatedly asked you to justify the murders that go on in the aftermath of an execution and you've always declined to address it. Are those people expendable or not?

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Getting off

Actually, the only one who "got off" in this situation is the murderous monster who raped and killed a little girl and would do so again and again until stopped.

[Mandate My Ass]

47. He can be stopped by locking him up

Anything more is "monstrous."

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. No, he can only be limited

He is a rapist and a murderer.

He can still do either or both in prison. He can rape prisoners or kill them. He can attack staff. He can harm guards. He can go after visitors.

He can even escape.

[Mandate My Ass]

54. You're dodging the question

Are the peope who die in the aftermath of an execution expendable?

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Not dodging anything

Innocents die no matter what we do. I think we need to redo the death penalty process and if we can handle that well, that may well eliminate the problem you discuss.

[Az]

66. SImple enough

You tell me how we can absolutely determine whether a person is guilty or not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Absolutes

The only absolute in life is death.

[PVnRT]

75. Answer the question

Since you are so hell-bent on getting the gallows cranked up and going, how many innocent people are you willing to send to death to satisfy for your bloodlust? Since, you know, you can't "absolutely" prove someone is guilty.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Again, innocents die in either case

If you don't execute these monsters, they will kill again. Those they kill are just as innocent. I prefer to set up a system that is as good as we can make it and then go forward. Right now, I don't think either side of this issue would say that the justice system is as good as we can make it.

[Mandate My Ass]

67. No, it's not simple

You like to pretend it is but what you describe will just create an ever-widening ripple effect of more executions resulting in more "innocents" being killed in the aftermath.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Yes, it is simple

We can set the bar pretty high. We can install a panel of experts to expedite the process AND ensure that it is handled properly on both a legal and scientific level.

But then, we take action and move on. The endless appeals process has made the whole justice system a laughing stock.

[Mandate My Ass]

77. 9 to 10 years

is the average amount of time it takes nationwide to find and remedy serious flaws in capital cases. Expediting the process will only succeed in sending more innocent people to unnecessary death. Only the state can afford experts and scientists, ones that will only testify to what the prosecution wants to hear, that's a large part of the problem now.

The appeals process is hardly laughable when innocent men and women rely on it to have their wrongful convictions overturned. That is, unless you're of the "kill 'em all and let god sort em out" mentality.

BTW, nearly 70% of capital cases were found to have reversible errors. Getting it right 30% of the time when it's a matter of life and death is hardly a rousing endorsement of the system you defend.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Here you are wrong

It takes all that time due to court backlogs and delaying tactics used by defense attorneys. Yes, the current appeals process is horrible. There I agree.

In an expedited review, we would have legal and scientific experts who would look at ALL death penalty cases, not just the ones with good lawyers. I want a process that is not only fair, but just.

Your view of reversible errors also includes points of legalese and not necessarily points where convictions SHOULD be overturned. While technicalities are great for defense attorneys, they don't help the rest of us.

[Mandate My Ass]

84. You offer opinions as facts

Nice try.

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. What do you dispute?

[PVnRT]

85. You seem to think

that the system you propose will not be backed up either. This means that they either (A) will work very fast, glossing over lots of cases, and resulting in a situation not that much different from what we have now, or (B) you will have to hire a lot, and I mean a lot of people, to staff those review boards. That means a tax hike, and we know how popular those are in this country.

"While technicalities are great for defense attorneys, they don't help the rest of us."

Actually, they do, they keep this country from becoming a fascist police state. Unless you really do think that the police should be able to do whatever they want.

[PVnRT]

78. Panel of experts

You assume, of course, that these panels of experts would be completely qualified and have no political opinions whatsoever. You know, like judges...

[Az]

55. What you describe

Is a raving animal. I suspect the prison officials would move such an individual to a mental ward and drug them into oblivion. Thus establishing the control you desire.

You want absolute certainty. What absolute certainty can you give me that you will not go stark raving mad and kill someone I love? Why should I not have you executed right now in this absense of absolute certainty?

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Yes, it IS a raving animal

Anyone who would rape and murder a child is such an animal. There are no excuses. No rationalizations for such behavior.

But a mental ward secures such creatures no more -- and possibly less -- than a prison.

I don't expect absolute guarantees for all aspects of life. But if you rape and murder a child, you should NEVER be able to harm another again.

[prolesunited]

74. Again with the FEAR, FEAR, FEAR

therefore we must kill. Sorry, but I'm not buying into it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. Yes, which is why more innocents will die

[Az]

86. Innocent people die with your plan too

The difference is they die at our hands.

[prolesunited]

90. He's willing to live with that

:eyes:

It would make a perfect Twilight Zone episode, don't you think? Someone with the same unequivocal beliefs as Muddle wrongfully convicted and sentenced to the death penalty — all of their harsh words coming back to haunt them as the people around them treat him like the animal that they think he is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

103. The difference is we get to work hard to prevent it

While criminals work hard to do just the opposite.

[Mandate My Ass]

48. So, not answering the question I posed

yet again. Are those people who die in the spike of violence after an execution expendable? I guess the answer is yes.

[Az]

51. I understand and share your feelings towards this individual

I just do not want my government being enabled to react emotionally. Emotional reactions are the stuff of mobs. As an atheist I am amongst a group of people reviled by many others. A former president of the United States has publically stated that he does not believe I should be considered a citizen of this country. His is an emotional reaction based on his view of the world. Fortunately the US government operates on a different standard. It cannot impose populist standards upon individuals for emotional reasons. It has to operate within rules and laws set down. The severity of the action must be met with a similar level of certainty. Absolute actions must be taken only when absolute certainty is available.

[Az]

31. Protect yes

Revenge no. A convicted criminal is in custody. As such the state is meeting its responsibility to protect the public from the criminal. For criminals that are beyond rehab life in prison is defensible as the societies right to protect itself.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. No it is not

Life in prison remains a threat both outside and inside. The most dangeous criminals must be removed as threats just as nations that attack must be defeated.

[Az]

37. Ok

I have determined that you are a threat to me. Don't worry about my justification. Suffice to say that I and enough of my friends have decided that you are a threat to us. Does this mean we have the right to kill you to remove you as a threat?

The state must balance rights and protection. Killing a person removes any hope of balance. Granting the state the right to kill someone they have under control is unnecissary. A properly detained criminal is of minimum risk to the population. The state cannot protect absolutely without destroying your rights as well as mine.

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty. - Benjamin Franklin

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. How have you determined this?

Have I raped and murdered your 11-year-old child? If so, feel free to deal with me as harshly as you wish.

If not, prove it.

I love the Ben Franklin quote. I wonder where he and our other founding fathers would have stood on applying their thoughts to defending murderous child molestors. I'm thinking they would see them as NOT the same thing. In fact, I'm thinking we'd be holding them back from killing the bastards.

[Az]

42. You don't have a say in the matter

We have determined that you are dangerous. Its our measurment not yours. We hold the majority so your rights do not count. We have decided that you represent a threat to us. You must die.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. What did shrub say?

Bring it on? LOL

Only you are rambling irrationally without any cause. Here, we have a living breathing monster in the flesh. A raper and murderer of an 11-year-old child. Such creatures will continue to rape, continue to kill if they get the chance.

They should NEVER get the chance.

[Az]

49. Do not let them have a chance

The society can protect itself. But taking the absolute measure of killing the individual is beyond its rights.

You are responding on an emotional level. I am not above this reaction. I would not give him odds if left in a room with me. But this is the state we are talking about. I do not wish to extend them the right to kill me if they so choose to. The death penalty is an unnecissary emotional reaction to a horrible crime. As the job of the justice system is in part to protect the innocent from being found guilty the ultimate punishment requires the ultimate certainty. And this level is unattainable. Thus the death penalty is beyond the reach of the justice system if they have any intent of protecting the innocent.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. No, I didn't know this girl

I am responding as I would responded two or three days ago.

The only difference is now we have a clear reminder of how vile some creatures can be. Yet I still see those who are afraid to remove them from our midst.

There are no ultimate certainties in life except death. Even taxes can be avoided. A nation that waits for "ultimate certainty" to make decisions that protect itself will never do so and many more will die needlessly.

[Az]

61. Your right

Better kill everyone now just to be as sure as we can be. Only way to be absolutely safe.

Do you not see that you are reacting emotionally? Yes I agree. Emotionally I want this guy to suffer. I want him dead. I also do not want a government that can act on this wish. For one day I may find myself as the mistaken target of this emotional reaction.

The government cannot react emotionally. It is not a good way to make important descisions. Particularly ones that have no means of being redressed. Kill a person and you can never say oops. Lock them in a straight jacket, throw them into the deepest pit, and turn off all the lights and you can still dig them out and say "We are really really sorry" if it turns out you goofed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. Ah, hyperbole

Nope, I am reacting logically. Logically, this creature will remain a threat. I seek to remove that threat.

[Az]

88. By using extreme measures

You introduce a different threat. You run the risk of killing innocent people.

By securing the convicted criminal you substantially reduce the risk of them harming another ever again. By heating up the electric chairs you increase the risk of executing an innocent person falsely accused. I rather err on the side that does not have us executing innocent people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. No, your plan only moves the threat to another location

To a location when that threat has free rein on others -- prisoners, staff, guards and visitors. Even more, a place where that threat can learn from the skills of others.

[SOS]

92. If not, prove it....

OK.
First the state will assign you an attorney who may be intoxicated during your trial, may fall asleep, won't file any motions on your behalf and will ask for nothing during discovery.

Then the state will make an early release deal with an imprisoned crack addict to pick your face out of mug shot book.

During jury selection, your lawyer will make no challenges.
The prosecutor may withhold exculpatory evidence, since your lawyer didn't bother to ask for it. Forget about DNA testing because it's expensive.

Once convicted no-one will file an appeal on your behalf.

With any luck you may meet the real killer in prison, who might testify 10 years later that you are innocent.
Of course all of the above assumes you don't have $10 million to hire Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran to defend you and get you back onto the golf course as soon as possible.

* note: all of the above have happened in death penalty cases where an innocent man was sent to his appointment with death.

[PVnRT]

It's funny

Death-penalty proponents suddenly get a bleeding heart for the rights of prisoners when it comes to talking about the "threat" on the "inside" if we let these people live. Yet, the rest of time, their attitude is basically, "Let the fuckers rot."

If they are locked up for the rest of their lives in solitary confinement, how are they a threat to ANYONE? And actually answer the question for once, instead of tap dancing. I want to know what you actually think.

[Az]

89. The problem with prison

It does not slake the need for revenge some feel. Justice to many seems to mean revenge. Take a look at what passes for entertainment. The vision of the hero blowing away the criminal is simply representational of our emotional desire to reach out and inflict harm on those who hurt us.

[PVnRT]

91. No disagreement here

Revenge is not justice, it is only revenge.

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. Clearly, you haven't seen my comments about prisons

I think any sane person who has ever seen the inside of such places knows how horrible they are and how much they should be improved.

For starters, we could make it easy by putting criminals arrested for drug possession into mandatory treatment and out of jail. That would cut down on the insane overcrowding in our prisons.

Solitary confinement is a construct made up by Hollywood. In reality, in a modern prison, there is no such thing. Sure, prisoners USED TO be sent to "the hole" to rot and live or die as circumstances allowed.

Now, they have interaction with guards and staff, lawyers and often visitors. They don't just sit and rot. If they are sick, they get medical treatment. They get out and get exercise, even if it is alone. They have access to many potential "targets."

[PVnRT]

73. Even if "it" is in jail for the rest of "its" life?

I fail to see how "it" is a threat to society at that point. Care to explain?

[SOS]

126. Easy choices...

Like Anthony Porter?

"A Chicago man who spent nearly 17 years on death row and came within two days of execution last fall for a double murder that he did not commit recently was released from prison after another suspect confessed to the killings on videotape.

Porter was arrested in 1982 and wrongfully convicted in 1983 in the fatal shooting of Jerry Hillard, 18, and Marilyn Green, 19, in Washington Park on Chicago's South Side. Porter maintained his innocence ever since the day of his arrest.

"Oh, it feels marvelous to be outside. I'm free," said an elated Porter after his release from prison. "I'm glad I'm free. I'm just glad I got out," declared Porter who came within two days of being executed by lethal injection on September 23, 1998."

Ooops! Sorry about that Mr. Porter. It just seemed like an easy choice at the time....

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. OK, raise the hand if you think the 2nd choice is the epitome of...

knee-jerk silliness. :hi:

[welshTerrier2]

18. Minimum Necessary Force

the standard of justice should enable any government to use the minimum amount of force needed to protect its citizens.

once a criminal, or a foreign government, surrenders or is captured, the additional use of force is wrong.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Minimum use of force to guarantee safety

You can't build a prison that someone can't escape from.

[demsrule4life]

20. You use minimum force necessary to capture a subject

then you apply justice.

[welshTerrier2]

23. there is no justice in excessive violence

and violence is defined (by me) as excessive when it is more than is needed to prevent the criminal or foreign nation from continuing their criminal actions ...

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Criminals remain a threat in prison

[welshTerrier2]

34. and foreign governments

could rise up again and attack us ... perhaps after "winning a war" we should slaughter everyone in the country we conquered ...

and good people sometimes do horrible things ... maybe we should just kill off the potentially dangerous ones ... and what about people who drink and drive ...

sometimes we execute innocent people ... and it's just possible there's a racial consideration in who gets executed .. and if even one of those killers busts out of jail, i suppose it probably would have been better to kill all of them ... and what if some liberal judge decides to release them too early ... and ... and ... and ...

yes, criminals remain a threat in prison ... perhaps our society should address this problem ... your solution is both barbaric and immoral because you're condoning killing someone when it was not absolutely necessary ... your theme of "what if they escape or kill someone in the prison" does not come close to meeting the standard of "absolutely necessary" ...

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. I am not recommending killing all criminals

But there are some who pose a serious risk and they must be dealt with -- permanently.

There is nothing barbaric about my solution. If you DO something barbaric, you remove yourself from the societal compact. As such, you are no longer a member of the society, you are a threat to it.

I am glad you don't think threats to the outside world or prisoner inside bothers you. I guess you have never had loved ones on the inside.

[welshTerrier2]

50. please ... i didn't say that

I am glad you don't think threats to the outside world or prisoner inside bothers you.

from my last post:

yes, criminals remain a threat in prison ... perhaps our society should address this problem ...

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. How?

You can't stop prisoner on prisoner violence. You can't segregate them from each other, from staff, from guards and from visitors.

I think a basic difference is this. Many well meaning people here think all people can be saved by society.

I do not. Some people are murdering, child-raping monsters. No society -- even prison society -- has a place for such creatures.

[gulfcoastliberal]

63. Ever hear of Pelican Bay and Supermax?

All prisoners to segregated to the point some go insane from being alone all the time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. I think many here would argue that is cruel and unusual

Nor do I think it infallible. Can you guarantee such criminals can't harm each other, staff, guards or visitors? Can you guarantee they won't escape.

[prolesunited]

76. Every time this issue is raised

You bring up this point. Have you found some documentation on it?

How about a comparison of prison crime as compared to the total prison population?
How many people have escaped from a maximum security prison in the past 10 years?

If you are going to continue using this line of reasoning, I think you need to pull together the necessary data to prove your claims.

[welshTerrier2]

99. Exactly !!

there are all sorts of violent offenders in prison ... how many of them, who did NOT commit murder, have subsequently killed guards or other inmates ...

a point i raised above is that there are all sorts of people with multiple drunk driving convictions ... should they be put to death because they "MIGHT" kill someone ... and what is the logical extension of this argument to a country we've won a war against? should we, be extension, kill every soldier that country has once we've won the war? if not, isn't there a risk they'll attack us again? we need to do what we need to do to but killing people is not what a just society should be about ...

the entire argument about killing convicted murderers because they might kill again is absurd ... let's look at humane, but tough, alternatives ... better prisons, better trained guards, drug therapy and psychiatric counseling, education, etc ...

[flamingpie2500]

21. Kill someone who has killed someone

Sounds a little barbaric to me.

" an eye for an eye will make us all blind" Ghandi

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. It is merely preventing recidivism

[Dr Fate]

29. We wonder where kids get the idea that violence solves problems...

...when the gov. tells us we can just kill our problems away instead of fixing them at their root causes...

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Root causes

There is no root cause for raping and killing children that can be "addressed" by society. The only way to stop it is to punish those who do it and to make sure punishment for linkage crimes (kiddie porn and such) is extremely harsh.

[Dr Fate]

59. Wrong- we know that molested children end up being molesters...

...but the tendancy is to WAIT until they destroy someones life, instead of giving them the help they need (gee, I guess that would cost tax $$$)

We refer to molested children as "victims", but we allow them to grow up into "monsters"- and then we all cry for his head. If we went to root causes, we could SAVE two lives instead of allowing two (or more) lives to be destroyed...

Just like you can sit in any 2nd grade classroom and tell which kids are going to be juvenille delinquents & life criminals.

Dont tell me we cant discover the root causes- for the most part we already have, we just ignore them...

Fuck it. Its easier just to kill more people.

[prolesunited]

83. Oooh! Here's a thought

Why don't we just execute children who are molested and cut out the middleman and all that? After all, chances are they will be, as Muddle would put it, creatures and animals not fit to live.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I agree with you totally on this. Instead of spending the money and making the systemic changes necessary to limit these types of situations from occurring. I guess killing someone is much easier than facing the fact that society has somehow failed, easier to put these things out of our minds when these people are dead and buried.

[SheilaT]

33. All of you who support the death penalty,

how do you suppose nearly every other industrialized nation (save Japan) manages without one? Hmmm?

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Not well

[K-W]

44. You want to back that up.

Judging from your response, Im guessing you havent looked at crime statistics. The death penalty does not prevent crime, it just satisfies a barbaric sense of vengence.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Crime stats vary from culture to culture

And, as such, relate only to each specific culture. Comparing crime statistics from Japan and the U.S. is like comparing Japanese literacy statistics. The comparison is meaningless.

[Minstrel Boy]

107. Is a comparison with Canada meaningless?

In 2001, the Canadian national homicide rate was 1.8 per 100,000. That's less than one-third that of the US rate of 5.6 per 100,000, and similar to those of France and Australia.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011031/d011031b.htm

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. Yes

Despite our proximity, history and circumstances have created two entirely different cultures. To compare stats of the two is like comparing almost any two random factors. They MIGHT be similar, but that could well be coincidental.

[Violet_Crumble]

114. Then how would you know...

...that all these other countries that don't have the death penalty don't manage well without it? You wouldn't...


Violet...

(on edit: fixed up a grammar glitch)

[Brian Sweat]

35. There is my question in my mind that the guy who murdered this little girl

deserves to die a slow painful death and I have no problem with that. My only concern reguarding the death penalty is that an innocent person might be put to death.

[Gulf Coast J]

52. I agree

The death penalty is no doubt used in cases where it shouldn't. Perhaps a higher threshold of certainty should be applied for the capital cases. But in instances like this POS, and the DC sniper (at least the older one), and the Jasper, TX Byrd lynching and other cases where there is no question of guilt and barbarity of the crime - the death penalty is very appropriate.

[progressiverealist]

57. I voted no... but if anyone hurt or killed my little girl...

I would want them very, very dead.

Does that make me a hypocrite? I think it might.

[outinforce]

96. I Don't Think So.

I don't think your thoughts on this matter make you a hypocrite at all, progressiverealist.

I think they show that you are very human.

[DinahMoeHum]

60. I favor life in prison without parole, but not in a supermax facility.

Let's toss the f**ker into general population and see how long he lasts. They've got their own system of rough justice in prison.


:evilfrown:

[Odessey]

128. Yep,

Especially when the inmate is in for harming children. The general prison population tends to look very unkindly at fellow prisoners who are in for crimes against children. Yeah, throwing him in amongst them would be sweet justice. He would suffer for years at their hands! Makes my mouth water thinking of it!

[gulfcoastliberal]

62. TotallyOpposed, No Matter What

Giving the state this ultimate power... no way. Just keep criminals locked up forever, they will never be a threat again. Probability of human error and worse is just too dangerous to allow the state to execute citizens. Emotional things like the awful FL kidnapping shouldn't obscure rational thought and just brings out the worst base instincts in us. We're supposed to rise above being savage animals.

[outinforce]

82. An Observation, If I May

Reading through this thread, I am struck by the level of hostility and anger.

My limited experience is that anger and hostitilty often give rise to hatred. And hatred can give rise to all sorts of terrible things. Things like taking the life of another human being.

I want to be careful here, because I am not saying that anyone here would intentionally take the life of another human being.

What I am saying, though, is that I find it remarkable that a group of people who are all progressives apparently find it difficult to discuss a topic such as the death penalty and find it impossible to do so without becoming angry and hostile towards one another.

[Odessey]

129. Ever hear of 'righteous anger?'?

Anger has its place.

[truizm]

87. Opposed

The reason I have a problem with the death penalty is because of moral authority. You often hear people criticising "soft" people who want to protect the rights of criminals. However if as a society we claim the right to judge others and punish them then we need to be beyond reproach ourselves. To have the moral authority to punish someone our conduct needs to be impeccable.

If you punish someone for murdering someone by murdering them then we are repeating the same violation and hence have no moral authority to punish them in the first place.

There is no practical reason for the death penalty. Evidence that it somehow lowers the murder rate is completely anecdotal and crumbles in the light of more credible research. I think it is a weak arguement to say that someone will not murder someone if they will be executed, but will do so if they have to spend "only" 20 years in prison. I don't think so!

At the end of the day criminologists will tell you that few criminals make such rational calculations anyway. Often such crimes are committed in the heat of the moment or by sociopathic individuals, so the deterrent is largely irrelevant. Even if the consequences of committing murder are rationally calculated, people who get to the point of deciding to commit such a taboo crime will not be influenced by any deterrent, no matter how harsh. Ultimately the death penalty serves no practical purpose and simply boils down to revenge.

Everyone's body is inviolable. That is why we punish murderers. However we can't apply this principle selectively if it is to remain credible, so the bodies of murderers are inviolable too, and that is why the state has no right to kill anyone. The state can justifiably remove that person's freedom if they will use it to violate the freedom of others, but imprisonment achieves this. Execution IMO is unnecessary and immoral.

[outinforce]

95. I Think I Understand The Point You Are Making. BUT

I think I understand the point you are making here, truizm.

But I do have a question that may help to clarify something for me.

You say, "If you punish someone for murdering someone by murdering them then we are repeating the same violation and hence have no moral authority to punish them in the first place."

I think there is a law on the books which says that it is illegal for one person to hold or imprison another person against his/her will.

If someone is found guilty of that crime, how would you suggest that we punish him or her?

I think that you are suggesting that if we were to punish someone for doing a crime by doing the same thing that the criminal did, we would lose our moral authority to punish the criminal.

So I hope you can see the problem I am having with that line of thought when it comes to punishing a person for imprisoning another person against his/her will.

Can you help me out here?

[Az]

97. A better way to put it

A society has a right to defend itself against an individual who is willing to violate the rights of others. The trouble with the death penalty comes into play due to the fact that a prisoner is already controlled. The added step of executing them does not substantially improve the security of the system as it introduces the added risk of executing an innocent. Thus execution is a step too far and is not the valid defense of the society. Thus it bloodies the hands of the justice system leaving them morally bankrupt.

[outinforce]

100. I'm Not Sure

Thanks, Az.

I'm not sure, though, that the point you make is exactly the same point that truizm made or intended to make.

I would observe that putting people into prisons may, in some cases, be more than what society needs to do in order to defend itself against an individual who is willing to violate the rights of others.

Two instances come to my mind. First, the Enron criminals. They defrauded millinons of people because they had access to lots and lots of money. If you are suggesting that the only thing that society has a right to do is to "defend" itself, and that any thing beyond that is excessive, then I would point out that there may be no need to imprison those criminals at all. It would be a simple matter to see to it that they never have access to lots of peoples' money ever again, and let them roam the streets freely. I would personally not be terribly happy about this, and I think they should be punished for what they did.

The other situation would be those cases where a person could be put under some sort of "house arrest" where s/he wears a collar or other transmitting device that would let the authorities know whether the criminal is in her/his house or not.

In both cases, prison would be "excessive" in terms of meeting society's need to defend itself, wouldn't it?

[Pithlet]

101. No, I haven't changed.

Because I separate my need for revenge from what I know to be correct for society. As much as I'd love to see the monster responsible dead, I know that it only harms society for us to become the killer. The death penalty satisfies revenge, not justice.

[SOteric]

105. In the most objective sense

conclusive, indisputable proof of guilt isn't available.

Regardless of how reprehensible the alleged crime, to take the life of an individual in punishment when guilt is even remotely suspect is reprehensible. Still.

As for my emotions, my heart aches for the family and friends of that young girl.

[MrSlayer]

106. This guy should be tortured for weeks before death.

A true scumbag with nothing to offer society, this man should be tortured for an extended period before being released to death. This is clear cut, open and shut. They caught him on tape, her DNA is in his car. There is no way anyone can convince me that this asshole should be allowed to live. He should never have the opportunity to smile or laugh or feel any kind of pleasure again. I would tie him up in a chair, let the family in with various tools and electrical devices and leave. Whatever happens, happens. If they don't want to do it, I would be more than happy to volunteer. I despise anyone who would harm a child. He is not fit to live.

[prolesunited]

110. Sometimes the things posted

on this board and scare me and I wonder where I am.

It is one thing to be supportive of the death penalty if you have articulated a clear, rational and reasoned position. I strongly disagree, but I can respect you and your position.

Advocating torture? Offering to do it yourself? I find the level of bloodlust exhibited in this post frightening and offensive.

Who are you to decide unilaterally who is "fit to live" and engaging in the torture of another human being makes you morally superior, how?

[MrSlayer]

117. I don't consider this guy a human being.

He's a piece of shit that needs to be flushed. Sorry I offended you though.

[prolesunited]

119. I'm glad you feel

in such a superior position of determining who is and is not human or worthy of life.

[MrSlayer]

121. Ok then, what redeeming factor is there in saving this guy?

You do realize what he has done right? How would you like it if it was your daughter? That's how I look at it. My daughter just turned 10 and she is my treasure, if anyone laid a finger on her I'd do the above and worse. If you think that's wrong that's your problem.

[John BigBootay]

109. There are some cases where it's a slam-dunk--

This guy led the cops to the body. He's on camera at her kidnapping. He has a loooong history of this and other crimes.

It's a slam-dunk. The real crime is that this SOB is going to sit on death row for 12 years and we're going to shell out millions of dollars of tax-payer $$$ to put him through the appeals process.

[if it comes from the whitehouse it must be true]

115. Imagine your daughter, sister, mother, etc. in that video

And think she had no clue what was going to happen, the sheer terror that little girl went through?

Then think those few seconds were the last you would ever see of her, the next time she would be on some cold slab dead.

Now, do you want this sick bastard sitting in some cell getting letters from nut jobs around the world.

No one wants to pull the switch?

Get out of the way, I will fucking do it!

[prolesunited]

118. Sure the emotional argument works

but as Az pointed out, the state should be ruled by reason, not emotion.

I had my beliefs tested not too long ago when a former colleague was bludgeoned to death by someone who wanted to purchase his car. The police painted a vivid description of him being chased through the house using whatever items he could find to fend of the attacker. The house was torn up and there was blood everywhere.

The man who was killed was a kind and gentle soul who had literally touched thousands of lives over the course of his career. It was a tragic and senseless loss.

Of course, my first reaction was that the guy who did this (caught the following day) should fry, but once I calmed down, I remembered what my beliefs and values are and they are not in line with the death penalty.

Two week after it happened, I would have been ready to witness an execution. But, that's exactly why we have the rule of law.

[if it comes from the whitehouse it must be true]

120. Loopholes could give him a decent life in prison

Some radical lawyer gets him t.v., porn mags, visits etc.

Im not willing to chance this fuck gets any comfort, bottom line once he killed this girl he serves no more purpose on the planet and is simply taking up air.

[liberalcapitalist]

125. my "other" answer

The death penalty costs too much money. People who murder children deserve to die, but the moral cost of executing one innocent man or woman outweighs any retributive justice.

[solinvictus]

127. Death Penalty

I have some mixed feelings about it, but in some cases, it's entirely appropriate.

[IronLionZion]

130. Death is too good for him

Life in Prison is a harsher and better punishment. Let him think about what he's done for a long, long time.

[Iris]

131. Carlie's story is sad, but where's the outrage for this story -

This morning the local Atlanta news reported the death of a 5 year old girl. She was beaten to death with a lug wrench by her mother's boyfriend, who also beat her 10 yr. old brother with the same lug wrench.

So, until every single heinous crime against a child is made national news, I don't think singling out one criminal for execution is even worth discussing.


http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=42612

(edit: added link)