Do you believe in the death penalty?

[Liberalboy]

I watched a really good episode of the West Wing tonight that dealt with the death penalty and sparked quite the conversation in my home. I don't believe in it - I don't think that the government has the right to kill someone for a crime because as a citizen they are killing in my name. What do you think? I got the arguement stating that it was just like allowing abortion, etc....but I disagree. There is a difference between allowing someone to have a choice (like abortion or euthanasia) and choosing to kill someone for a crime. Let's have a discussion and see where this goes.

[JohnKleeb]

1. no way

[King Bush II]

2. yes

i firmly believe in the death penalty. why should a killer deserve to live any more than their victims?

on edit:

I write this from experience, my cousin was brutally murdered years ago, and seeing her killer being punished in kind was great closure for me.

[GAspnes]

4. how do you know you have the right guy?

There are numerous reasons to oppose the death penalty, but that's the big one for me. The state should never kill an innocent person, and since we humans make mistakes, the only way to avoid that problem is for the state to never kill anyone.

[King Bush II]

6. see above

[JohnKleeb]

9. I am sorry about your cousin

I oppose it for the record.

[King Bush II]

15. thank you

i respect your opinion, and in some ways i too oppose it. im sure it is much better punishment for most people to live knowing they have taken a life, but many people just don't appreciate it. i don't think killing anyone ever is the answer, and i am a very big pacifist, but for me, in my experience i think it provided great justice.

[CoffeePlease1947]

61. Similar experience but still oppose it

My cousin got shot in head at point blank. He didn't die, but instead suffers from sever brain damage. He is blind too, and has many problems, not to mention he doesn't remember his daughter.

His father and mother, and other family members opposed him getting the death penalty even if my cousin later died from the wounds.

The reason being that they wanted the guy that did it to pay the price for what he did.

I think the death penalty is wrong for numerous reasons. But my main reason is because I think they get the wrong guy enough times to where it is more harmful than good. But I honestly do that think that you should pay for your crimes. Death is not paying a price, it is getting out of oweing your debts.

Mike

[uberotto]

49. In my family it was right the opposite...

My sister-in-law was murdered (beaten and strangled) by her fiance. This was a man who had been in and out of jail several times over the last twenty years. He was on parole, had only been out of prision for three weeks when he killed her.

There was never any doubt about who killed her, the fiance admitted to it after the police arrested him, so the trial was never about guilt or innocence, but 2nd degree vs. 1st degree and life or death. The DA wanted to go for the death penalty, but the family was hoping the jury would give him life.

As my mother-in-law described it, having the guy spend 10 years in prision then being put to death just didn't seem like enough of a punishment, but the thought of the guy spending the next 60 years rotting in a jail cell seemed like a more fitting punishment.

lets face it, if you aren't afraid to die, getting the death penalty isn't really much of a punishment. And this guy was definately more afraid of prision than he was of death.

[KCDem]

123. I agree with you.

A lifetime of uncertainty (and occasional attacks :evilgrin: ) in prison is, to most people, a far worse fate than is death. We're all going to die at some point. Being killed by the state on a cushy bed with a needle is debatably far preferable than many other ways of dying.

[caledesi]

3. No.

In the 60s & 70s, I was against the death penalty, then I lost my mind in the 80s, and was for it. Now, I definitely oppose the death penalty and don't think I will change my mind.

Let's face it, people who do absoultely heinous things are sick people. Put them away for life. It's cheaper and I don't think anyone has the right to "kill someone."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=105661

[jiacinto]

5. I do in certain circumstances

And they are:

When someone kills a police officer or soldier;
When someone murders to the extent of the likes of Dahmer, Bundy, and Wuernos;
and when someone murders a child.

Those cases warrant the death penalty.

[bookman]

18. I'm perplexed

..but I think I, too, have a small category of crimes that may qualify. I am against it when prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.

But for example. I'm not upset about it in the case of the abortion doctor murderer. He killed, he admited it, he shows no remorse.

The Death Penalty does trouble me. I'm not a stanch defender of it. I think too many people are put to death because of it. But certain cases make me wonder.

I'm also open to persuasion against it, and have great respect for those who work for its ban.

Seem like I'm all over the place, but life is not just black and white.

[Liberalboy]

20. Makes sense to me too...

[arcos]

34. I totally agree...

My principles say I should be against it, but there are cases that make me wonder.

I think, for example, if someone murdered my family... I would certainly want the death penalty.

[King Bush II]

22. i disagree

so when someone kills a police officer or a soldier, people who are trained, and prepared to face death, it is somehow worse when someone kills an innocent bystander, like say an old lady? with all due respect, your arguement is very flawed.

[jiacinto]

24. Those individuals are to be respected and hold positions

of authority. Yes I do think that someone who kills a police officer or a soldier desevers the death penalty.

But in reality I think each case is unique and should be judged on its own merits. Depending on how the old lady was killed the death penalty may very well be appropriate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Killing police officers

Or judges etc. is the final straw. Those are the folks who uphold the law in our society. When they can be killed easily with no harsher result, law goes out the window.

[never cry wolf]

25. Don't forget

Illegal election stealers that LIHOP or maybe MIHOP and use that tragedy as an excuse to start two wars killing tens of thousands in order to line the pockets of the elite.

[CoffeePlease1947]

64. Don't you believe in equality for all? I guess not.

First off, people that you mentioned are not normal people. They were monsters created by an evil society. How these people could go so long without someone helping them or noticing that they were not normal is beyond me.

Second, saying that killing a person who is a cop deserves the death penalty but not a black old women on the street corner is discrimination. Everyone's life is important and to say that one deserves more punishment than the other is to say that one's life is more valuable than other. I cannot except that premise.

I happen to believe that murder is murder, regardless of who they are and what they were doing.

Mike

[jiacinto]

79. Response

You write:

"First off, people that you mentioned are not normal people. They were monsters created by an evil society. How these people could go so long without someone helping them or noticing that they were not normal is beyond me."

That doesn't excuse serial killers. Yes society is unfair and wrong but that doesn't give them the right to butcher and to kill innocent people. I don't see them as victims in the least.

[TahitiNut]

93. Fallacious argument. (No surprise.)

"Yes society is unfair and wrong but that doesn't give them the right to butcher and to kill innocent people."

I defy you to find a single instance where anyone, other than an authoritarian apologist for government power, argues that serial killers have "the right to butcher and to kill innocent people."

Instead, despite overwhelming evidence that innocent people are killed by our (so-called) justice system, death penalty apologists make that exact argument!

How any properly functioning brain could spout this strawman fallacy while simultaneously claiming the same 'right' on behalf of government is beyond me. It's neurotic to say the least, IMHO.

What is our government doing but claiming "the right to butcher and to kill innocent people"??? "Collateral damage"? Since when is a government power legitimate under American principles of governance without it being a power of the people themselves??? :puke:

[Forkboy]

117. I'll say it for Carlos

Why do you hate America?

:evilgrin:

[Arkady]

106. Murder is murder, but...

We assign all types of "plus" factors for murder. Most states have a list of "plus" factors that qualify a pre-meditated murder as a death-penalty crime. Type of victim is only one possible plus- there are pluses for murder for hire, torture murders, hate crimes etc.

Without these types of pluses, we'd be in a situation where we had a choice of either making all pre-meditated murders capital crimes or making none of them capital crimes. Too simplistic, IMHO.

[BlueJazz]

7. I have a big problem....

…with the Death Penalty. Other than the fact that I believe all life is sacred, I know in my heart (and mind) that the death penalty is carried out indiscriminately. Yeah, yeah, we all know that, but my reasons go deeper than the surface points.

When large organizations either set or put forth policies that endanger the welfare of the general populous, are they not guilty of a form of murder? When top executives (such as Enron) knowingly bilk the masses out of their life savings, thereby causing extreme stress, depression, hardship and all the other related mental and physical symptoms (which scientifically shorten life) aren’t they guilty of many “mini-murders”?
When (and if) these executives go to court do we hear the prosecutor or judge say “Mr. Lay, you caused the shortening (of life) of an average of 2.6 years for 17,654 citizens? I find you guilty of mass murder”? Of course not. When political leaders set forth policies that KNOWINGLY put the poor and disadvantage on the street and all the stress problems that follow, aren’t they (again) guilty of shortening the life of the victims? Are the shortening of these peoples lifes less worthy of punishment then the murder of one citizen? I believe not.

[Nikia]

119. I think managers should be accountable

I think that your example case might be hard to prosecute, but I think that when managers know about unsafe working conditions and refuse to have them fixed and knowingly put workers in danger and someone dies, they should be charged with manslaughter because their actions lead to the workers death.

[KaraokeKarlton]

8. It has it's place

But there are also a lot of problems in the legal system that I think need to be resolved so that capital punishment works in the way it's supposed to. I also think it's more humane to put someone to death than it is to lock them up like an animal the rest of their life. For crimes heinous enough where a person will never be free again, I think the death penalty should not only be a possible sentence, but an option for anyone who gets a life sentence and would rather die than serve life.

[CarlBallard]

10. I'm for it in extreme cases

I mean crimes against humanity and war crimes. Also the rule that expanded the Federal death penelty after Aldric Aims(sp?) was discovered (Although Ashcroft has been abusing it, and that sucks). These are the only times I think it would be a deterant. And even that I feel a little uncomfortable supporting. I used to be against it for everything but I think where it's a deterant the net sum is more lives saved.

[Liberalboy]

13. What about

Giving the prisoner the choice? Do you think some people would choose the death penalty over life in prison?

[CarlBallard]

21. I think some people would chose it

And I'm still against it. There was a kid up here in Washington a few years ago who wanted the state to kill him and they did (I don't remember all the details, but I protested it at the time. Back when I was against the DP for everybody. Man that was lonely. It was more sparce than the early pro-war protests). My feeling is that we shouldn't be in the killing people buisness unless it ultimately saves lives.

[onehandle]

11. No...

From a practical point of view, it does not deter crime and it's more expensive to get a prisoner to the death chamber than it is to keep them in jail for the rest of their life.

And it's wrong.

[Wonk]

12. To teach people that killing people is wrong we kill people

:crazy:

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Not even close

The death penalty is not for punishment, it is prevention. Murderers, as the priestly child molestor recently found out, have a nasty tendency to kill again. Even when they are in prison. Keeping such murdering scum alive puts many others at risk.

[Wonk]

38. Source? (other than Oz, I mean)

I remember reading in a sociology textbook (borrowed from a friend, years ago) that murderers actually tend to have one of the lower rates of recidivism among violent criminals.

If you want to play dueling sources show me yours first before I bother to google.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. It's buried in one of the infinite DP threads

nt

[Wonk]

133. Oh, ok then, that convinced me (NOT!) nt

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. I like the idea, but I have to say no

When I think of the crimes of the Bushes and other political and corporate leaders over my lifetime, sometimes I think the ultimate punishment would be the most just reward for their criminal acts. I have to say no, if only to make sure government and corporate officials never have that power to execute me, and because it's probably better to keep them alive and study them for clues anyway.

[King Bush II]

16. well

i would rather advocate capital punishment for government and corporate officials than i would for the average criminal. the actions of leaders (*cough* bush *cough*) can result in the spilling of the blood of thousands of people. in the grand scheme of things, those who abuse their great power are more deserving of death than your average killer.

[TahitiNut]

19. I don't agree with it.

Not at all. Except for corporations. (I really don't know what it means to "believe in" it.)

[Liberalboy]

23. I guess what I meant was...

do you believe in the policy of the death penalty in the American criminal justice system. But its more than that - do you believe in it yourself?

[King Bush II]

26. in that case

i believe in the policy, and in my experience it worked, but on the whole i do not believe in the death penalty. it is too much power to be weilded. no one should have the right to say who lives and who dies, and as such there is too much opportunity for it to be abused.

[gmaki]

37. government sanctioned killing = bad idea

Even if the death penalty "worked" for you, that is no reason to support it in general, since by supporting it you support it being used in similar cases in which you are not personally involved.

What assurance do you have that those cases are prosecuted as fairly as your own?

I am surprised so many here do support the death penalty, it seems a rather undemocrat view.

[Arkady]

107. Umdemocratic View

The death penalty does recieve pretty broad support from the American people, which would include, probably, a majority or plurality of Democrats. I'de be curious to see if anyone can find breakdowns by party lines regarding capital punishment.

[TahitiNut]

110. Not at all.

To the extent 'democratic' and 'liberal' are congruent, liberalism has never meant that the rights of minorities are fodder for the will of the majority. Liberalism is about defending the rights of all, particularly minorities since the majority is always the least susceptible to such losses.

FWIW, this is why I think "Liberal Democrat" isn't redundant and why I see many "Democrats" who seem anything but 'liberal'. At one time, and possibly to some extent even today, 'democrat' actually did seem to mean "mob rule" -- quite possibly as illiberal a manifestation of governance as any autocratic regime.

[TahitiNut]

33. Well, as a matter of "belief" ...

... I believe it is wrong to kill human beings for any reason. Sometimes that 'wrong' is a choice -- choosing the damage to one's 'soul' (kharma) instead of surrendering to death or disability. (Nobody ever told me life's choices would be easy.) It has been my experience that self-righteousness is a feeling that accompanies doing wrong - a form of moral insanity. Invariably.

From a political perspective, it's my opinion that granting our government the power to kill us and others is a really, really bad idea. From a bureaucracy that can't balance its books and lost track of a trillion dollars we get the death penalty? No, thank you.

[roughsatori]

27. I am against the death penalty in all circumstances

Every time we as a society opt for violence we teach our children that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems. I do not think it is an acceptable way to solve problems as one who approaches the world from a Buddhist/Christian perspective.

[JohnKleeb]

30. hey death penalty yet another reason to be for DK

This is a big issue for me, I saw the movie the green mile and I saw how horrible it is when an innocent dies, and I read about how Bush conducted exuctions in Texas. The US must join the rest of Western Civilization.

[roughsatori]

32. That is one of the many reasons why I support Kucinich NT

[JohnKleeb]

42. yes and seeing the green mile really influenced me

[Cheswick2.0]

78. John, I hope you don't change your mind

I vacilated over the death penalty until I was 42. I was never comfortable with it, but I kept having emotional reactions to certain murders. I would get all riled up over something because it was in the news, a particular rape and murder. Then I finally realized I had to make a decision about this not based on emotions stirred up by television.

I believe amoung other things, that we should not be taking someone's life when they may still have work to do here on earth. It is not for me to judge when someones life has no value and it is certainly not up to the state.

You have said you were influenced by The Green Mile. If you have not seen Dead Man Walking, I urge you to rent it and watch it.

[G_j]

28. no

never have, never will

[ButterflyBlood]

31. no n/t

[BayCityProgressive]

41. It is wrong

[Swede]

35. The state is commiting murder

All the debating in the world cannot change that fact.

[Liberalboy]

125. Very true

[Not a robought]

36. No

for the possibility that the state is killing the wrong person and to accept that an occasional innocent person gets put down as a necessary cost/benefit, makes for the cheapening of life.

[angee_is_mad]

39. I'm torn

First of all death penalty is not a determent , but an act of vengence. Look at Texas, having the death penalty isn't preventing felonies crimes from happening and they are killing people everyday. Let's call a spade a spade.
This is where I'm torn, if I had a 4yr old daughter who was brutally raped and killed I would want the MOTHERFU@#$ dead! But what if we found out years later that the man who was put to death was innocent and another man did it. You can't bring the dead back to life.
I'm for the death penalty, but I'm uncomfortable with it. Am I making sense?

[King Bush II]

40. yes

you make a lot of sense. it is easy to oppose the penalty until someone you know is killed. then again, there is always the doubt as to wether or not they were guilty. makes sense to me

[JohnKleeb]

48. King I understand what you went through

Also there's this unique example I want to bring up, have you heard of Earl Warren well he opposed the death penalty although his father was a murder victim. Earl Warren if we get DK as pres we can have another great court.

[angee_is_mad]

52. also the high # of minorities on death row

Is it easier to put a black man to death versus a white man? A crime is a crime no matter what the race of the perpetrator, unless it is a hate crime. And those usually get life sentences, remember Jasper, Texas?
That's another reason why I believe in the death penalty. What those young men did to that man was barbaric, and we definitely know who did it..

[zoidberg]

81. What about Jasper, Texas?

Two of the men are on death row now. John William King and Lawrence Russell Brewer are sitting on death row now. Shawn Berry claimed to just be a bystander and was sentenced to life. See (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/kingjohn.htm) and (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/brewerlawrence.htm). So what exactly is your point?

[angee_is_mad]

136. Why not Shawn

[Paschall]

45. Torn? That's the reason we have a criminal justice system

We guarantee an impartial jury of peers and impartial judge to determine punishment. If we left criminals' punishment in the hands of immediate victims or family members, we'd still be drawing and quartering the accused without any kind of trial.

A public trial should provide an avenue for closure for the victims, but what is on trial is the crime against the community. A victim's specific suffering, loss, or desire regarding the accused, must be weighed in view of the community's interest.

I don't believe capital punishment ever serves the community. Firmly opposed, always have been.

[Cheswick2.0]

80. I agree with you

I also do not beleive that the death penalty brings "closure" to the family in most cases. I think they long for it thinking a door will be closed, but a door will be closed either way when they don't have to dwell on the outcome anymore.
Besides when people argue about the feelings of the family what they are talking about is state sponsored blood revenge.

[not systems]

43. I am against it

I believe that if you lined up all people
executed by the state and judged them again with
full knowledge - the majority would be left living.

Face it people die because they are poor, uneducated,
or on the wrong side of some prosecutor's political
career.

I don't think it has a place in a civilized society.

I wish we lived in one.

[Arkady]

108. Justice System

"I believe that if you lined up all people
executed by the state and judged them again with
full knowledge - the majority would be left living."

I don't know if I can buy this argument- you're basically saying our criminal justice system is wrong most of the time. Why wouldn't that apply to every aspect of the criminal system? Do you think most people in jail are innocent?

[not systems]

131. What make life what makes death?

What I am saying is the difference between a person
sentenced to life and a person sentenced death is not
quantitative guilt and innocence.

I believe the difference between the living and
the dead is usually education, race, class, money and
the prevailing attitudes of the judges and juries.

I believe the "criminal system" is always distorted
by peoples access to good lawyers. The system is
weighted against the poor and uneducated.

Do you think most people in jail are innocent?

Probably not. Do I think that many are? Yes.

In death penalty cases history shows I am correct.
Look at the people freed from Illinois death row
after being proved innocent.

I can not accept the idea that the state should kill
innocent people - just to please peoples lust for
revenge.

[GreenArrow]

46. No

The sooner the human race grows out of the death penalty mind set, the better. It's a truly infantile morality.

[usregimechange]

47. Well

no

[Devlzown]

50. I don't think about it much.

I think that the exploding incarceration rate is a much more important issue. All these people locked up for years over petty drug crimes. Some of them die in jail, and a part of all of them dies in jail. I think that when you take a man's freedom, you take his life.

[oldleftguy]

51. I think Gandi said something like "If we were to take an eye for an eye...

...everyone would be blind". This also makes me think of the Mark Twain remark: This world is composed of the righteous and the self-righteous and only the self- righteous know the difference. I am against the death penalty under all circumstances.

Edit was for typo.

[Philosophy]

53. I'm against it, and prison too

Their all part of our barbaric vengeance-based criminal justice system. If people weren't taught hate, they wouldn't see any problem with rehabilitation for all criminals.

[TxRx]

56. "I'm against it, and prison too"

Posted by Philosophy:
"Their all part of our barbaric vengeance-based criminal justice system. If people weren't taught hate, they wouldn't see any problem with rehabilitation for all criminals."



DITTO Philosophy!!!

[Forkboy]

54. No in ALL circumstances

[kodi]

55. saw it, and cried.

the quaker, rabbi, and priest were right.

but that is the hardest path for a person to travel.

it was the point of the message of jesus and the show's ending confession.

[Solon]

57. I see the issue as a difference in world-views.

3 distinct world-views, mine would be this: No human is perfect and neither is any human system, so why take the chance of killing an innocent human being?

Second POV: Utopians, believing the system doesn't make mistakes. (unrealistic)

Third POV: "Acceptable risk" they perfer to roll the dice, if an innocent person dies in the process, too damn bad, because others did deserve to die (cold-hearted).

Personally I have no problem with the death penality, I had a cousin murdered, so did I want to kill the bastard. Yes of course, but then again, what if we were wrong? How would you live with the guilt that another person died in a murderer's place?

[Don_G]

58. Mixed Feelings

If forensic science can prove Ted Bundy did it and guarenteed he wouldn't escape the Penal System, then I'd be more than happy to let him be studied in jail for the rest of his life.

Unfortunately, he was smarter than the penal system and escaped to murder again....

[Festivito]

59. Yes, for non-incarcerables only.

So that is mostly no. Only if a killer escapes. Even then, it should be limited to a maximum of two a year in the whole country.

Our judicial system is overly flawed and worse, it doesn't care enough to make the needed changes.

[TreasonousBastard]

60. Absolutely not...

and under no circumstances.

We do not have the right to kill. There may be times when killing can be argued as justified, as in self-defense, or even mercy killings, but we do not have the right to decide for ourselves who is deserving of death.

The state is an extension of ourselves. We cede certain things, like the common defense and criminal prosecution, to the state, but the state cannot exceed what we ourselves have no right to do.

The state cannot decide that a class of criminals, whatever the crime, deserves death any more than we can individually.

Aside from that, and some religious convictions that I prefer not to mention here, the death penalty is practiced indiscriminately and does not accomplish any purpose. It also is rife with error, and is far too expensive.

It does not deter serious crime, as most criminals don't expect to be caught. Around half of capital crimes aren't closed anyway, and of those that are, many are plead out to lesser sentences. Remember OJ? Regardless of his guilt or innocence, the DA made a conscious decision not to make a capital case since it would be too difficult to get a conviction. If it were any black man but OJ, they would have gone for death in a heartbeat. And probably won. Many capital cases have been won on less evidence than they had on OJ, thanks to cheap court-appointed defense "counsel."

Capital trials are expensive. Several million for most, and some juridictions are foregoing capital indictments simply because they can't afford it.

Errors at trial are immense. Errors at all trials are immense, but at capital trials they are obviously more serious. Ryan in Illinois called a moratorium on executions until they could find out why over half the people on death row were wrongfully convicted.

Note that it was NOT the system or the appeals that discovered the trial errors, but journalism students doing a class project!

There is something very seriously flawed with our justice system, and having this flawed system kill people is very simply wrong.

[slackmaster]

62. I believe in it but oppose it in all cases

Totally, 100% against it.

[Gore1FL]

63. The Death Penalty is pointless IMO

It costs more than lifelong imprisonment.
It is irreversable.
It solves nothing.

[Kamika]

65. Yeah i do

*please mods i am not a conservative this is just a personal opinion*


I really believe in the death penalty because it gives somekind of satisfaction or "justice" if you want for the victims family.

I know and i know this goes for ALOT of you guys who says youre against it.
If youre mother or child would get murdered you would want the guy who killed her dead.

[Cheswick2.0]

76. sure I would want that person dead

and I would want to kill him myself. But I am still against the death penalty.

[MrPrax]

66. Since I Don't Watch TV

and the State is infallable and OF COURSE the State has no business in murder...

Funny how this is a debate

'cept of course among Malthusians


peace hath her victories
No less renowned than war; new foes arise,
Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains:
Help us to save free conscience from the paw
Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw.

John Milton

[TheRedMan]

67. No. To what end do we execute people?

To please the victims? You don't want to do to the man who raped my sister what would satisfy me. It's silly to let the victim dictate the punishment, because these are going to be the most vindictive people out there.

To save money? 1. This is obscenely cold. It's expensive to keep a prisoner, so you KILL HIM? 2. It costs so much more to have a capital trial than to carry out a life sentence.

To punish the criminal? Not really being punished if he is dead now, anyway, right? Besides, it is called the Department of CORRECTIONS for a reason. We are kind of obssessed with making prisoner's lives a living hell, because we want to punish them. There's a reason you stop spanking kids when they reach a certain age, and that's because simply raising the discomfort only engenders hate back at you.

To deter other criminals? Criminals commit crimes thinking they won't be caught, not thinking the punshiment will be light. There is virtually no evidence the death penalty deters crime.

So, should we take a VERY morally ambiguous step by executing people if we cannot demonstrate a useful purpose in it? I think not.

[Lexingtonian]

68. My problem with the death penalty

is not about whether I believe in it, it's that it doesn't believe in me....

:D


Slightly more seriously, I think the DP is appropriate in some very exceptional cases. I don't know whether there was anything else to be done with Adolf Eichmann- it was at some level impossible for him and the civilized world to coexist with each other once he was found.

But to execute all these common, garden variety, killers so casually and in form of a ritual sacrifice is just an abdication of civilization.

I recommend the book "Why They Kill" by Charles Rhodes.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

69. why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong

????:shrug:
and my answer is NO! NO! NO!

[Kamika]

72. we dont

We kill people as a punishment its not to show them anything.


If you kill someone or do something as bad, you shouldnt be showed something or stuff like that, he should get killed as punishment and as justice

**to mods** im not conservative its just my own personal belief. Gore was pro death penalty too and it was pretty much the same reasons.. as justice to the family

[Cheswick2.0]

82. I don't care that Gore was/is pro death penalty

what difference does that make? There is no bigger fan of Gore on this board than I. However, on this I disagree with him.

You kind of sound like the guy on c-span just now, screaming (I am not suggesting that you are screaming) that democrats shouldn't be calling in talking about how the war was wrong because Gephardt and Lieberman voted for it.... hello? :shrug:

[Kamika]

83. that wasnt to you

That was to the mods so they dont think im a conservative and ban me just ignore everything after the **to mods** thingy

[TahitiNut]

89. People are NOT banned for being "conservative".

People are banned for disruption and overtly anti-democratic (illiberal) propagandizing. (It's about what they do, not who they are.)

A pro-death-penalty stance is, like it or not, a "conservative" position. A person's position on a single issue doesn't define the entire spectrum of their political ideology, however. You'd be hard-pressed to find any generally conservative stance on an issue without proponents on DU. Go figure. :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

88. "kill people as a punishment"??

What premeditated murderer didn't think so? It's called "motive" and it's part of committing a crime. :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. Not punishment

It deters crime. No executed criminal kills again.

[TahitiNut]

95. Murderer's "logic".

That's the same "logic" employed by most murderer's throughout history.

[Muddleoftheroad]

101. However, I'm not a murderer

Nor do I play one on TV. I am a realist. If you let murderers live and give them life in prison or life with no parole, why should they behave? Don't you think they will continue their chosen profession? Don't you think they will remain an ongoing threat to other prisoners, staff, guards and visitors? Don't you fear they will escape and kill again?

[wuushew]

104. False argument

The death penalty has never been shown to statistically "deter" crime.

And there is no need to "prevent" future murders thanks to the invention of LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBLITY OF PAROLE sentencing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. Fantasy

Ask Father Geoghan if that guarantees they won't kill again. Murderers kill, it's what they do. As long as they are alive, they remain a threat to everyone inside and outside the prison.

[wuushew]

122. George Bush is a warmonger

had someone preemptively assassinated him 6,000+ Iraqis would still be alive. Would that be justified?

There is a better way of living, a more European way. The death penalty is not an appropriate method of justice.

[uptohere]

116. who can know the future ?

if prisons get too full or costly, they can just pass a law saying that all those 'without the possibility of parole' are now within the possibility of parole.

If they're no longer among the living, the punishment is guaranteed.

[uptohere]

114. it happens to to that as well

two birds with one stone as it were

[Braden]

70. no

and there are clear cut cases where you have definitive proof of who committed the crime but I still won't stoop to it in blood lust.

[Cheswick2.0]

71. NO, and it is not like abortion

What person's body is the condemned person living in?

IMO, the death penalty is wrong even if we never kill an innocent person. IMO the death penalty is wrong even if the person is a monster. IMO the death penalty is just wrong because we are killing someone who may still have value to someone in the world. Imagine being the mother or father of a condemned person.

It is just grotesque

[RobinA]

73. Under No Circumstances

do I believe in the death penalty. The state should not be killing people. If someone kills my loved one do I want him dead? You betcha. But policy should not be made based on the emotionalism of of victims. That's for primitive, superstitious societies. The state should not be in the revenge business.

[uptohere]

74. without question

n/t

[goddess40]

75. I used to believe in it, until I worked in the prison system

Life means life is a much higher punishment and it is cheaper too. The chance that an innocent person dieing isn't worth the risk.
Has anyone read - Don't Kill in Our Names: Families of Murder Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty by Rachel King

[Cheswick2.0]

77. I have not read that

I will look for that book.

[DealsGapRider]

84. It's never permissible.

It's barbaric and should be outlawed once and for all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. It's very effective

for its intended purpose. No one who has been executed has ever killed again. People who get life or life without parole on the other hand...

[DealsGapRider]

99. Allowing felons serving life sentences...

...to kill again is a failure of the system, not an argument FOR the death penalty. If we really really tried hard to keep lifers from killing again, we could easily do it. It's called solitary confinement for life and it works.

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. Solitary

So, solitary eh?

No contact with humans at all? What about exercise? Most in solitary still are allowed out to exercise sometimes. What about medical care? Would you deny them care? What about guards? Surely, they will have some periodic contact with guards.

[DealsGapRider]

103. Yes, solitary.

I think there are ways to guarantee that inmates can't harm other people. See Hannibal in Silence of the Lambs with the straight jacket. If you don't agree and want to kill people to prevent them from ever killing again, aren't you basically saying that we're so inept at keeping people safe in prison that we need to kill people to make up for our own incompetence? Sorry, that's not a moral position.

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. Not inept, just realistic

Life is not a movie, it's much more difficult. Prisons are horrible places filled with horrible people. Put someone in solitary and you give them 24-7-365 a reason to want to get back at someone -- anyone. You let their mind work on ways to do so, any way imaginable. Sooner or later, someone will slip, a guard will be foolish, a doctor daring, something. You can't guarantee that this won't happen. In fact, I can guarantee it does.

Spend some time around prison some time -- not Oz or some Cagney or Bogart movie, but REAL prison. Sure, there are some innocent people there, but by and large they are people who are criminals. If they got convicted once, the odds are they committed many more crimes.

And they don't stop once they get in prison. They rape, they rob, they murder. They manufacture weapons out of anything and everything -- toothbrushes, hairbrushes, pieces of plastic. It doesn't matter how you create a prison, they spend ALL of their time there watching, waiting, looking for any opening, any flaw.

The only way to stop the worst of them from harming others is the death penalty.

[Forkboy]

137. Seeing you two go at it

warms the heart.

[shanti]

85. i haven't for quite some time now

it disproportionally affects minorities, it's racist and inhumane....so NO.

[noonwitch]

87. I don't support it, but I understand why so many people do support it.

I think it's wrong for a lot of reasons, and am grateful that I live in one of the few states that doesn't have it (Michigan).
I do think that the "revenge as justice" is a way of thinking that needs to end in this country, because it only feeds the cycle of violence.

[chefgirl]

90. I do NOT believe in the death penalty

I also do NOT believe in abortion. The difference is, I also believe no one has the right to tell a woman what her moral choice should be, even if my own morality tells me that ALL life is sacred. Therefore, I am strongly pro-choice.
We do have the right to expect better from our legal system than 'state sponsored killing', however.
If someone killed my son, of course I would certainly WANT to see that person killed, but the better angels of my nature would dictate that my son died in vain if I can't stand by my principles even when its the most difficult thing to do, which is what Ive tried to teach him to do in his own life.
I agree with the previous poster who said that its wrong to try and teach people not to kill by killing those who kill.

Consider the case of Paul Hill who is scheduled to be executed today for the murder of an abortion doctor.
A woman has an abortion, which Mr. Hill sees as murder, so he goes and murders the murderer, and the state, in turn murders the murderer of the murderer. Kind of fits that famous definition of insanity if you ask me.

Further, I think that the goal of prevention could just as easily be achieved by locking up murderers and throwing away the key. Give them a small cell to live in for the rest of their days without TV, radio, books, pictures, visitors or any of the small pleasures of life. To my mind, THAT is punishment as well as prevention.

-chef-

[BuddhaGirl]

91. Absolutely not

it's utterly barbaric and deserves no place in America!

[MadHound]

94. No, I oppose it, and always have

And this opposition was severly tested about twenty years ago. My sister was brutally raped and killed. Vengance, hell yes I wanted vengance! I wanted to strangle the mofo with my own hands. But when push came to shove, I was satisfied he got life.

There are a number of reasons I'm against it, including the fact that our justice system is not infallible, the big D is dealt out fairly arbitrarily(though it is given to more blacks than whites), it is cheaper to have life in prison, it doesn't act as a detterant, it cheapens and rots our society to have the state putting people down, and finally the notion that all life is precious.

The death penalty is nothing but state sanctioned vengance, and while the notion of that might provide comfort and closure to the victim's families might be appealing, in reality all the death penalty does is expose our society for the barbarians that we really are.

[SCantiGOP]

96. 3 small defects in the death penalty

It is racist, arbitrary and ineffective. There is no way to remove these characteristics from the death penalty. It brutalizes society, and it is illogical on the face of it to say that we kill people to show that its wrong to kill people. Opposition to the death penalty is the closest I come to being a single issue voter.

[ulysses]

118. well said

:thumbsup:

[IrateCitizen]

97. Under no circumstances

I think that a line from "The Fellowship of The Ring" sums it up perfectly:

Certainly there are those who live who deserve death. There are also those who die who deserve life. Can you give it to them? Don't be so quick to deal out death and judgement.

Death is something you can't come back from. Given the propensity of our criminal justice system to make mistakes, we should not have a death penalty based alone on the grounds that mistakes have (and will) be made. I oppose it based on the simple moral belief that I do not believe that any state should be entrusted with the ability to dole out death, because doing so in a premediated manner is nothing less than state-sanctioned murder.

[ulysses]

124. good point

I oppose it based on the simple moral belief that I do not believe that any state should be entrusted with the ability to dole out death, because doing so in a premediated manner is nothing less than state-sanctioned murder.

Ever asked a conservative why they hate to trust the government with their money, but have no problem letting the government kill people?

Good to see you around, Chris!

[Zolok]

98. I wouldn't say I support it...

I'm reconciled to it...but on the other hand I've never specifically voted against a candidate because they oppose the death penalty.
There are just certain persons whom I can live without in this world (Manson...Sirhan Sirhan etc)...
That having been said I'm under no illusions as to the death penalty's deterrent effect....that line of argument is nonsense IMHO.


WWW.CHIMESATMIDNIGHT.BLOGSPOT.COM

[arwalden]

100. I Do Not Support It. Mistakes Can Be Made... And Besides...

... death is ESCAPE from punishment.

Once he's dead (guitly or not) the punishment is over. Ended. Finished.

He's dead. He doesn't care if he's dead because he's dead.

You're not punishing him anymore.

Death is death and that's all it is. It's not an "infinite eternal punishment" as some would have you believe.

-- Allen

[Zolok]

109. "Death is the escape from punishment"

good point...but there are still some people in this world who need to become dust in the wind soonest IMHO.
I doubt their deaths will deter further horrors, it's a big happyland outt here for monsters and brutes...but as a vow of safety to those left alive the death penalty works for me.
Hey I saw some footage of mass murderer Richard Speck in prison...he's so totally the buxom, "wife" of some thug it's not funny.
So there is punishment in this world I will admit.

[Arkady]

105. West Wing

Was it the episode where the Pres. asks his assistant (can't remember the name) whether he would have wanted to see the man who killed his mom (a cop) executed, he replied by saying "No.. I would have wanted to kill him myself."

Tough subject, and it doesn't always break down along political lines. I know conservatives who are consistenly pro-life: anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. A writer for the Village Voice feels the same way. I know liberals who are pro-death penalty too. I Guess with the majority of Americans backing the death penalty in some form, probably a goodly number of liberals do, too.

I guess, my feeling is that if somebody gets a fair trial, with adequate representation of counsel and they are genuinely guilty of the crime they're charged with, the death penalty is acceptable.

[ErasureAcer]

113. non

je ne crois pas en le 'death penalty'

[StandWatie]

115. Our Justice System sucks..

it doesn't suck for the usual reasons the miltaristic statists say in that it's doesn't stand up for "victims rights".

It sucks because it's predicated on performance by the DA. The DA leans on the police heavily to solve crimes. The police hand over anyone with a record who might have been in the area and then work to make a case that the person they picked was the culprit. The DA then asks a crew of people who work for him to find evidence that the person did it. If you lack money to hire your own "expert" you are going down if you did it or not because no one in this whole chain of command has any incentive whatsoever to actually investigate. The incentive is to not rock the boat, find what you can, manufacture evidence if you have to, ignore things that may implicate someone else.

Given this system, meting out punishment at all is problematic and using it to justify murder is outrageous barbarism.

[TahitiNut]

127. An 'adversarial system' can only be fair ...

... when the adversaries are equally equipped. When the enormously wealthy walk even though guilty and the poor are imprisoned even though innocent -- what more proof do we need that the 'system' is, if not broken, seriously imbalanced and hardly a 'justice' system.

[Nikia]

120. No

Who is anyone to decide who lives and dies. I once saw a pro death penalty supporter that people's criticisms of the death penalty are unfair. He argued that the death penalty must be arbitrary in order to ensure that innocent people are not executed so there is no problem with the death pentalty being arbitrary and innocent people aren't being executed because of it. I am against the death for both of those reasons. It is not right that any innocent person should be executed and I think it is unfair to execute people who confess in order to help police find the body or explain what happened to the victim since it does help the victim's family come to closure faster. I also think that it is unfair to execute one killer and not another because I do not think that it is up to any person to decide who should live and die. Isn't that what we are condemning the killer of?

[indigo32]

121. NO

eom

[FlashHarry]

126. No. Not in any case. Ever. Period. End-of-story.

Have I made myself clear?

[shamgar50]

128. No

It's not really a deterrent. Life in prison with true solitary confinement would be much better. I'm talking a 6X6X6 soundproofed padded cube, no lights, no nothing. Not even a bed. Liquid gruel sprayed on the floor once a day as the only food source. No human contact ever. No toilet or toilet paper. No clothing. Monitored 24 hours a day with infrared cameras. This would be a deterrent. It's what they should have done to paul hill.:evilgrin:

[roguevalley]

129. no

murder of any kind, state sponsored or private action, is
murder. We rate with Iran and a couple of other third world
fascist regimes for the death penalty.

[Wapsie B]

130. Yes of course.

But only for White-Collar criminals. Ken Lay goes first.

[shamgar50]

132. Sure

I could accept that.:evilgrin:

[Iverson]

134. no: it's uncivilized

I cannot reconcile my ideas of civilization with state executions.

Further, if a person is wrongfully executed, that mistake cannot be undone. We know that this happens regularly, and even mainstream governors are catching on and, in some cases, declaring a moratorium on it.

Criminal penalties are supposed to have the intent to correct, not to punish. The death penalty is simply to punish.

[amazona]

135. no, i don't believe in it

In a practical sense, it impedes us in our ability to capture, extradite, and try suspected murderers because so many nations, including Mexico, are not allowed to extradite suspects who might face the death penalty.

It is also obviously used to sweep bad convictions under the rug. We have learned in the past 20 years through DNA studies that most eyewitnesses are incapable of remembering or recognizing faces of strangers under stress and that a great many innocent people end up being convicted of serious crimes. These innocents have no hope of any chance at freedom if they are killed.

It also gives the worst criminals extra incentive to kill their victims. In Louisiana, a child rapist was just sentenced to death. This will result in more children being killed, so at not to leave any witnesses alive. A death penalty for rapists is often a death penalty for his innocent victims.

Quick execution can even help protect the accessories to terrible crime. Many people, including Gore Vidal, believe that Timothy McVeigh went to his death protecting his accessories. The chance of his having a change of heart and seeing God and confessing to a more accurate account of his terrorist activities is now forever gone.

That said, I have better things to do with my time than protest the execution of such trash as McVeigh or the doctor killer executed today...it is good that someone protests and that someone keeps this issue alive but I just don't have the spirit for it.