Anybody Got A Centrist Position On The Death Penalty ???

[WillyT]

I'm anti-death penalty, but I'm just wondering if it can be done.

What exactly is the middle-ground between dead, and not dead?

:shrug::evilgrin::shrug:

[Bluebear]

1. Robert Novak.

[wtmusic]

2. Me

Only for certain crimes.

[KarenInMA]

3. The Death Penatly should be used

in the case of rapists, terrorists and first degree murder, when there is DNA evidence and no possibility of error.

If there is even a smidgen of doubt, but not reasonable doubt, life in jail.

My centerist view.

[noamnety]

6. There is NEVER no possibility of error

Because the DNA testers are human. Samples can be swapped, reports can be falsified.

[KarenInMA]

7. And there is no proof that unicorns don't exist.

That doesn't mean I'm gonna go look for one.

[mvd]

10. That's true

I am firmly against the death penalty. I don't feel like we should be the judge of what is "extreme circumstances." By having no death penalty, we will know that an innocent won't be put to death.

[noamnety]

4. We've already found the middle ground on that.

permanent vegetative state with a feeding tube.

[WillyT]

20. Thought Of That One Too...

:spank: LOL!!!

[iamjoy]

5. Reluctantly Support

And only in the most extreme circumstances.
Not necessarily determined by the crime, but by is this person so dangerous, that even in prison he/she will be a greater than normal threat.

[nookiemonster]

8. I endorse only with definitive DNA evidence.

That's only because I feel that prison is too good for some of these monsters. Hell, they get 3 hots and a cot. Many honest people wish they were as lucky.

[noamnety]

15. It's never definitive

A system run by humans can't eliminate human error.

Thursday, November 18, 2004 - Los Angeles County officials scrambled Thursday to review at least 27 -- and possibly dozens -- of pending criminal cases to determine whether critical evidence was tainted or falsified during analysis by the nation's largest private DNA lab.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/false-DNA.htm

Jacqueline Blake, a former biologist who worked in an FBI laboratory, pleaded guilty to falsifying DNA results during a three-year period from 1999 to 2002, when she quit her job during the FBI probe. Blake admitted to submitting more than 100 reports that contained false analysis information.

http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=156&show=article&a_id=1795

In West Virginia, a serologist falsified test results in hundreds of cases over a ten-year period, sentencing hundreds of defendants to lengthy prison terms. In Texas, a pathologist faked autopsy results, resulting in as many as 20 death penalty verdicts. A police chemist elsewhere falsified reports and sent hundreds of innocent people away to jail on rape charges. Most misuse of scientific evidence is pro-prosecution.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/425/lecture02.htm

In the end, the jury believed that the police wanted to convict Simpson, and falsified and planted his DNA at the crime scene.

http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/dna.htm

Florida is grappling with a state crime lab worker in Orlando who falsified DNA data.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/11/tech/main543575.shtml

[nookiemonster]

21. Point taken and well documented, but we need to do something!

Prison needs to be prison. Four freakin' walls and totally solitary. Every day to be reminded of why they're there.

Call me cold. That's just me.

[napi21]

9. I guess I do. I'm against the death penalty, mostly because

I believe it's a worse penalty for someone to sit in prison for 25 to 50 years than to just die and get it over with.

I have to admit though, if someone brutally killed my hisband, or one of my boys, I'd want to kill them myself! Is that vindictive? You bet your ass it is! But that's how I would feel.

I wasn't sad when Jeffry Dahmer was killed in prison. The AH deserved it, and I'm glad he got what he deserved.

In general, I disagree with the death penalty because I don't believe we as himans have the right to take someone's life.

[WillyT]

18. But That's Where I Have My Problem...

There are plenty of people who DESERVE to die because of crimes they've committed, but letting THE STATE kill them is another matter entirely.

If someone killed one of my family members, I'd wanna kill 'em myself, or at least have the state do it. But see, I don't get that kind of power. I also wouldn't be allowed to sit on the jury, handle any of the evidence, round up a posse, or sit as judge.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, is to protect ALL OF US... FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT! The guilty get protections be default, precisely because we want to ensure the protection of the innocent. So when somebody gets set free because of a 'technicality', it's because we hold the government to a higher standard of proof when taking away one's freedom (or life) is concerned. It's so the cop that doesn't like your bumper sticker, can't slip a baggy of heroin in the back seat of your car while writing you up for a ticket. And then bust you for drug dealing.

And we've all seen stories of planted evidence, sloppy police work, over zealous prosecutors, and sleeping defense attorneys. I don't think we as a society are mature enough to handle the death penalty.

Life without parole in maximum security is about the best we can do.

:shrug:

[Booster]

28. I'm basically the same as you. I'm against the death penalty

except in certain cases, but if I was the one who had to inject anyone then they would go to prison for the rest of their life. If I had to kill an animal for dinner, I would be a vegetarian the same day. But then I look at people like the guy who killed little Samantha Runion and I want him dead today; in his case, I think I could even inject him, but I would give that honor to Samantha's mother because she deserves it.

[movonne]

11. I'm against the death penalty because it is unfair...if you have lots

of money and can afford all kinds of lawyers and investigators you probably would never get the death penally (remember O.J.) or even prison, but the poor get screwed...

[WillyT]

22. Another Good Reason !!! - Can't Be Applied Equally !!!

Or is that... equitably?

:shrug:

[noamnety]

12. Seriously, this is my centrist position

Recognizing that:

1) The death penalty costs more to have than to not have, when you include the extended court cases not only of those who are convicted and executed, but also those who have trials and appeals and are NOT executed as a result, and we can't afford to pull funding from those who need it most for luxury of exacting revenge against those who deserve our tax dollars least,

2) Areas where the death penalty is in effect see an INCREASE in violent crime rather than a decrease - because the mentality that accompanies the death penalty (an eye for an eye) results in a more violent vengeful society, and

3) There is ALWAYS a chance of executing an innocent man, because the system is made up of humans, and you can never eliminate human error

my compromise is that people in prison for life without parole be offered THE CHANCE to be executed. Never against their will, but if they declare they don't want to spend their life behind bars and would rather die, then give them a mandatory waiting period to change their mind, and after that offer them the Dr. Kevorkian special.

This addresses the first issue I noted because rather than increasing the tax burden to fund the death penalty, this would decrease the tax burden, because a portion of prisoners would opt out of a lifetime of tax-payer supported care.

It addresses the second issue by replacing the bloodthirsty mentality that increases crime with a pro-choice humane option.

It addresses the third issue by making it the prisoner's choice, not the court's choice to execute a person. So there is no issue of a third party wrongly sending a man to his death.

[tblue37]

13. I think I do.

I am generally against the death penalty, but some crimes are so heinous and the perpetrator so obvious that I would not be bothered by the death penalty.

One that comes to mind is the BTK killer right here in Kansas. He is loving the publicity, absolutely wallowing in it. Of course, he would not have confessed so readily if he had been able to be subjected to the death penalty, but I would not mind if he were executed for what he did.

[noamnety]

16. What if the cost of his execution

was having to forfeit food stamps for the poor?

That's the sort of program that is robbed to pay for death penalty trials. It's not an option with no consequences. The consequences are that you cut services for the poor to pay for the lengthier trials and appeals.

Could you really look at a child that was going hungry and tell them they should do without meals because the BTK killer was more deserving of public funding?

[tblue37]

25. Well, I happen to believe we could afford both,

if so much of our national wealth were not bled out in imperial adventures and war profiteering, tax cuts and subsidies for the obscenely wealthy, obscene profits for corporations who then move jobs elsewhere, outrageous compensation for CEOs who run companies into the ground and throw thousands out of work (and even cheat them of their pensions).

The money that would go to such a capital case would not go to food stamps for a hungry child if the case were not a capital case. It would go instead to pay for makeup for politicians so they could look better on TV, or government produced propaganda masquerading as news, or into the pockets of some buraucrat or his mistress on the public payroll.

If we want to feed hungry children, if that is a priority in this country, we have the wherewithal to do so. Since it obviously isn't a priority, there is no reason to assume that not spending the money on capital cases would necessarily mean the money thus freed up would go to feed hungry children--or to any other worthy social cause.

[noamnety]

26. I'm not talking hypotheticals

I'm telling you this is what actually happens.

The cost analysis shows that it's more expensive to have the death penalty than not to have it, even when you figure in the cost of supporting those on death row for life at tax payer expense.

Not a hypothetical "well if we quit the war, if the dems were in power, if corporations didn't ship jobs overseas".

Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to an approximate cost of $24 million for each execution. This finding takes into account the relatively few inmates who are actually executed, as well as the time and effort expended on capital defendants who are tried but convicted of a lesser murder charge, and those whose deathe sentences are overturned on appeal. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000)

California spends $90 Million dollars annually above and beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system on capital cases.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7


$24 MILLION for EACH EXECUTION in Florida. No criminal is worth that amount of money. They aren't paying for it by reducing tax cuts for the rich. They are paying for it by cutting services.

[NorCalDem]

14. I would say that...

someone of Hitler's caliber would be put to death. First degree murder equals life in prison.

The death penalty is too harsh to be applied to all but a handful of history's crimes in my opinion. Even in those cases, I would push for life imprisonment, but would find it hard to argue against those arguing in favor of death.

[BrotherBuzz]

17. The middle ground might be total ambivalence...

Way back in the stone age I had a totally ambivalent attitude, I simply didn't care. I didn't even think about it as an issue because it was not any concern of mine. Back then, it was "let's talk about important stuff, like girls!"

[NativeTexan]

19. Being from Texas

At one time I was staunchly pro-death penalty. That was, of course, before Governor George W. Bush turned it into a spectators sport.

The legislature DID this past session, pass a bill to allow the option of life without parole. We didn't have this before, and the idea, to some juries, of the possiblity of letting a murder out on the streets in 25 years was all they needed to vote for death.

If the governor signs the bill, and maybe he has already, they will now have a choice.

http://truthfromtheamericanmiddle.blogspot.com/

[Jersey Ginny]

23. An NJ psychologist has studied effects on the executioner

He says that there have been executioners in NY state who committed suicide. He thought that there was a relationship between their work and the suicide. It got me thinking about an issue that I had never considered. I now am leaning more toward no exceptions for all convicted murders; they all get life or life without parole. I admit that some people are executed and I didn't feel badly about it, like McVeigh.

[mandyky]

24. Even Howard Dean had a "centrist stance" about the death penalty

Cop killers, child killers and kidnappers and terrorists get death - that still have all the appeals available. Life sentences should be life. I am anti-death penalty, too, but if someone is caught red-handed with the above offenses I can deal with it.

What we need to talk about is prison reform and making sure the juvenille justice system is not destroyed.

[Bucky]

27. I kind of do.

I used to be pro-Death Penalty. Philosophically I still feel there are crimes so horrendous that execution is the appropriate punishment. The problem is that in real world application, the death penalty is used against minorities disproportionately. That implicitly violates the 14th amendment demand for equal protection under the law. If we killed more white people, I'd go back to supporting it, frankly.

There's also the inconvenient fact that close to 100 men have been kicked off of death row when it turned out that their convictions were falacious. Most of these wrongfully convicted people were minorities. We will never know how many innocent men and women were put to death on false charges. Under such circumstances, no ethical person can endorse the death penalty except in cases where the accused confesses to the crime and stands by that confession thru the period of detention.

The case of bin Laden would be an interesting test of how I feel about death sentences. I'd sure like to see that bastard hang. Fortunately, Mr Bush seems intent on sparing me from ever considering this particular case.

[dbt]

29. It's quite obviously not any sort of deterrent.

It does no good. So why do we keep it?

[ryan_cats]

30. I have to say it

I have to say it, there are criminals I believe society would be better of if they were dead.

The only thing and it's a minor thing, what if you execute the wrong person? What do you do, oh well, words were said, tempers flared but we've gotten over it, let's move on.

Don't trust the gov to make that decision even though I'd love to drop the pill on the guy that killed Polly Klaus.

[Pushed To The Left]

31. Life without parole

I have gone back and forth on the death penalty in the last few years. The best argument against capital punishment is the possibility of a wrongly-convicted person getting executed. However, if you replace the death penalty with life without parole, that person is pretty much dead to the outside world, but can be released if a mistake has been made.