A question for death penalty opponents.

[Silverhair]

You often make the argument that life in prison is a better alternative.

Are you willing for "life" to absolutely, no ifs, ands, or buts, positively mean L I F E as in - stay in jail until you rot, even if you live to be a 110 ?

Even Hess, one of Hitler's inner circle who was given life had people who were saying that he had suffered enough as he got older. So if people will cry over a real genuine Nazi's being in prison, they will cry over a common murderer being in prison.

Are you willing for life to really mean it? (Unless new evidence shows innocence, of course.)

[wuushew]

1. Such sentences already exist

Life Without the Possibility of Parole is more than a hypothetical idea.

[Silverhair]

2. But don't the convicts often get that lowered after serving some time,

and them finally manage to get out?

[wuushew]

9. I think CBS news ran a segment on elderly prisoners recently

those serving life sentences in California were eventually moved to low security and nursing home environments. No matter how old you get I don't think determination of criminal guilt is ever erased by the infirmities of age.

Do you believe the legal system's primary goal is punishment or isolation?

[TahitiNut]

12. Yes ... when they're proven to be innocent.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

47. No, not if it's life without parole.

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. Civilized countries don't murder citizens as punishment for murder

It's not a "which is more humane" question.

Who are these people who were feeling sorry for the old nazi, anyway? The Klan?

[Silverhair]

16. I don't remember who specifically was crying about Hess.

It has been some years ago and I don't feel like Googling so I am going from memory. I remember a magazine article about him. The four governments, (England, France, USA, USSR) that ran the prison had been petition repeatedly for his release. Only the Russians held firm and kept him in. The other three were readly to let him go because of old age.

I agree with the Russians. He stayed in until he died.

[wuushew]

20. What crimes did Hess deserve a life sentence for?

From this site it appears his position in the Nazi party was largely a ceremonial one. He was no Ribbentrop or Himmler. The Russians stubborness is just a reflexive hatred of all things Nazi and Cold War politicking.



http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/apr-hess-cal.htm

[Silverhair]

45. He was found guilty of helping start an unjust war.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhess.htm

"He was found guilty of actively supporting preparations for war and in participating in the aggression against Czechoslovakia and Poland."


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/meetthedefendants.html

"Jackson called Hess "the engineer tending to the Party machinery." He maintained the organization as a ready and loyal instrument of power. He signed decrees persecuting Jews and was a willing participant in aggression against Austria, Czechoslavakia, and Poland."

[Yupster]

61. Get your tinfoil ready

There were many conspiracy theories around Hess.

He fled Hitler's Germany before the invasion of Russia.

The conspiracy was that he went to England to talk to Hitler's friends in the English government to get them to join Hitler's crusade against the communists. The reason he was kept in prison was to keep his mouth shut.

There was also the conspiracy that he was murdered in Spandau, and also one that it was not even Hess in Spandau, but a simpleton who agreed to take Hess's rap to protect the English government while Hess was secretly killed or freed.

If anyone remembered there was even a 60 Minutes and some special type shows in the 70's on whether the guy in Spandau was the real Rudolph Hess.

[Mairead]

78. Many people were convicted at Nürnberg who shouldn't have been

While some who should have been, weren't. So pointing to Hess's Nürnberg conviction as evidence of actual guilt is as dopey as pointing to convictions based on Philly police claims.

[tularetom]

4. See that's the problem

Your last sentence nails it. I'm not necessarily a death penalty opponent - call me an agnostic. However it troubles me that people are being put to death who may not be guilty because of inadequate legal representation, lack of funding etc.

Once you've executed 'em all the new evidence in the world isn't gonna make it right and this is why in most cases I'd be perfectly willing to accept life that really means life.

[Silverhair]

19. I have no objection to a life sentence instead of death...

if it really means LIFE. Often, it doesn't.

[geomon666]

26. The point of prison is rehabilitation

Of course, that's a joke as it's never provided that but that's what it was supposed to be and I like that idea. A person should serve their sentence, no question about that. A life sentence, I think, should be for life. You are in until you die. I also believe that sentence should be left for the more brutal felons. People who will never ever rehabilitate.

[Hamlette]

64. life without parole means just that

even by your example, Hess did not get out.

I know of no case where someone sentenced to life w/o poss. of parole got out. Except those who were shown to be innocent.

You point out, by the nature of your argument, the different theories for punishment. If it is revenge you are after then I can see being upset that some old geezer would get out 60 years later. If it protection of society (another poster called it isolation) then why not let someone out if they are no longer a threat?

Perhaps that is the argument you fear. Because you want revenge. I think we should do what we can as a society to make sure we don't respond with revenge especially since there are other, less emotional reasons to lock criminals up.

[Pushed To The Left]

27. That's what finally changed my opinion

on capital punishment. I actually used to be a pretty hardcore pro-death penalty person, but hearing about wrongful convictions and innocent people on death row changed my mind. I want to punish violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law, but I don't want innocent people to die.

[marbuc]

5. Life in prison IS a better alternative

It is cheaper, more humane, and is probably a harsher punishment anyway. Besides, the government has no business determining who shall live or die.

[longship]

6. Yes.

But this kind of sentence already exists. "Life with no parole."

[TomInTib]

7. All those folks who want the Ten Commandments posted in

public places seem to have forgotten about "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as they seem to be on the side of Capital Punishment. Then we have the good Rev. Pat Roberts, who seems to take a more "pro-active" view on this issue.

[xchrom]

28. well, properly it's ''thou shalt not commit murder''

and that makes sense if you think about the old testament god.

the god talked about in the old testament would not oppose killing.

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. Please explain the difference?

and the god of the OT who would not oppose killing, sure seems to have murdered a lot of innocent people along the way.

[TahitiNut]

41. "'Vengeance is mine,' saith the Lord."??

Is that an accurate quote or apocryphal? :shrug:

Romans 12:19 and Hebrews 10:30

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. That's why the gnostic christians

believe that the god of Abraham is one of the fallen angels.

[LostinVA]

51. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord; I will repay."

ie God doles out the vengeance, we dole out the law. It shouldn't be the same thing.

[Mairead]

79. Murder is defined as unjustifiable homicide. It's a legal term.

Killing/homicide is simply a name for the act qua act.

[Az]

8. Your question presumes we are happy with the justice system as it is

I have severe problems with the current justice system. It is primarily a vengence system. It really doesn't serve the society much more beyond housing criminals and satisfying the purient interest for vengence.

That being said a society does have the right to defend itself from those that would prey upon it. Holding criminals safely away from the population is appropriate. Once a criminal is safely incarcerated they no longer pose a threat thus killing them is beyond any reasonable argument.

Ideally justice should seek to incarcerate individuals until such a time as it can be ascertained that they have been rehabilitated. The notion of specific lengths of time for specific crimes has no real merrit other than trying to set an impartial standard. But it severes the ties to the needs of the individuals.

In the past such distinctions were beyond our abilities. Our understanding of human nature and the mind have increased and we are much more able to work towards such a system of justice.

This being said if it is determined that an individual cannot be rehabilitated then the threat they represent to society gives that society to right to continue to defend itself from their threat by continued incarceration.

[Silverhair]

38. No, it doesn't presume that.

The question is directed solely toward the question of death penalty vs life. Ever since I was a teen-ager I have seen this question debated. I have seen (In the news.) cases go to trial, recieve the death sentence, get it reduced to life, and then later see that same person released.

There are some severe problems with the CJ system. The first is the things that we criminalize. Many of the crimes are victimless and the person should have been left alone. Gambling, prostitution, drug use, etc. Instead of outlawing them, they should be legal and regulated for safety and honesty.

I have problems with the imbalance of the ability of any but the rich to afford good lawyers. That bothers me a lot.

[MazeRat7]

10. I do not want the "legal system" or "state" deciding "who should die"

on my behalf. These are not choices we humans are qualified to make.
So, yes.. use existing sentences and opt for life without parole.
Abolish government sanctioned killing.

MZr7

[tamtam]

11. Yes

I'm an opponent of the death penalty and I say life until they die in prison unless evidence shows they are innocent. There have been so many advances in technology and science and I think there is more to come.

I have to say, when I hear about the latest child killer I automatically wish death upon them. My emotions run high when it comes to children being raped and murdered. I also have to take into account that the Criminal justice system is not perfect. Until it is perfected IMO we shouldn't kill people. I'm not naive enough to think it will ever be perfect so IMO there should be no death penalty. I'm a strong believer in Karma.

Not to get too off topic but I have an observation. I noticed that quite a few fundies are gun ho about the death penalty. If they believe that god is the last word then why are they so gun ho for revenge in this life?

[Birthmark]

13. Why would I have a problem with a "life" sentence.

There are crimes that require permanent removal from society.

[Silverhair]

14. A side question, but related to the topic.

Should a genuine LIFER, have conjugal visits or other opportunities to pass his/her predatory killer DNA into the next generation?

If life also includes no ability to pass on the DNA, then the true ancient reason for the death penalty is served. It was a way of getting rid of "bad seed".

I have no problem with life, when life really and truly means life. But often it only means a few years, out and kill again.

[Mairead]

76. Your understanding of heritability is about 70 years past its sell-by date

You cannot point to anything called "predatory killer DNA". That's as shopworn as the idea of "reefer madness".

[Silverhair]

88. Not at all out of date.

Personality types are heredity, and some personality types are violent ones. Some personality disorders are also heredity.

Guess you never hear of sociobiology.

[Mairead]

90. Yes, it's past its sell-by date, so much so that it's toxic if swallowed

Longitudinal studies of monozygotic (identical) twins reared apart have found, when we boil them down and skim off the fat, that on the order of 40-50% of who we are can be tentatively (N is not large) ascribed to nature rather than nurture.

And sociobiology (called 'evolutionary psychology' today in an attempt to take the curse off) is handwaved rubbish.

Like Freud, sociobiologists speculate as though the fact of their speculation itself were proof.

It made a big splash in the '70s, when I was in grad school. But it went rapidly downhill from there, and deservedly so. Even most grad students didn't fall for it: we could see that it failed the test of science.

Today, there's a coterie of rightwing academics who have their own journals in which they publish articles that they review for one another (after all, journals aren't respectable if they don't have peer-reviewed articles). But that's all they have. They definitely don't have general credibility: it's all about ideology, not science.

[brooklynite]

15. A question: who's on Death Row right now?

Know any of their names? Who they killed? How long they've been in jail? Unless you're an activist who focuses on this issue, the answer is likely "no". I suspect the average "life without parole" convict faces ignorance rather than eventual sympathy.

[Silverhair]

18. So are you willing for "life" to really means L I F E ?

If you are, then I can meet you on that issue. I can give up the death penalty, if life really and truly means life.

[Yupster]

66. I move more and more toward

eliminating the death penalty in my own mind, but then some horrific crime occurs and I'm ready to make an exception. I guess it's intellect versus emotion.

The latest case that made me think of death was the Carr Brothers who are currently on death row in Kansas.

Read up on their crime spree. I followed their trial a couple years ago and could only think of death for them.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious%5Fmurders/classics/carr%5Fbrothers/

[SeattleGirl]

17. If "life in prison" actually means that, yes, absolutely.

Many sentences for "life in prison" are a joke. I think that if that is a person's sentence, it ought to mean just that.

The idea of killing someone because they killed someone is weird, like killing abortion clinic doctors because they "killed babies".

I will say I came to be an opponent of the death penalty over time. And something else -- a very dear uncle of mine was murdered some years ago. They caught the two guys who did it and they were convicted, but the thought of wanting the death penalty never entered my mind.

[applegrove]

21. For multiple serious crimes. Yes. Less expensive too. And for the

real monsters..some sort of isolation so they don't make a career out of harassing their victims again.

[Lindacooks]

22. Yes.

Absolutely, no ifs, ands, or buts, positively LIFE in prison.

[KT2000]

23. Yes

Life without parole.

I cannot see how the death penalty benefits anyone or society. At the second someone is executed - does it make us better people? Does it satisfy anything?

[OneBlueSky]

24. yes, but . . .

the should also look at the whole issue of warehousing criminals in a manner that just invites further crime and does absolutely nothing to get something productive from those serving time . . .

prisons should be organized so that every inmate has a productive job to do . . . rather than just rotting in cells, every one of them should be doing something productive that will somehow benefit society . . . don't know yet what that might be, but just warehousing prisoners is a collossal waste of manpower, and does nothing to either rehabilitate those who will eventually be getting out or exacting some kind of contribution from those who won't . . . it also just invites trouble; when people are bored, they have plenty of time to think up even more nasty things to do . . .

[hlthe2b]

25. Prisons are full of those aged who die inside...

This is NOT a new concept. If REPUG "law & supposed fucking order" folks will stop cutting budgets so that judges are forced to release from overcrowded jails, if we can bring sanity to our drug laws, there is NO reason that life in jail without parole should not mean exactly that.

So, I detect an incredible snide and patronizing attitude behind your question that seems to imply "we bleeding heart liberals" are the ones who set killers/rapists/child molesters free all the time. We are NOT.

[Silverhair]

34. Why is Ott such a cause celebre?

Ott was a drug dealer. He wore a .38 on his person while in his house. He said he did that because he feared robbery from other drug dealers/users. When his house was raided by Law Enforcement he shot and killed an officer - a Texas Ranger. He claims it was a horrible accident, that he thought that he was being robbed. He was sentenced to life. He has been a model prisoner. Progressives here in Texas have made him a cause and pushed hard for his release.

I do not agree with them. Life must mean life.

For that matter, Ott is lucky to be alive. Usually, when one shoots an LEO in the presence of other LEOs, one departs from this world in the next couple of seconds.

[hlthe2b]

37. I don't know the case....

If there truly were extenuating circumstances...then perhaps. As an example, in recent years there have been a rash of raids on the "wrong home." If one of those incidents ended in a shooting of the officer by a homeowner thinking they were being invaded by violent criminals, perhaps that would be the kind of extenuating circumstances. However, the charge should have been manslaughter and not murder, so it would seem a new trial would have been in order. But, jurisprudence is not always what it should be across the country and over time, so I suppose this kind of example could occur.

Again, I don't know the case.

[Silverhair]

40. He was a drug dealer. They had the right home. NT

[hlthe2b]

42. Well, "drug dealer" is certainly a loaded term....

applied by some as equally to heroin and crack dealers, as to penny bag pot dealers--as equally to organized crime multi-million dollar cocaine dealers, as the neighborhood junkie that sells enough crank to other adult junkies to ward off the horror of withdrawal...or to the white collar bond trader, who has his little cocaine problem, and deals just enough to his close friends to finance his habit and "fly under the wire." That our prisons are overly full of "drug dealers" of all stripes and without deference to these other issues is part of the problem. Again, no room for those who truly should not be released.


I don't know what the extenuating circumstances are that leads him to maintain the killing was accidental, nor why his supporters seeminly rally to him. Hell, for all I know the family of the slain officer have supported his release :shrug: It does happen...

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. Sentenced to life, or life w/o parole?

Those are two very different sentences. Life usually means minimum 25 years, then up for parole every couple years to see if the prisoner is reformed/rehabilitated. If parole is denied, he dies in prison. Life w/o parole means just that.

Don't know the case, but if the LE didn't properly identify themselves, busting in all SWAT and scary paramilitary then his argument of self defense is clearly mitigating. If, as has happened more than a few times, the LE bust into the wrong house that way then the owner is entirely within his rights to shoot them; why should he not be allowed the same rights? If they did clearly identify themselves then it would likely be 2nd degree murder, as he was reactive to the police, and did not plot or plan the killing - that, I think, would call for a life w/ parole sentence, which is all that the people are asking for. When he was defending himself he was not committing another crime - he was only suspected of committing another crime, i.e., drug dealing. It's a whole different ball of wax than shooting down an officer who interrupts a robbery. It sounds like they went Rambo on him, and he reacted, like most of us would if strangers busted down our doors.

I think he's got a case. But I've been against the militarizing of the police for a very long time.

[LostinVA]

52. Or quite arresting and imprisoning people for pot possession

They would be room in prison for hardcore CRIMINALS, not tokers.

[Silverhair]

53. Agreed. Also, same for other victimless crimes. NT

[xchrom]

29. did you think we were kidding?

i think this thread is a flamebait in hiding.

[fleabert]

30. yup. nt

[Book Lover]

31. What kind of question is this?

Of course I mean it. And may I point out that the Hess case is hardly comparable to a US Death Row prisoner; how many of them other than Mumia and Peltier do you know of?

[Silverhair]

35. Irrelevant.

Whether I personally do or don't know a death row inmate does not forbid me from having an opinion on the matter and expressing that opinion. I would venture to guess that you have probably expressed opinions on the forum about matters that have not touched you personally too.

[Book Lover]

71. Didn't do too well in English class, I see

I said "know of", not "know". But then again, if you really wanted to reply to what I meant, I'm sure you would have done so.

[Silverhair]

86. Still irrelevant. NT

[ladylibertee]

32. Here's my argument...I do not not claim to be a scholar, but when I

consider this issue. I look at many other factors. I would be for the death penalty if the system were perfect. If innocent people were not the ones getting put to death because they were just another "Niggah" who fit the profile.On the other hand,I feel that the serial killer and rapist who commit the crimes,CSI-type evidence: Then to them I say "drop dead"

[Kailassa]

33. execution

One concern with the death penalty is, what effect does the execution have on the people who have to carry it out?

I was once in the position of having no way to be safe from someone I knew to be a killer but to kill him while he slept. He had bashed me before he fell asleep so badly I was unrecognisable, so if I told the police I had done it while he was punching me, I would have got off scot free. but when faced with the reality of killing someone, I couldn't do it, the prospect of doing such a thing was worse than all the things I had had done to me.

I believe that killing is as unnatural as suicide, and will damage part of what is human in whoever does it. This might seem insulting to soldiers, but it's not meant that way. I'm no pacifist, some things need to be defended. But killing still damages the killer as well, which is why returning soldiers need our compassion and respect and solid work done to help them reintegrate into society.

When a death sentance is passed, government employees are left "holding the baby". Sometimes the sentence may be well deserved, but no-one deserves to have the responsability of carrying it out.

Btw, my attacker only got 6 months jail, but he made so many enemies in that time that he'll probably have forgotten me long before he's dealt with them.

[Mandate My Ass]

58. I'm so sorry

What a horrendous experience and a what terrible dilemma you faced. Your humanity won the day. Welcome to DU. :hug:

[Silverhair]

60. Yes, killing damages the killer, unless he is already damaged.

I will instantly agree that for most people the act of taking another human life is horribly traumatic. That's the way decent people are wired. But some people don't have that wiring.

However, for most people, killing another does not damage us as much as being killed does. Self defense is legitimate. I suggest that you acquire the ability to effectively defend yourself.

[LWolf]

36. Of course.

Isn't that what "life without the possibility of parole" means?

[Stockholm]

43. Why do both alternatives have to end up with another person

dying?

[Silverhair]

50. Because humans don't live forever. NT

[charlie]

44. Yes

Not only am I okay with it, I expect it for especially heinous crimes.

[LostinVA]

48. Oprah had a show after the Illinois death penalty commutation

Where she was allowed on Death Row and allowed to interview prisoners. It was fascinating, because the majority of the prisoners did NOT like that their sentences had been commuted to life w/out parole. Death Row was torture to them, and the thought of living another 50 years or so like that ripped them apart.

So yeah, it's a good punishment. EMOTIONALLY, I agree with the death penalty, bi6t intellectually I can't. The government does not have that right, especially when so many people have been found innocent.

Also, look at the countries that DO have death penalties. Are you proud to be on that list???

[wuushew]

72. What is logic of allowing the DP but not suicide?

A convicted felon can approach suicide the same way a terminally ill patient does, since the certainty of his remaining lifespan is quite well defined. The state's mandate for public safety would still be served by allowing such an action. Also unlike many others I believe that suicide can be arrived at from the standpoint of a rational mind.

Are we going to call Hunter Thompson mentally ill? He knew what he was doing.


This whole collection of posts on this topic are replete with false choices that do not speak of the political and financial problems of the justice system. Many countries deal effectively with serious violent crime and its consequences. There are no reasons we in the United States cannot emulate their effective and less barbaric solutions.

[Silverhair]

87. It is illogical. NT

[Zynx]

49. Yes.

Always have been. The Death Penalty doesn't provide enough time for new evidence to surface in the event that the person may be innocent in many cases so for that reason alone I would say life in prison is a better alternative. The only problem I actually have with current life sentences for horrible offenders is that often times it doesn't actually mean "life".

[Maine Mary]

54. We don't have parole in Maine

So here, life does mean life.

In other states, "life without possibility of parole" probably means just what it says. I highly doubt the sentence changes very often unless there is a very good reason for it.

[Ms. Toad]

55. No, and I have never made that argument.

Part of the premise of the criminal justice system is that people can change (Reformatory and penitentiary, for example, have word derivations that embody that premise).

I would not argue that someone should be released just because of the passage of time, or just because s/he is old and infirm. However, to do anything other than crank out more sophisticated criminals, our criminal justice system needs to embrace the expectation that people can and do learn from their mistakes and have the capacity to better themselves. It won't happen for every person, and may not happen even the majority of the time, but if we continue to treat all people who have committed crimes as disposable trash, by and large they will live up to that expectation.

Although I would certainly support legislation that traded death for life imprisonment, as a stepping stone to a more comprehensive reform, I would continue to work to change that sentencing structure into one which is open to the possibility that all humans are capable of reforming themselves.

Aside from the philosophical perspective, it is expensive to keep someone locked up. If we can recognize a point at which someone has been punished, has changed, and can transition them to a productive life outside of prison we no longer have the prison maintenance expense - and also have an additional person who is contributing financially and otherwise to society.

I acknowledge that this is far easier in theory than in practice - but doing the right thing is seldom the path of least resistance.

[TahitiNut]

56. State rationales for killing are indistinguishable from a murderer's.

Some day I'd like to see 'government' represent our best foot forward instead of our worst. :shrug:
I doubt I'll live that long, but I can dream.

[calico1]

57. Yes. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

59. Depends On The Situation

The crime should befit the punishment. A crime of passion is far more forgiveable than a conviction for serial murder. One moment of the "lid coming off the id" requires prison time, but not sure if it requires the "rest of the life". But, for certain crimes, where the chances of rehabilitation of essentially zero (think John Wayne Gacy), then yes; leave that perp in jail until the day they die there.
The Professor

[Silverhair]

63. Agree.

However, in cases like Gacy, where you are genuinely 100% sure you have the right person with NO possibilty of mistake, and the crime is horrible and premeditated, then I have no problems with the death penalty.

[Bridget Burke]

65. But George Bush didn't think that Henry Lee Lucas was all that bad.

Lucas got the only reprieve that Governor Bush ever issued. He died naturally in prison.

And there were some questions about the guilt of the woman executed in Huntsville last night. Consider: The woman who ran over her husband multiple times, in front of witnesses, got 20 years.

The Texas Legislature has voted down bills to allow sentences of "Life Without Parole" here. The main reason--it would decrease use of the death penalty. Prosecuting attorneys often imply that some very bad guys will be back on the streets soon, even if given "99 to life."

I have plenty of problems with the death penalty. Who can be 100% sure? When has Texas EVER executed a millionaire?

[Silverhair]

70. I won't defend the current system. It stinks.

I am asking the question in the abstract.

Can you ever be 100% sure? Are you prepared to argue that there was any doubt with John Wayne Gacy, or Dahmer, or Bundy? Sometimes, you CAN be 100% sure.

[Bridget Burke]

75. I would still prefer that my tax dollars not be spent on killing humans.

Even if there's no doubt they need to be locked away forever.

Edited to add: A jury can be 100% sure that someone did the crime & still be wrong. You & I are not the ones who would make that decision.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. People Like Him Can, For Me, Destabilize My Position

I'm still opposed, but i can feel the ambivalence setting in when thinking about Gacy. We KNOW he did it. He did it with subterfuge over many years, over 30 times. Not much doubt. Still, i don't sanction the DP. I'm just not as cocksure about mutants like him.

The Professor

[Catherine Vincent]

62. Yes, even if they live to be 110.

Not having freedom is a terrible thing.

[The Straight Story]

68. Maybe LIFE should be based on Actuary tables.....

That could get interesting....

[mnmoderatedem]

69. absolutely

what bugs me about death pentaly proponents is the characterization that death penalty opponents are "soft on crime" because they oppose the death penalty. I have no problem with a murder rotting in prison for the rest of his life.

My beef with the death penalty is that a certain percentage of cases, albeit a small percentage, turn out wrongful convictions. The Rolando Cruz case in Aurora IL should be enough to shock anyone into taking a serious look at capital punishment.

[alarcojon]

73. Absolutely

Life without the possibility of parole should mean exactly that. I would be willing to consider a specialized facility for elderly prisoners, but still under lock and key.

[noonwitch]

74. That's the sentence in Michigan for 1st degree murder-life/no parole

I'm glad we don't have the death penalty. I think life without parole is a fair sentence for first degree murder. That's why I get mad when conservatives/death penalty advocates imply that not executing someone is the same as letting them get away with a crime.

[UrbScotty]

80. You're either locked up in a small place forever... or you die.

Most of them would prefer to die. So why should they get their way again?

[MadHound]

81. Yes, life without parole, period, is the best option

And I've personally had my belief tested. Girlfriend a quarter century ago was raped and murdered. And despite my anger and rage, I was happy that the man got life without parole.

I don't care how heinous the crime, state sanctioned murder is never an option, nor should it be. Even the best of juries, as we have seen time and again, make mistakes and send innocent to their death.

Besides, with our current court system, which mind you I think we should keep, it costs us more money to sentence a person to death than to keep them imprisoned for life.

And I really have never heard of anybody saying that they think a murder has suffered enough in prison. Once most people are in prison, they are forgotten by our society. And if we are running short on prison space to keep these people for their full terms, then perhaps we should be kicking out the lesser offensives, such as possession of pot, etc.

But never the death penalty, life in prison without parole is just fine thank you.

[StellaBlue]

82. Hell yes!

I think all murders and rapists and pedophiles should get life without parole. Period.

Plus, if they are not killed by the state, then, if new evidence comes to light, etc., then they can be released - which is obviously not the case if they are executed.

Just my two cents. I want them to sit there for decades and think about what they've done.

[newspeak]

83. slippery slope

Some are saying only for certain crimes, but how about they expand the law to include political dissidents. Look what happened in Germany? It doesn't take much to expand the law when killing is sanctioned. Again, we murder to show that murder is wrong?

[Greyhound]

84. Any time a government is given the power to take life, same as any

power they are given, it will use it to further their own power. Our death penalty has always been used to further political ambition and to silence opposition. It has always been meted out to those unable to defend themselves. I am not aware of, nor can I find any reference to, a single instance of a wealthy person being put to death in amerika.
I do think that many people should be removed from society forever, child molesters and contract killers for example, but even in those cases, simply warehousing them is counter productive.
How about making some worthless piece of real estate, like North Dakota(?), a permanent, productive, penal colony?

[newspeak]

85. here's my idea

monastery type setting where prisoners grow and make their own clothes. Self-sufficient environment. No exploitation by corporations. Prisons in our country have become big business and look at how many are in them. With profits to be made, there is no incentive for prison reform. However, a burdgeoning prison population keeps certain civilians out of the depleting job market (sociology 101). Those who commit violent, horrendous crimes should be kept in for life, no parole; but pot smokers and other petty crimes should be treated differently. I mean, look at Noelle Bush.

[momisold]

89. It depends on the state.

Here in Texas we don't have life without parole option. I think that is why we have more death sentences. There isn't a choice between death and never letting them out.