Poll Question: Is the death penalty ever justified in a criminal case?

[Archae]

Poll question: Poll Question: Is the death penalty ever justified in a criminal case?

Go ahead, after voting, feel free to flame away.

[Bright Eyes]

1. As killing wont bring back the dead,

no never

[Bluebear]

6. Welcome to DU and good for you.

:toast:

[BoneDaddy]

9. True

but if anyone ever fucked with my family or friends, I will derive much satisfaction killing them. Give me a break.

[OhioChick]

13. I Agree with You 100% n/t

[Deja Q]

43. So let's keep rapists and murders with repeat offenses living...

so they can have a nice free room and board with a chance to escape to rape and kill again.

Pity we can't bring back the victims. But then, victims of rape have to live with the memories for the rest of their lives... that's not pleasant either. Quite a nightmare, in fact...

Morality does not extend to the immoral like rapists and murders.

[BuyingThyme]

60. Welcome to DU, Bright Eyes!

[sam sarrha]

2. NO, because it has never been scientifically proved to be any sort of penalty, but it is a Blood

Sacrifice for votes when politicians promise to execute prisoners in custody if elected. which is murder if there is no proof it is a penalty and not a deterrent to crime which it has been proven scientifically to not be.. it increases capital crime because they kill any wittinesses to avoid the death penalty.

[deaniac21]

24. Actually, I think that it is called the death penalty because it is

a penalty.

[sam sarrha]

63. that is an opinion... we are just sending them to jesus who will forgive & send em to heaven

so where is the penalty..?? F'n Liberal sends em to heaven..!!

it sounds good to you but you sound like Dubya saying Sovern is sovern..

[deaniac21]

25. Actually, I think that it is called the death penalty because it is

a penalty.

[lligrd]

3. Not In My Name - Ever

For these reasons:

1. Another wrong does not absolve a wrong committed.

2. Putting someone to death means that they can never get an appeal that could absolve them.

3. It can never be applied fairly.

4. We have a greater opportunity to learn from those alive than dead.

5. Doesn't feel right. Just like you later regret hitting someone or something that has angered you.

[BoneDaddy]

11. What about someone who raped your kid?

would you feel bad about shooting them? I wouldn't in the least. I wouldn't feel joy, but I would feel content that justice was done.

[cynatnite]

15. That's not justice...it's revenge...

It's also why loved ones don't sit on juries or pick the punishment for those perpetrators. I would want to kill anyone who harmed my children, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[BoneDaddy]

18. So killing a serial rapist of serial killer

isn't the right thing to do? I disagree.

[cynatnite]

27. The death penalty is immoral, IMO.

It doesn't deter crime, it doesn't help the victims and it's continued use proves how unevolved we are as a society.

[BoneDaddy]

29. I wouldn't advocate

it for those reasons. It doesn't bring them back, it doesn't deter crime, but it would be justice and if i couldn't do it, then I would find someone in jail to stick a knife into their heart.

Revenge is justice sometimes. Not all the times, but it would bring me satisfaction. No joy as I wouldn't glory in it, but satisfaction none the less.

Do you have kids perchance?

[cynatnite]

38. I have three children and three grandchildren...

I know I would probably feel a great deal of satisfaction by killing anyone who harmed my child, but it certainly doesn't make it right or even equal.

I would only be doing it to make myself feel better and I think that would be a selfish thing. No one is served by this least of all my child and I certainly wouldn't want to taint the memory of my child with an act of vengeance.

Just so you know, one of my children has been physically and emotionally harmed by the act of an unthinking animal. As much as I wanted to take out what I felt on him, my daughter needed me more. My family did, too. Going down that road, whether I would have been jailed or not, would have taken myself away from them. I will not risk my family for an act of revenge that could NEVER be taken back.

[BoneDaddy]

41. You are entitled to your opinion

but so am I. I disagree.

[MilesColtrane]

34. .

.

[cynatnite]

28. I have told my family if I am ever murdered...

I do not want the perpetrator to be killed for it. My husband and my oldest children understand this. My sister does not and she said if that were to happen she would demand the death penalty even over my wishes.

[orleans]

4. i won't vote in this poll because i'm conflicted

i have always been against the death penalty--i guess i still am.

but when john wayne gacy was put to death i was glad they killed him.

a little cognitive dissonance here.

[Bluebear]

7. orleans, consider . . .

Death was too good for Gacy. Too easy an escape. Ethics of the death penalty aside, I would as soon he rotted in jail for years on end.

[Bright Eyes]

8. thanks for the welcome

anyway, you make a good point. id rather die then spend the rest of my life in jail. thats far scarier. of course thats just me.

[orleans]

50. i know, i know...it's something i can't explain. and i remember

they had live news coverage of this, and i stayed up to watch it, and something went wrong with the injection he was given which i found disturbing

but, after what? 33 boys? and over 25 exhumed from his crawl space....i don't know. i was glad the state killed him.

and i've never been able to justify this or resolve this ethic dilemma. and when i ask myself--what is the limit? the cut-off? is five murders too many? where do i draw that line? and i don't know. but apparently, in my head and heart, 33 was over that line.

[Chulanowa]

5. Nope

Killing killers doesn't exactly send the message that killing is wrong.
In fact it sends the opposite message - killing some people is okay, so long as they've done something you dislike. Along with a side of "just don't get caught"

[BoneDaddy]

10. Absolutely

My problem with the death penalty is ONLY that it has been misappropriated based on racial and class lines and that innocent men have been killed by the state who have later proven innocent.

Serial killers, child molesters and rapists have abdicated their humanity and need to be put down like rabid dogs. These people are not able to be rehabilitated.

In fact if the police break into a home and a guy's dick is in a six year old, they should execute him on the spot.

Flame away.

[Selatius]

12. In the heat of the moment, I might kill that which terribly offends me.

If, for instance, someone murdered my wife of ten years in front of me, I probably need to be restrained from making him die as well.

In general, when reason governs my mind, I am against the death penalty. I can't say the same when blinded by rage. Because of what I just mentioned, we have a system of law to dispense justice impartially and without passion.

[hyphenate]

14. I've thought about that

for quite a while now, and IMHO I think that there is a time and place for a death penalty for some cases.

One of the problems with prosecution is that more often than not, a killer can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Now this is fine and good, especially in today's forensic arena, when we can use science to help find and identify those who have killed, raped, or attacked others. But regardless of the scientific evidence, there is still a very small chance that the wrong person could be identified through shoddy testing or otherwise imperfect human error.

On the other hand, there is nothing like a smoking gun and a perp standing over a dead body, or someone involved in some such contest with law enforcement. In such cases where the crime is seen by multiple witnesses, where the bad guy is actually caught on-scene shooting or killing someone, there is no doubt as to the criminal's identity. In these cases, I think that the death penalty is a potential sentence because the case does not need to fall back on scientific or forensic evidence alone.

My main objection to the death penalty is not because I feel it is wrong, but because I have reservations on circumstantial evidence alone being the criteria for convicting someone. There are bad guys out there that really can't be rehabilitated, and when one of them brutally attacks, tortures, rapes and kills someone, they should be stopped by whatever means necessary, and if that means the death penalty, so be it.

Our jails and penitentiaries are so overcrowded it's pathetic. And most people don't want one in their neighborhood, so people get out of jail too easily because of such circumstances. Early release problems have allowed some criminals to kill again, and there is little that can be done about it. Not everyone who is out on early release is going to return to their old ways, but even one attack or one death is more than should have been perpetrated.

So, to summarize: Yes, there are times when the death penalty is warranted, and it should be used as a deterrent. But unless the suspect is caught red-handed, I think life terms are most likely the better answer.

[porphyrian]

16. You can't show killing is wrong by killing.

There are some circumstances killing can be justified, but the death penalty is always after the fact and does nothing constructive.

[marions ghost]

17. I don't think so

For many of the reasons already listed, but also because even though people claim they feel better if someone who commits horrible crimes is killed, I'm not sure that they always do. Relatives of victims
may not actually experience a catharsis after the death by the state is carried out, even if they think they will. Grief is a very complex constellation of emotional states.

In the case of pathological killers--they often don't feel anything one way or the other and they may even go cheerfully, so where's the saitisfaction in that? Killing the perpetrators does not begin to address the question of why Americans kill each other at alarming rates. It's a primitive way of dealing with the problem.

[burythehatchet]

19. Only if their names rhyme with Tush, Haney or Bumsfeld

[Rosemary2205]

20. In some circumstances, yes.

While I think we need a nationwide moratorium on executions because there are too many innocents that were railroaded out there - I do think if it's exceedingly clear someone is guilty beyond ALL doubt of a crime so awful that he can no longer ever be trusted in society AND is like to continue his criminal behavior inside the prison, putting people's lives at risk - then I do think executing him is a more humane thing than a lifetime in solitary confinement.

[slackmaster]

21. IMO it would be morally justified if there was 100% certainty of guilt

The 100% certainty being impossible, there should be no DP.

[BoneDaddy]

So if you walked in on a person who shoots your family in front of you

that is not 100% certainty? Or convicted serial killers who tell the police of where they buried the bodies?

Some of the comments that pass as logic are incredible.

[slackmaster]

31. The scenario you describe would justify killing in self-defense

Clearly the person shooting your family is a threat to you. I am strongly in favor of people exercising the right to use an appropriate level of force in self-defene.

Punishment by the judicial system is a completely different subject.

Some of the comments that pass as logic are incredible.

I find your attempt to equate the DP with an individual acting in self-defense beyond incredible. It's a nonsensical argument often used by misguided people who want to ban guns.

...Or convicted serial killers who tell the police of where they buried the bodies?

You'd take the word of a convicted serial killer? ;-)

Actually, in that case I could see giving the convicted killer a choice between life without parole and death.

[BoneDaddy]

37. What difference

is there between walking in on someone who killed your family and whether the cops got to them first? I would want them dead.

[ContraBass Black]

39. These are three different situations:

1: Death Penalty administered by the State
2: Self defense killing
3: Police shooting

[BoneDaddy]

40. If they did it to my family

I could care less how they met their demise.
I would prefer doing myself, if not me the police, and if necessary the state.
I would want them dead, that simple.

[ContraBass Black]

45. What if they didn't do it to your family?

That's the issue proposed here, that the judicial system commits false convictions.

[Hosnon]

46. Right. I'd hate to see our sentencing guidelines if the standard was:

What if it were my family member?

Talk about Draconian.

[BoneDaddy]

53. No argument there

but that was not the question posed, because there are circumstances where I would call for their death as I have mentioned. As I had stated in one of my responses due to the misappropriation of the death penalty in areas of race and class and the corruption involved with the judicial system I certainly question it's use.

I was trying to bring some balance to a board that often times comes across as a bit naive when it comes to the reality of what some very dangerous and violent people pose to society and how those people need to be removed permanantly.

[slackmaster]

48. Sorry, I can't give you a clue if you don't understand the difference

Between defending one's self (be it you or the police); and punishment administered by the justice system after a trial.

[BoneDaddy]

54. I understand the legal implications regarding difference.

I am talking about what it would mean to me or a person who just had their family wiped off the earth. I would want the killer dead. Personally I would be the one to do it, but if the police did me a favor, that would be secondary but sufficient.

[slackmaster]

56. I'd surely want a killer who killed my family to die as well

I'd be the one to do it if I had a chance. But I'm sure you understand that there is a sharp distinction, legally and morally, between killing in self-defense and killing for revenge. This whole thread has gotten muddy in that regard. In our society, individuals are not permitted to take revenge through an act of violence. We can sue but we cannot imprison or kill. The public at large, through the judiciary, is permitted to do so.

The problem with the DP is that by design (and for good reasons), penalties for crimes are assigned by people who are not the victims and do not have the certainty that you would have had you witnessed the crime yourself. In a criminal case the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is different from absolute certainty.

The fact that there have been condemned inmates who have been found to be not guilty is enough reason for me to oppose the judicially imposed death penalty.

[BoneDaddy]

65. Agreed

in most cases.

[Hosnon]

47. I agree. The death penalty is, as is commonly understood, a sentence

handed down after trial, not vigilanty justice by a close relative who comes upon the scene.

The court, by definition, has no first hand knowledge - only testimony. And eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, videos can be manufactured, cops lie for a conviction, etc.

100% certainty of guilt is required because the penalty is unreversable and 100% certainty of guilt is simply not possible.

[moc]

22. Speaking as a one whose family member was murdered by a mass murderer.

My answer is no, never.

[TahitiNut]

23. Killing someone for a crime they're innocent of is wrong, no matter how serious the crime.

Just what's so fucking difficult about this? Innocent of child abuse is no worse than innocent of murder. While this is but ONE decent reason to abolish the death penalty, it should be clear to even an idiot that innocent is innocent. "But what if we're sure?" is constantly asked. Then pigs will fly, I answer.

Killing a human being in cold blood demeans all of us. It makes us all accessories to murder.

[qwlauren35]

26. As a Buddhist,

I'm not supposed to believe in the Death Penalty.

However, I find that I do. And I think it should be swift (minimal appeals) and extremely painless. I am not comfortable with prolonged judicial process for these individuals, or for feeding and housing them at taxpayer expense.



I am especially comfortable with execution of serial killers, stalking killers, mercenary killers and hired assassins, killers who mutilate corpses, killers that have sex with corpses, premeditated spouse killers with a history of spouse abuse, individuals who kill multiple unarmed victims during robberies or muggings. However, I am not comfortable using the death penalty with individuals who are convicted based on circumstantial evidence. (DNA evidence at the scene of a crime is not circumstantial in my view.) I admit to the fantasy of wishing that we had a truth serum so that it would be impossible to execute or even CONVICT anyone on circumstantial evidence alone.


I also admit that it would be tempting to extradite them to an off-world penal colony to side-step karmic retribution for my uncompassionate thoughts. But we don't have that option.

[Booster]

30. I voted yes because of little Samantha Runion - that guy should

die in the worst possible way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. There's no way of telling which ones.

I think there are some crimes for which being killed is not an inappropriate punishment, but that there is no way of drawing a line so that no-one who hasn't committed one gets killed except not killing anyone.

If I were omniscient there would certainly be criminals I would be willing to have executed, though.

[Hosnon]

33. Nope: The court system itself doesn't even claim to be able to determine

absolute truth. And the taking of a life by the state requires absolute truth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. My father was shot to death by an adolescent. No is my answer.

The death penalty is barbarism with no redeeming features.

[GoneOffShore]

36. I voted no

I go back to the "two wrongs don't make a right" epigram, and even though we thirst for revenge, state killing is not justified.

[galadrium]

42. No. n/t

[Imagevision]

44. At the least, sex predators should do automatic life without parole on

the first time he harms or kills a child despicably for sex!!!!!!!!

[VOX]

49. No, state-sanctioned killing is wrong. The moral issues aside, any government that can...

legally apply death as a punishment is way too big, IMO. I don't want my government to have that degree of power.

Do I want to see certain individuals fry for their heinous crimes? Of course I do. But will their deaths undo the all the wrongs committed? Obviously not. Should the DP exist as some source of satisfaction for ordinary citizens? No, that is too easy. The DP is a waste of time, resources, and it puts innocent people in jeopardy.

Take a look at the following lists of countries that retain the DP and that have abolished it (from Amnesty International). On which list dies the United States belong:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng
Countries and territories which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes:
AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE

Countries whose laws do not provide for the death penalty for any crime:
ANDORRA, ANGOLA, ARMENIA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BELGIUM, BHUTAN, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA, CAMBODIA, CANADA, CAPE VERDE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY,GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, KIRIBATI, LIBERIA, LIECHTENSTEIN, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic), MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITIUS, MEXICO, MICRONESIA (Federated States), MOLDOVA, MONACO, MONTENEGRO, MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NEPAL, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NIUE, NORWAY, PALAU, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAMOA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SEYCHELLES, SLOVAK REPUBLIC, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TIMOR-LESTE, TURKEY, TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, VANUATU, VATICAN CITY STATE, VENEZUELA

[Nutmegger]

51. NEVER IN MY NAME. No to state sanctioned revenge killing!

I'm 100% against state sanctioned murder.

[sweetheart]

52. high treason nt

[Archae]

55. Except who determines what IS "high treason?"

The right-wingers want all of us tried for that.

[MrSlayer]

57. Absolutely.

I think we should expand the list of crimes for which you could receive the death sentence to include pedophiles and violent rapists. Not a popular opinion around here for sure but that's how I feel.

[Archae]

58. Texas just had yet ANOTHER false rape charge dismissed.

And people charging rape, and even children, can and do make false accusations.

Just look up the McMartin preschool case.

[MrSlayer]

59. True.

And that's why we have to absolutely certain before taking the drastic and permanent action of execution.

[Phillycat]

62. I agree 100%.

Study after study shows they are un-rehabilitatable. Their recidivism rate is staggering. Kill 'em, and kill 'em good.

[BuyingThyme]

61. Just to stoke the flame:

I am a better human being than all who support the death penalty.

[Rhythm]

64. as long as there are mistakes and inequalities in the justice system, i can't support it

I see everyones reasons who have said 'yes', but are you a family member of someone who has received that 'ultimate punishment', but who later had evidence uncovered that would have overturned their conviction.

I am.

Look up the case of Sonia Jacobs and Jessie Tafero sometime... these are my former in-laws.
Mr. Tafero was executed in '90 in Florida... 2 years later, Ms. Jacobs (who was tried at the same time) had the sentence overturned by the federal appellate court. The same evidence that freed her would have freed Jess as well.

If this happened one time, how many times in the history of capital punishment do you think it's happened? Considering the majority of capital cases involve poor people who cannot afford top-notch legal representation, i would venture quite a few.

Is the shedding of innocent blood really worth it... can we as a nation evolve with this blood collectively on our hands?