Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against Abolishing The Death Penalty [View all]joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Which is an effective 100%. But if we found some serial killer with a trove of dead kids and he was videoing untold things and desecrating bodies and we caught them in the act, I could make an exception (and even then I'd have to take the mental aspect into account). I cannot think of a case that I would be for it, if it helps (since I am leaving a small room for an exception here).
James Holms, even Adam Lanza or even Elliot Rodger, or Seung-Hui Cho, life imprisonment.
The main reason I am against it not a moral reason, it's utilitarian and only slightly moral. There are innocents on death row, for one, but the death penalty costs so much (and rightly so, appeals are deserved for such a finality), and it costs a lot of pain for the victims families (each appeal they are compelled to be involved in the process; for well over a decade in most cases). Put 'em away for life and you save the appeals process and you save a lot of taxpayer money and you avoid the chance of killing an innocent person and they can maybe get off if the Innocence Project can find flaws in the case (which unfortunately it has found numerous examples).
So I'm not saying I agree with Clinton here at all as I suspect she'd hang the examples I gave, I am just saying, I can see myself being for it if the example is beyond egregious. So far I have not felt that such example exists. So I'm against the death penalty. But I reserve the right to say "hang 'em" if such an example exists, and I don't think that's hypocritical. I just have a high bar.
But, I would be for a 100% SCOTUS ban (or congressional ban) of the death penalty. I'd still reserve to right to say "hang 'em" even if such a ban existed.