Death Penalty Poll

[QueenOfCalifornia]

Poll question: Death Penalty Poll

Because of another post I am curious to find out... How "liberal" are you? How do you feel about the death penalty?:shrug: Please explain why you are for or against.


Link to post mentioned above: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3241573

[LakeSamish706]

1. And a note on this subject... I have several friends that are Federal Wardens or...

assistants (now retired) that have expressed to me many times that they are against the death penalty.

[LaurenG]

2. I am against it and voted that way

I don't think killing is the answer. It solves nothing.

[gateley]

3. Against. It's playing God and it's murder. nt

[rasputin1952]

4. Other than revenge, it serves no purpose...

It is not a deterrent; innocents have been executed, (and the perpetrator is still out there in many cases, but the case is "closed"); the expense of a DP trial far outweigh life in prison.

There is one other factor that rarely gets mentioned...there is a possibility the offender may atone for his/her crimes. Such was the fate of Carla Faye Tucker, but they killed her anyway, and bush chuckled about it. I wonder if he'd chuckle if he was found guilty of a heinous crime, like say starting a war that killed hundreds of thousands, and he was being strapped to a gurney about to leave this world in a few minutes?

[Ghost in the Machine]

68. How did Carla Faye Tucker "atone" for her crimes?

By admitting belief in an imaginary magical mythical cloud dwelling sky fairy??

"During her time in jail, Tucker took a Bible from the prison ministry program and read it in her cell. She later recalled, "I didn't know what I was reading and before I knew it, I was just -- I was in the middle of my floor on my knees and I was just asking God to forgive me."<4> She later claimed that her new faith gave her the strength to endure her trial and sentencing."

How does *that* atone for a sadistic murder? Doesn't *almost* everyone "find God" in prison? What a crock of shit...

"On June 11, 1983, Tucker and her friends and sisters became high on drugs and alcohol at a party, where she heard that Shawn had broken up with her abusive husband a week earlier. Tucker decided to get even with him. Two days later, having spent the day doing drugs with Garrett, she entered Jerry Dean's home at 2:00 AM with Garrett and James Leibrant to steal Dean's motorcycle. During the robbery, Dean heard the commotion, and Garrett struck him numerous times with a hammer. His girlfriend, Deborah Thornton, entered the bedroom to find Garrett striking Dean on the head, and hid under the covers, where Tucker discovered her hiding. Tucker then hacked Deborah to death with multiple pickax blows, before Garrett embedded the axe in Deborah's heart."

"In the spring of 1984, she confessed to the murders and implicated Garrett. During Tucker's trial, a tape recorded by Garrett's brother while wearing a wire was played on which she claimed that she had multiple orgasms during the killings. Tucker replied that this was just big talk to impress her friends."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker

[rasputin1952]

74. She came to the realization she was wrong...

and just because you don't believe in a religious aspect, certainly does not mean you should disparage others for their beliefs.

What she did was wrong, she came to that realization, it would not have been that great a deal to commute her sentence to life in prison. Her death did not rectify what had happened, nothing can bring the dead back to life. She found peace in a way she felt was a form that was acceptable, at least to her. I don't know about you, but I think that is far better than running around blaming "society" or anything else for a crime committed.

[Ghost in the Machine]

82. "She found peace in a way she felt was a form that was acceptable, at least to her."

I'm sure Deborah Thornton's family was quite comforted knowing that Carla Faye Tucker "found god" in prison...

"I don't know about you, but I think that is far better than running around blaming "society" or anything else for a crime committed."

Wouldn't someone who "found god" place blame on "the devil" for their past actions? Yeah, let's blame *another* imaginary entity for our bad actions and give praise to the other one for making us "good" again..

Religion is all about shucking personal responsibility, nothing more, nothing less... when things go good, give credit to the big sky daddy. When they go bad, just say "the devil made me do it"...

I had imaginary playmates when I was little, too... but I outgrew them. Some folks never do outgrow them...

[rasputin1952]

89. So, you think that Tucker's execution brought comfort to

the Thornton family? I don't know if it did or not, but that's not the point.

Regardless of what you believe, it was Tucker who had to come to grips w/the situation of her impending death.

It brought some solace to her; I don't know what you'd turn to under the same circumstances, that's up to you. But once again, why disparge her for trying to right things in the way she found comforting?

You are comfortable w/who you are, she was comforted by what she said she found, how does her belief in anything make a difference to you?

[Ghost in the Machine]

147. I don't know if it did or not, either.. but thanks for realizing that that's not the point..

If gave her solace unto herself over her impending death, so be it. However, it in no way means that she "atoned" for her actions...

Her debt to society wasn't paid just because she found comfort in an imaginary friend... there was no 'atonement', only self serving forgiveness of & from herself to make herself feel better...

I've lived and worked in the dark underworld of this society. I was a 'soldier' and 'enforcer' for a group that's better left unnamed. Let's just say that I've seen and done things that *some* combat soldiers have never seen & done. There is no 'atonement', only acceptance of yourself for who and what you are. It doesn't make it right, nor does it make it better.. 10,000 imaginary friends can't change that...

[rasputin1952]

156. When I was a soldier, I did things that I now pay a dear price for,

there are times when one can rationalize some things down to a point where it is palatable to oneself, other things haunt you till you die.

Here we enter the philosophical world of what is "right and wrong". Would it have been "noble" to kill Hitler or Stalin if the chance arose, would there be moral justification? In those instances, I believe I would answer "yes" if pressed. But my answer is moot because could do nothing to stop these two evil individuals, (then we move into what is "evil").

Killing another is morally wrong, but can be justified in several ways. Protecting one's life, or the lives of their family; protecting others from life threatening situations, whether on a personal or a genocidal level are two examples. But, just as training in the Army dictated, is deadly force necessary at the time? Wounding the perpetrator will often stop the threat, and the bonus of having the individual(s) in custody to glean information is a plus. But, just as I would not beat a man while he is restrained in handcuffs on the ground, I would not kill a man where the threat has been taken away.

Prison takes the threat away from society, although there are threats in the prison system. We should be working on alleviating those threats, as opposed to tying a man to a chair of gurney and then just killing them. The object is to reduce threats to society, and while the DP most assuredly does that, it comes down to several other factors we've discussed, the most prominent being the execution of an innocent...after all, that is murder not matter how one looks at.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

81. I agree with the premise

of "atonement" being foolish when it is based upon the pseudo hand-holding with a make believe friend.

I am totally against the death penalty however.

Carla Faye Tucker performed a miserable and heinous act. I am very familiar with the crime and her confession(s) to friends and the police. But she should have been left where she was, in a Texas prison.

[Ghost in the Machine]

84. I can respect your opinion, even though I'm a staunch supporter of the death penalty..

For me, it's not about 'revenge', as some would suggest... it's about removing someone from society who has proven themselves unfit for society.

Read up on some 'lifers' who have killed another inmate while in prison. Their attitude is "heh.. what are they gonna do, lock me up??" These people don't even belong in a controlled prison society... in my opinion

[rasputin1952]

91. Aren't they out of society by being locked up for life?

Sociologists might consider prison a "society", but most people out here don't.

What do you do when you sit at the execution of an innocent individual? It would be murder.


What if that individual was you?

[Ghost in the Machine]

149. Prison is a 'Structured Society in a Controlled Environment'..

Prisoners live, work & interact amongst themselves, and the guards, in a controlled environment. Some prisoners can't even conform & function properly in that society/environment. What do you do with them then? Put them in isolation for the rest of their natural born days? Wouldn't that amount to cruel & unusual punishment in your book? Keeping a human being in a cage 23 hours a day? Hell, I'd rather drop them off in a jungle or on a remote island with no weapons and 2 weeks supply of rations...

[rasputin1952]

151. Some do, some don't...Manson is a prime example of one who

does not interact w/others.

I don't think those who have committed the most heinous crimes should be put in w/the general population. But a couple of "lifers" were just released from prison because DNA proved them innocent, one had been in prison for 30 years...a tragedy to be sure, but what if he had been executed? Not only would he not have been exonerated, he would be quite dead.

It is better to allow a guilty man to go free than to have an innocent man pay for a crime he did not commit, especially when death is the answer.

Our system is not perfect, far from it, but it does it's best to get the guilty behind bars, (in many cases, people are sent to prison for what I consider "non-crimes", but that is a situation of law that must be addressed).

The real problems are that one cannot know if they meeting out justice or vengeance. The DP is not national, it is state based, and therefore inherently unfair. There are serious questions as to racial motivations behind some DP cases. Those who cannot afford a battery of high end lawyers are much more prone to get the DP. A man kills a man in TX, he gets death; another kidnaps, rapes and then murders a 7 yo girl in CA, and gets life; both crimes end up with people dead, which is more heinous and "deserving" of death?

Most other nations have taken death off of the books as a punishment, they have realized that the DP does not deter severe crimes, and they have realized that it is not a just way to meet out justice. You can believe as you will that it actually does some good, that is your right, I have looked at this from many angles, and I come to the conclusion that just one innocent being killed is one too many. When one adds to the equation that if an innocent dies at the hand of the state, this presents the situation that the perpetrator of the crime is still on the loose, and in some cases, is still committing crimes of a heinous nature, admittedly though, that is another discussion.

[rasputin1952]

93. The term "atonement" here is used to show she realized what

she had done was wrong, was willing to pay for the crime, and came to grips w/herself about it.

Whether she did that through religion, or on a purely psychological basis, she took responsibility for a crime she committed, and asked no quarter. Her subsequent execution did nothing to "right the wrong".

[mitchum]

98. Hey, she found she could "get her nut off" with Jesus...

instead of murder.
Jeeez...

[Ghost in the Machine]

158. WWJD?

Who Would Jesus Diddle?

[IntravenousDemilo]

167. As imaginary, magical, and mythical as the cloud-dwelling sky-fairy might be...

Karla Faye Tucker's belief in it was nevertheless very real to her, and while Bush claims that his beliefs in the same sky-fairy, mercy, and Jesus are similarly real, his behaviour here brands him as the worst kind of falsely pious, pharisaical hypocrite. It's perfectly clear that Bush doesn't really believe in god, or he wouldn't have mocked Tucker's being "born again", that is to say, the very sort of religious epiphany that he claims to have himself had years earlier. He does not follow the principles and ideals he claims to champion. It was a very telling article that Tucker Carlson wrote (even a blind pig gets the occasional acorn), and I'm looking at that premiere issue of Talk magazine as I type this.

[Ghost in the Machine]

229. Well said... and point taken..

I don't consider myself anti-religious and I usually have the attitude of "whatever gets you through the night and makes you sleep better"...

I just don't like seeing people using their beliefs as a copout for anything. Don't avoid self responsibility while using the crutch of religion..

[jaxx]

5. I am against it, always have been.

It's not up to society to kill the killers. It's up to us to get them off the streets and keep them off.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Until proponents tell me exactly how many mistakes they're willing to allow...

... They can fucking go to hell - and take their racist system with them.

And it's meaningless to say "I'm for it, if the system worked right". We don't live in magic pony land, and never will.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

12. Well said

once again you sugarcoated your response! :rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

13. (blush) I'm not known for my diplomacy skills.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

35. I am writing that down

in my diary...

Dear Diary....

Today BlooInBloo admitted he is not very diplomatic. I also saw some parts of Hell freezing over. It has been a red letter day.

Love.... Gilligan

[RedCappedBandit]

145. Magic pony land - i love it

Seriously though, great post.

[BlooInBloo]

150. :) I copped the phrase from Atrios. I'm not creative enough to make up my own snark.

[ZombieHorde]

7. Our justice system is too flawed for the death penalty.

But then, even if it was perfect, I still don't think that I would like it. (Unless the method of execution was zombie attack)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. State sponsored murder, is murder.

[izquierdista]

9. As long as the judicial system is fallible

They cannot be allowed to make an irreversible decision.
However, there does have to be a way to remove the most damaging elements of society (e.g., Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer) in a permanent manner. Perhaps the isolated colony from which they can never return. I was about to say "penal" colony, but the point of it is not to penalize the offender, just remove him from the society. Once the offender has crossed some threshold, the one for which there is no possibility of rehabilitation, no way that they could ever function again in society and the society just wants to write them off, it should do so in a manner that still recognizes human rights.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

10. They have it now

it is called maximum security prison. The worst of the worst are separated from the rest of the population.

[izquierdista]

30. No

A "maximum security prison" is an American invention that makes a concentration camp look humane. The guards are just as sadistic, the personal freedom just as abysmal, but the element of community is taken away. In Sobibor and Auschwitz, inmates could still interact on a human level with other inmates. In American prisons, even that is taken away, as they treat the inmates as specimens to be caged 167 hours a week and taken out once a week for a beating.

True, they are fed better and the medical treatment is better than Dr. Mengele, but the mental conditioning is far worse. Survivors of Nazi concentration camps were able to re-integrate into societies after the war; after a few years in an American maximum security prison, a man is useless, too violent with heightened sociopathic behaviors to ever be put back into regular society. They do an excellent job of turning every murderer into a Bundy or a Dahmer. Instead of processing every felon through the "maximum security prison" gauntlet, the justice system should decide who to banish permanently to a colony and who have some possibility of rehabilitation. Punishment and revenge should never be the motivators for "justice", only rehabilitation in a manner that is safe to the rest of society.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

36. Well...

You are correct but what I meant to say is the worst offenders are kept away from society.

I find the system to be horrible.

I didn't mean to infer any different.

[rock]

11. I've said it before, I'll say it again

The death penalty gives the government the right to kill it's citizenry. Do you trust the governments judgment? I don't. I'm agin it.

[Botany]

14. I am for it but I doubt that it can ever be "fair" and it costs too much.

It costs way more to bring a capital case to it's end i.e. killing
somebody than if you did life w/ out parole. Also it takes too
long sometimes 20 to 25 years after the crime and the legal
system seems to be so flawed that the lawyers who defend the
criminal tend to be very uneven in their skill level.

A lawyer who does some death penalty cases in OH told me that
if any judge in any district would say that he/she was opposed to the
death penalty they would be voted out of office.

[spin]

48. Exactly the reasons I oppose the death penalty...

It costs way too much to prosecute a capitol case.

A death penalty is final. If a mistake is made, it can't be rectified.

[LBJDemocrat]

15. For

It is our duty, out of respect for the victims, to punish with death those who murder. Period.

[RC]

19. Spoken like a true Christian

Ever hear of some guy called Jesus Christ? Try google if you haven't. Or maybe the first four books of the New Testment.

[scarletwoman]

20. That's just a fancy way of saying revenge. (nt)

[varkam]

21. Does this not strike you as somewhat paternalistic?

In other words, how can one make the assumption that the victim(s) of an action would've wanted the same fate visited upon the perpetrator?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

104. It is a known fact that MANY don't. LBJDemocrat, here's some links for you.

Read them and tell me what you think.

http://www.mvfr.org/
http://www.flyernews.com/article.php?volume=51&issue=8
http://blogs.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/archive/2008/01/30/murder-victims--families-against-death-penalty.htm

[benddem]

29. that's called revenge n/t

[blondeatlast]

63. Back to the Book of Matthew for you (chapter 7 is a good start...).

Why don't you take it up with Jesus Christ?

[blondeatlast]

65. Yikes. Maybe that avatar of yours represents something I interpret differently...

Ew--kindly find yourself another prayer circle, if you don't mind?

[ulysses]

75. hmm.

Bullshit.

[baldguy]

86. What happens when the state commits murder in our name?

Shouldn't we all be put to death then?

[RedCappedBandit]

130. So what about the victims of the death penalty sentence?

Can the family of the convict be justified in killing you for sentencing their family member to death?


Yeah, pretty stupid logic, i know.

[Skittles]

173. that would make US murderers n/t

[Skittles]

174. dup

[varkam]

16. I am against it because I believe in universal human rights.

I believe that we have certain rights that are ours for no more than being human beings. Consequently, everyone has these rights - the young and the old, the healthy and the infirm, the rich and the poor. Among these rights, I think, is a right to life (not to be confused with an anti-choice position).

These universal rights are non-negotiable. One cannot bargain away their rights. One cannot sign them away, or throw them away either. What that means, though, is that even though people among us have committed some truly heinous acts - torture, murder, rape, kidnapping - they still have rights. In other words, the are not monsters even despite the monstrous nature of their actions - they are still people.

The death penalty as punishment for acts committed runs contrary to my belief in universal human rights. Imposing death on another individual is, in my opinion, murder no matter by whom or for what purpose it is imposed. There is no such thing as a virtuous murder, no such thing as a righteous killing. There are times when it may be necessary, such as when your own life is threatened or the life of another, but it is nothing to be cheered or celebrated. It is to be mourned, as it is a violation of that individual's right to be alive.

At least, that's my .02.

[spanone]

17. thou shalt not kill no asterik

[mitchum]

23. If you are referring to that tribal law allegedly handed down to those herdsmen...

it reads: Thou shalt not MURDER
not "kill"

[varkam]

108. I guess that all depends on which version you're reading...

[mitchum]

133. Why would I read it at all? Tribal law for patriarchal herdsmen in the Middle East...

has jack shit to do with me or mine.
But since all of that garbage is just made up anyway, I suppose one can "find" a version which confims their particular point of view.

[varkam]

164. Whether or not you believe in the veracity of the bible...

it is still the case that many do, and that it can be used as an effective rhetorical tool in these matters as a consequence.

[mitchum]

176. Okay, then...the Easter Bunny is in favor of the death penalty

He told me so himself!
Prove me wrong.

[varkam]

198. What are you talking about?

[mitchum]

202. An "effective rhetorical tool" based upon an imaginary being, of course

Some people believe in the Easter Bunny just as some people believe in the supreme being of the Hebrews (and their various off shoots)
Doesn't seem to be very much difference to me. Wait a minute...I don't think anyone ever exploited others in the name of the Easter Bunny. So, I guess there is some difference.

[varkam]

214. Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not *you* believe in it.

As it stands, others do.

[mitchum]

215. So, you are advocating manipulating others through their belief systems?

Religous hucksters, the Nazis, the bush administration, the advertising industry, and many others also subscribe to that tactic.
Nice company there...

[varkam]

217. Lol! You're ridiculous.

Ever heard of Godwin's law?

[mitchum]

219. Of course, I have heard of it, but since I'm not a pasty little internet geek..

I give it as much credence as I do the existence of imaginary deities.

You can try to get out of that little rhetorical corner you now find yourself in, but you're gonna get paint all over your shoes.

[varkam]

230. If you think that the bible is beneath any sort of discussion as it all made up and imaginary...

then why did you comment on it? Were you merely eager to parade your ignorance? If so, you succeeded in your task. Then, when I point out your error, your response seems to be "So what, you nazi?!"

:rofl:

[mitchum]

231. It is not beneath dicussion, but it is beyond credibilty.

There is a difference, y'know.

[varkam]

232. And where have I said anything one way or the other about the credibility of the bible?

I was commenting on the simple fact that many people believe in it. I never said that the bible is true because many people believe in it - in fact, I have not commented one way or the other about what I think about it personally.

There is a difference, y'know.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

38. Save The Asterik!

What is an "asterik"?

I have an asterisk waiting in the lobby for you.

[LWolf]

18. Against.

For these reasons:

1. I am firmly opposed to revenge.

2. I'm against killing of anything for any reason but defense or mercy.

[TransitJohn]

50. .....

2. I'm against killing of anything for any reason but defense or mercy.

Than what do you eat?
:hide:

[QueenOfCalifornia]

51. LOL

Bwaaaaa!:rofl:

[LWolf]

60. I should add: and survival, of course.

I need food to survive. I eat what local farmers raise. I'm an omnivore.

[polmaven]

22. I am against it for many reasons,

with number one being that it is simply immoral. State sponsored murder is still murder.

Not In My Name!

[flashl]

24. Against.

The system is flawed.

Lena Baker was the first and only woman to be executed in Georgia's electric chair. She was executed in 1945. The State of Georgia pardon her in 2005.

[Judi Lynn]

25. It's not ever acceptable. NEVER. n/t

[flvegan]

26. Very much against.

It's revenge, not punishment.

[Jack_DeLeon]

27. Some people because of thier actions deserve to die...

although I think the evidence that they committed those actions need to be pretty solid.

I personally wouldnt sentence someone to death who only killed one person for if they had a good reason, but for someone who had a violent history yes. Also if someone committed mass murder then yes also.

[RedCappedBandit]

131. Pretty solid?

What is pretty solid?

What error rate is acceptable?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. against it --

I would love to overhaul the whole judicial system :D

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. I was for it before I was against it.

[bluebellbaby]

32. I'm both for and against it...strange I know but here's why

As a spiritual person it's wrong to kill, period...the ten commandments are simple..."thou shall not kill", there's no exception for your government...so on this level I cannot support the death penalty. Throw in the fact that 100's of innocent people have been put to death for something they didn't do...our current legal system is corrupt and disfunctional...and despite the hype...it is not the best in the world...

On the other hand as a spiritual person, I truly believe that everyone has the right to demand justice and the old addage..."an eye for an eye"...we as senescent beings have this ultimate right...

If you kill someone then you should be killed...I do make exceptions for accidents...motive is important to me...was something done with malice and intent...?

Here's an example...say someone goes into a bank to rob it because their child needs a life saving an operation they cannot afford...but in the course of the robbery...an older bank patron has a heart attack because of the situation...I know this is called manslaughter...but I don't agree with someone being killed for this unfortunate circumstance.

If you rape someone then you should be raped...pretty simple and straight forward...

The dichotomy of my two positions has always been a point of contention with friends and family and even at times within myself...but no one said "life" would be easy...

or might I say "black and white"....

[QueenOfCalifornia]

42. Wow...

You are really quite - CONFUSED

You are basing your decision on ancient text that also demands that women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death.. (just one crazy example) An eye for an eye?

You said, If you rape someone, you should be raped.... Would that apply to people who torture their victims? Would you like to apply that logic in this instance? Who gets to do the retribution torture act?

You are not serious... tell me I read that wrong.

Spiritual people make NO sense to me

[bluebellbaby]

46. I know this and I said so but

I never said anything about stoning anyone..."women who have sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death"...this is not a crime by the standards of the ten commandments...so this I don't agree with...

the ten commandments say nothing about gays, lesbians, or transsexuals or homophobes or bigots...the ten commandments are simple...not open for interpretation...supposedly written by the hand of God...if true or not...they are a simple set of standards to live by...

"You said, If you rape someone, you should be raped.... Would that apply to people who torture their victims? Would you like to apply that logic in this instance? Who gets to do the retribution torture act?"...

to this question I say...the victim...they have that right...call it revenge or justice...not much difference in the two...

My cosmic "karma" test...it will come back to you...so who said that the victim(s) can't be the harbor-inger of this...

I know logic goes out the window on subjects of faith...and belief...

Sorry for not making sense...

[QueenOfCalifornia]

47. Like I said

spiritual people make no sense

[bluebellbaby]

52. yeah you're right...love the caption in your post....

:toast:

[Greyhound]

54. From this reply, and your exchange with Gilligan, I would say that you need to do a lot more

studying of the book you claim to be the basis for your perverted view. You used the quote, "An eye for an eye" yet apparently missed, entirely, the point of the parable. You also incorrectly stated that sex outside of marriage is not a crime in the so-called 10 commandments, check again. In another reply you state that revenge is equal to justice, once again you are flat out, 180 degrees, wrong.

You are new here. You better bring better knowledge, and a little research, if you want to compete in this forum.

Welcome?

[bluebellbaby]

226. "preverted view"...thanks for the insult...but here's the list

I know this is a bit off the op, but you said I should bring a little research and knowledge...well...here's my knowledge...

Adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and one who is not his or her spouse. Some legal jurisdictions have defined it as "crime against marriage",<1> as opposed to infidelity.


1. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.

2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

So, could you re-think your accusation(s) that I don't know what I'm talking about...no mention of sex outside of marriage in the list above...nope...nothing...

Missing the point of the parable "an eye for an eye...yet better is the man who turns the other cheek"...so I'm not a better "man"...but an honest one...and yes I do have the right for revenge,opps I mean justice...even if I chose not to take the "high road" as implied in the parable...I have no obligation to "turn the other cheek"...and the parable reinforces my original point...

Justice is legalized revenge in my opinion...no matter how you define it or wrap it up...or explain it away...that's the bottom line for justice...

Thanks for the Welcome...I know I'm new...but I was only trying to explain my vote for and against the death penalty...now you know more about me than maybe I should have revealed...here...

We could discuss this privately, if it's allowed here?

I really enjoy a good debate, just please don't throw insults because of what I believe... then we all loose...lowers the topic to high school rantings...

GB

[blondeatlast]

66. I thought only the RRR got the Bible seconds that left out the Gospels.

But this DU thread makes it clear it's widely available OUTSIDE of Wal-Mart.

[bluebellbaby]

227. sorry what's "rrr" and the reference to bible seconds...I'm a natural blonde

I really don't get your post...thanks for any clarification...

[RedCappedBandit]

132. Eye for an eye isn't justice, its revenge

[bluebellbaby]

228. I don't see any difference between justice and revenge....sorry

they are the same thing...for me...

[Cerridwen]

33. I am 100% against the death penalty.

There are many crimes committed which make me want to "kill" the perpetrator; which is exactly why I would be disqualified to serve on their jury. It's also why we have a legal system (such as it is these days) in this country. It's so people, like me, who become enraged, do not take it into their own hands to exact revenge. Though I've seen the two words equated today, I don't agree that revenge and justice are one in the same.

Our system is much too flawed to allow it to mete out such irreversible punishment. I'll save my rant, about the whole punitive, vengeful angle so many embrace today, for another day.

[Nutmegger]

34. As long as the death penalty is carried out in my name, I will forever condemn it!

It's state-sanctioned revenge killing, barbaric and does nothing but make people "feel good".

Not only am I against the death penalty because of the loss of innocent lives, but also because I believe each and every person is entitled to basic human rights no matter what. It's one of the major reasons why I donate to Amnesty International each year.

Never in my name.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[zanne]

37. The answer to violence isn't more violence.

The death penalty is hypocritical,barbaric and the system is flawed.

[Cerridwen]

39. Bumper sticker wisdom

Why do we kill people to teach people that killing people is wrong?

[Bill McBlueState]

40. against

There are good theoretical reasons to oppose the death penalty, but theory is moot in light of one observation: The state doesn't always get it right. And they never will; there's no such thing as a perfect justice system. So let's not even make the option of death available.

[notfullofit]

41. I'm against it but

on the other hand, I'm also against the killing of cows, sheep (oh especially the little baby lambs)for human consumption.
Does that make me liberal enough?

[QueenOfCalifornia]

43. no...

it makes you a vegetarian.

[notfullofit]

58. OK you got me! nt

[EFerrari]

44. Killing people is always a bad idea. n/t

[Richard Steele]

45. I'm against it. nm

[TransitJohn]

49. Against

The state never, ever has any business to murder it's own citizens.

[Greyhound]

53. I certainly understand the reason why so many approve of it, but I'm firmly against it. n/t

[ThomWV]

55. Against. Reason: I quit vacillating between the two choices.

One day I realized just how wrong I had been about so many things and from that moment forward I knew that no matter of life and death should ever be left to any of us, that there was no infallable way to tell who might or might not be executed based on any stretch of morality.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

83. Well put.

Thank you.

I think you said what many feel and think and you did it in one, nice sentence.

:toast:

[Pushed To The Left]

56. I oppose it for practical reasons.

If a person gets life in prison without parole, and is later found to be innocent, he or she can be set free. If that same person is executed, and is found to be innocent, there is no way to bring him or her back. Our justice system is flawed and there have been plenty of wrongful convictions. I'm not willing to risk executing innocent people.

[pleah]

57. Against.

It does not stop people from committing murder. It is basically revenge. I could go on and on.

[citizen snips]

59. Robespierre was a liberal who opposed the death penalty

then he changed his mind. So is it really an issue of being liberal or not? Or is it a question of political power?

[depakid]

72. Actually, it's a matter of being rational vs. being emotional

Most Americans (whether they like to admit it or not) run on emotion as opposed to reason, which is why they still have the death penalty and have built the world's largest and most expensive prison system.

and why they drive oversized SUV's that they have no rational use for... or a whole host of other, seemingly inexplicable (and often self-defeating) things.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

236. I think your argument

is one of the best in this thread. :hi:

[Wizard777]

61. I vacillate between the two.

I used to oppose the death penalty because I thought it was infinitely more cruel to make a person live with what they have done. Then I realized I opposed the death penalty to inflict what I believed to be a cruel punishment upon the person. That is prohibited by the Constitution. So I began to support the death penalty. The only area I don't vacillate in is the death penalty as punishment for treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I unbendingly support it.

[blondeatlast]

62. Against, against, against.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.


Christianity. Matthew 7.1-5

Not to mention--what if we HUMANS amke a mistake (as we no doubt have?)?

[aikoaiko]

64. Pro-DP: Because some people don't deserve to live after what they did; No Justice, No Peace.

[blondeatlast]

67. Who are the "some people?" And who are YOU to judge them? nt

[aikoaiko]

71. Some people include those who cause tremendous suffering and cruelty

And I am simply a member of society who, like you and everyone else, must make these judgments. You, obviously, make a different judgment than me, but still you judge.

[varkam]

97. Why should we be wanting to inflict more suffering and cruelty...

if the goal is to reduce it?

[aikoaiko]

99. Depends on how you look at it.

I think there is a slight majority of people in the US who feel as I do that when a heinous convicted criminal gets to live it is an affront to society that causes more suffering. I know others feel/think differently.

[varkam]

101. Whether or not there is a slight majority, that is irrelevant as to how...

it makes sense to inflict more suffering in order to reduce it.

[aikoaiko]

105. Its really pretty simple. Some people's anguish ends when a heinous person ceases to exist.

[varkam]

107. But one of the reasons we have a criminal justice system is to move away...

from victim-driven retribution. Some victims may want such and such a person dead, but it strikes me as paternalistic to give blanket support to a DP policy on such a view. It is equally plausible to assume that some victims would not want the perpetrator to be killed. Moreover, such a view pushes us back into the mob mentality of victim and emotion-driven retribution which, again, is what we should try to be avoiding.

[aikoaiko]

109. Society anguishes, not just the direct victims or family and friends of vicitms.

Proportionate retribution is still alive and well in the American justice system. I don't know where you are getting that a criminal justice system is to move one away from retribution. perhaps some people would like it so, but that doesn't mean it is so.

[varkam]

163. Retribution has always been one of the justifications for punishment...

and always will be, but the criminal justice system does not rely on emotional motiviations for dispensing such punishment, as is the case with victim or communal justice.

My personal feeling is that you're reaching with the "society suffers" angle, as that sort of suffering is intangible and esoteric, whereas the suffering inflicted when you electrocute someone to death is very real and apparent.

[krispos42]

146. How is executing somebody "more" suffering and cruelty?

Either way, life in prison or a needle in the arm, the perp leaves prison on a gurney and with a toe tag. Is dragging his death out until age 80 somehow nicer?

[varkam]

166. My question was referring to the underlying motivation of the conclusion.

One of my big problems with making retribution the primary means of dispensing justice is that it seems to me to be contradictory.

And yes, I would think that many people would prefer to be alive albeit incarcerated as opposed to dead - hence all the appeals that death row inmates are quick to file.

[krispos42]

237. Ah, okay

My primary reason for being pro-(properly and justly applied) death-penalty is about leaving a small an infamous legacy as possible, and to minimize future pain and suffering such a person can cause. No chance to spread his opinions or philosophies or mental illness through other inmates, no hero-worship, no fucking with the police or victim's relatives, no taunting, no biographies, no "inspiring" other people....

Just nothing except a memory.

[baldguy]

88. Know justice, know peace.

[aikoaiko]

100. Exactly.

[baldguy]

121. Murder is not justice - even when its committed by the state.

ESPECIALLY when its committed by the state.

[aikoaiko]

135. except when its punishment after due process.

[baldguy]

144. Due process is shit. How many innocents have been subject to death due to "due process"?

6 million Jews and 7 million others in Nazi Germany.

9 million under Stalin.

35 million in the Japanese occupation of China.

Countless millions during the European conquest of the Americas.


Just a small selection - a VERY FEW examples. ALL done under "due process".

[aikoaiko]

148. If you see no difference between American dp and holocausts then there is no point in discussing

any further. But in case you're wondering, I don't think the dead of the holocaust, the pogroms, the Japanese occupation, and American conquest had legal and legislative representation in the laws that permitted their deaths.

[baldguy]

183. When innocents are murdered, there is no difference.

[Sparkly]

96. Justice = Violence = Peace? nt

[aikoaiko]

102. Sometimes. nt

[MrSlayer]

69. I'm in favor of the death penalty.

Always have been, always will be.

[RedCappedBandit]

122. So you're in favor of murder

[MrSlayer]

134. No, I'm in favor of justice.

But if you want to call it murder go ahead. Some people need to be "murdered".

[RedCappedBandit]

141. Do you know what differentiates revenge from justice?

[MrSlayer]

159. One man's justice is another man's revenge.

As I say, call it what you want. You want to call it murder or revenge go ahead. I don't have a problem with murdering someone who deserves to be murdered or the concept of vengeance. The semantics of it are no issue to me. There most definitely is a such thing as justifiable homicide.

[RedCappedBandit]

179. What error rate are you comfortable with?

[mitchum]

137. So that means you must agree with the anti-choicers who insist that abortion...

is "murder"?

[RedCappedBandit]

140. Not at all, my friend.

[mitchum]

175. Then why are you playing fast and loose with the very precisely defined...

legal definition of "murder"?
THAT is exactly what they do.

[RedCappedBandit]

213. I do not see abortion and murder as one in the same

The circumstances are completely different, especially in the instance of state endorsed murder.
Nobody stands to gain anything through the death penalty, only loss. Abortion can be necessary.
Besides, abortion ends the possibility of a life, while murder ends a pre-existing life.

[micraphone]

70. Why are we having this conversation?

According to AI, 135 countries have abolished the death penalty, with a couple of dozen more either reserving it for treason or capital crime, or, (much more commonly), have a complete moratorium. Many more are going through the process to eventual abolition.

The US is right up there with China, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with the amount of their own citizens murdered by their own "Government". More info here:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

The USA is ONLY first world country in the world that permits the murder of its citizens.

Not a fact I'd be proud of.

[Balbus]

73. Against.

There are certain crimes that deserve death as a punishment. But until that punishment can be meted out without error or prejudice - which can never happen as long as humans are the ones who decide - then it should not be a consideration.

[logosoco]

76. my feelings go back and forth

I use to be against the DP until someone in my family (nephew by marriage) killed a 6 year old little girl. His sentence was the death penalty and i didn't feel very bad about it (except for how his mom feels). This was a very horrible , life changing experience for me.I think I would have been willing to say "life in prison" is a just punishment...but the way our prison system is...people are serving sentences for crimes that should not even require prison time at all. I have also heard of many murderers getting out after 20 years.
I don't think you can "atone" for murder.
Maybe if this person had not killed a child my thoughts would be different.
If anyone here would like to change my mind I am open to discussion!!I would very much like to go back to my "anti-death penalty" philosophy!

[ulysses]

77. completely against.

[MiniMe]

78. I go back and forth, but much more against than for these days

There are too many people found to be innocent 15 or more years after they were convicted. Our law system is supposed to be founded on innocent until proven guilty, and that it is better to free 1 criminal than to convict somebody who is innocent. Once a person is dead, there is no bringing them back and saying, "oops, we made a mistake".

[LeftishBrit]

79. Against

The UK abolished the death penalty in the 1960s, and I am glad of it.

(1) It does not really deter people from crime. Places that have the death penalty do not have a lower murder rate than those who don't. The psychopaths and terrorists who might seem most deserving of the death penalty are the least likely to be deterred by it.

(2) It is always possible to make mistakes. At least if someone is imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit, you can release them if new evidence turns up. You can't bring them back to life if they've been executed.

(3) The death penalty turns the state, and therefore the citizens, into licensed revenge-killers.

[BlueJazz]

80. against it because Corporate Criminals get away with killing people and just....

..getting either a small jail sentence or a slap on the wrist.

[-..__...]

85. Roll on one... roll on two.

In principle... I'm for it.

Nothing wrong with revenge or retribution... some wastes of skin deserve to be euthanized.

In reality... I'm against it, but only because there should be no room for mistakenly executing an innocent person.

(Personally... I would rather see 99 guilty people go free rather than one innocent person serve time).

However, I would favor a two-part jury system where a guilty verdict can be found beyond a "reasonable doubt", but in order for the death penalty to be imposed there should be a second hearing where the standard is 'beyond any doubt.

[baldguy]

87. Governments are instituted among men to stop people from getting killed

among other things.

The state shouldn't be in the business of killing its own citizens.

[Jed Dilligan]

90. Other: only for crimes of office.

Police corruption, white collar crime, political corruption. If it has a massive impact on the public, it warrants a public execution. That would actually be a deterrent to these fratholes who keep robbing us and raping our country.

[LeftishBrit]

170. Don't you think that the death penalty for crimes of office...

would be hugely abused by powerful people to kill off their rivals; as indeed has often happened in dictatorships?

[Jed Dilligan]

208. For the moment our courts are a little cleaner than most dictatorships,

at least when the parties are people rich enough to have lawyers.

[Sparkly]

92. Against.

Killing to teach people that killing is wrong?

I think it also says something about a government when it murders this way; and I think that in turn influences its people...

It's a horrific practice that shouldn't happen in a "civilized" nation, imho.

[marmar]

94. State-sanctioned murder is just WRONG.....period. ......

You don't become a better society by doing the very thing which you say you hold in contempt.

[Norwood]

95. For

Im aware its an unpopular position around here but there are crimes that are commited that are so heinous, those who commit them should indeed forfeit their life for it.

[Wcross]

103. I am for the death penalty.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

113. What's the official source for this data? Until you provide one, I'm calling bullshit. -nt

[RedCappedBandit]

129. That graph is bullshit:

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout

[RedCappedBandit]

124. *ahem*

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout


Bit of common knowledge: Threat of punishment IS NOT a deterrent.

[blondeatlast]

194. Source? Link? Hey, I've got MS Excel and Photoshop. I can prove that eliminating the DP makes murder

go down!

Until I see a source--BS, BS, BS.

[Kitty Herder]

106. It's like this joke Jeff Foxworthy (I think) told:

He was laughing at himself because one of his kids hit the other kid, so he stepped in and smacked the offender on the bum, saying, "We don't hit!"

I've been against the death penalty since I was a child. I remember a long conversation about the subject with my cousin shortly after we learned about it from the news. We came to the conclusion that taking another life doesn't bring back the life that the murderer took and sets a bad example that killing is okay. We couldn't have been more than nine, but I still stand by those two conclusions. I've since found out other reasons to oppose the death penalty, such as the fact that it is applied in a racially biased mannner, and that it does not have a deterrent effect.

[lumberjack_jeff]

110. Against.

1) it is more expensive than the alternative
2) so long as the prisoner is alive, the search for truth can continue. For every innocent person who is executed, there's a criminal who is forever unpunished for his crime. He could confess live on the Dr Phil show and he'll never be tried or convicted.
3) it acclimates us to institutionalized violence
4) it is not a deterrent

[goldcanyonaz]

111. Everyone is against the death penalty until someone they love is murdered.

[AlCzervik]

112. bullshit and speak for yourself.

[goldcanyonaz]

114. And you have suffered that loss?

[AlCzervik]

115. yes.

[goldcanyonaz]

117. And the killer admitted to it in graphic detail?

[AlCzervik]

119. i gave you my answer already and i don't feel the need to go in to detail about either

crime.

[goldcanyonaz]

120. No disrespect meant. Sorry for you loss.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

116. Wrong on both counts. See post 104.

Also, the punishophiles who crave their death penalty fix WITHOUT ever having a loved one murdered undermine your argument too. That may include yourself.

[RedCappedBandit]

125. Everyone is for the death penalty until they're the innocent being convicted.

:eyes:

[SeattleGirl]

154. Not true.

One of my uncles was murdered, and wanting the death penalty for the two men who did it never even crossed my mind.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

184. Not true!

I can say, from personal experience, that is bullshit.

It's like trying to tell me that if I was in a foxhole, being shot at, I would suddenly adopt a belief in a supernatural, imaginary friend. Not even close.

Every single death penalty advocate I have argued this with uses your argument - or some form of it... It usually goes something like this - "If your chid was murdered you would be for the death penalty."

I would wantto kill the bastard. That is the emotional side of how all of us are. But for the sake of society I know that killing a P.O.S. like that only makes me less of a human. Less humanity breeds beastly people.

[blondeatlast]

195. Not so. A dear friend was raped and murdered. I spoke against the offender receiving the death penal

at the trial and continue to work to commute his sentence.

[varkam]

233. That's about the worst argument I've ever heard for the DP.

:hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

118. I vacillate

The logical side of me opposes it unequivocally. My emotional side, when I imagine a loved one as victim, could favor it.

[BlueCollar]

123. opposed

Even though there may be proof or a confession, the possibility of even one execution of an innocent person is enough for me.

[RedCappedBandit]

126. Death Penalty = Murder

Supporting the death penalty = supporting murder.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Against the death penalty except in two cases, and not due to the fact that it will discourage otehr

High Treason where thousands are killed due to the act of treason

War Crimes, where millions are killed

These two acts are so heinous that you cannot expect any redemption and usually committed by the very powerful. This means that future war criminals will not be deterred... but this are the only two exceptions where I will consider it

Oh and this will remove it from the hands of the usual suspects... and make it extremely rare

[Fox Mulder]

128. I am against it 100%.

For various reasons. First, a lot of innocent people have been put to death. Second, prisoners should rot in their jail cell, not get a quick out. Third, it's just plain barbaric. And fourth, it's just plain murder.

[napi21]

136. I said I vacilate because I think the death penalty is overused.

I think people like the guy in DC/Md/Va who drove around shooting people just because he could deserves to die.

[mitchum]

138. It should be extended to corruption and other white collar crimes

[SidDithers]

139. Killing people is revenge, plain and simple...

that's why I'm completely against it.

Sid

[Laurier]

142. Absolutely against.

There are far too many instances of wrongful convictions of the innocent, and I am not naive enough to believe that there have not also been executions of the innocent. That is reason enough to oppose the death penalty, although there are other reasons, too.

[frogcycle]

143. For

There are some extreme situations where it is appropriate. Not vengeance, not deterrent, just the right thing to do. There are creatures who should not be allowed to continue sharing our air.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

152. Against the death penalty

Life in prison with no possibility for parole should replace it.

[SeattleGirl]

153. I'm against the death penalty.

State-sanctioned killing is just wrong. That doesn't mean I think the person who did the killing shouldn't be punished. They should. Keep them separate, don't let them have the usual privileges, etc.

And I'm also not saying that if someone killed someone close to me, I wouldn't have the initial instinct to kill them; I probably would. But I wouldn't, and having the state do it wouldn't bring my loved one back.

I also think that anyone who IS for the death penalty should have to watch at least one execution. If you're really for it, you should have to witness it. I'm sure some folks would be fine with that, but I think some wouldn't be.

[csziggy]

155. Some people do not deserve to live but no one is wise or

infallible enough to make the decision who deserves to die.

I voted against the death penalty.

[proud2BlibKansan]

157. Adamantly opposed

It's lots more expensive to put a man to death rather than keep him in prison for life. Besides, there is always that possibility an innocent person is being executed.

[drmeow]

160. I voted other so I will explain

I am not intrinsically/fundamentally (not sure which is the more accurate word) opposed to the death penalty. I believe that there are people who are viciously and permanently psychopathic and who through their crimes have forfeited the right to live and be supported by society in any way - Hitler being one example. I also believe that there are criminals who cannot be rehabilitated. Manson is an example. I have to admit that I somewhat resent paying for the support of those types of criminals ... but if we had universal health care (which I think we should), I would resent it quite a bit less and if they could earn their room and board (at market wage rates, not slave wage rates like most prison labor now), I would also mind a lot less.

However, the death penalty in this country is a complete and utter joke. It applies to crimes that are not deserving of the death penalty, it is unfairly used against minorities and the poor, the methods for putting criminals to death are horrific, there is too much of a risk of killing someone who is innocent, and the main purposes it serves are vengeance for the victim's family, punishment of the criminal's family (once you're dead, its no longer a punishment), titillation for society, and a threat to hold over the heads of the minority/disadvantaged group d'jour. Furthermore, state sanctioned murder is not a deterrent and never has been.

So, I'm opposed to the death penalty but think some people deserve the death penalty.

[Selatius]

161. It is a form of unnecessary killing. If the person is incarcerated and secured, he is no threat.

Killing him at that point would simply be gratuitous. I divide all killing into necessary v. unnecessary. The death penalty falls into the latter.

[TheWraith]

162. I'm against the death penalty as a practical matter.

Frankly, I have no real moral objection to the idea of executing people guilty of certain crimes. However, in order to be fairly applied and safe, it would have to be 100% guaranteed that these people had in fact committed the crimes they were accused of.

Of course, as we know, that's not possible in common jurisprudence. It seems like every day we hear about another person who's been in prison for years or even decades being exhonorated because of new forensic evidence techniques. Unfortunately, even these techniques aren't perfect. That means that innocent people will sometimes be convicted of crimes. A prison sentence can be undone if a person is discovered to be innocent--an execution can't.

[StarryNite]

165. I am against it because

if even one innocent person is executed it shouldn't be done at all. And we know there have been lots of innocent people executed over the years.

[ConsAreLiars]

168. Those who support the death penalty are no different than those who murder for other reasons.

That's the fact. They both have their reasons. Rage, vengeance, self-interest, psychotic delusions, fear, whatever. No difference at all.

(edit minor typo)

[IntravenousDemilo]

169. It's barbaric. Societies that practise it are barbarous. People who promote it are barbarians.

Period.

When someone is slain by the state on behalf of society, everyone in the society becomes a party to murder whether he likes it or not. It's therefore easy to see why abolitionists are angered and, yes, downright insulted by its continuance. Thank goodness we outlawed it in Canada in 1976, around the same time you brought it back in the States. And even before abolition, we hadn't had an execution here since 1962.

[Mercracer]

171. We can't Kill our way out of violent crime......

I am against our current system of capital punishment. We are terribly incompetent in carrying it out. A convicted felon on death row in California has little fear of actually being executed. A convicted felon on death row in some other states have a much higher chance of being wrongly executed due to speedy executions...
The claim that the threat of being executed is a deterrent is clearly false based on the actions of the nation's youth in gangs and their lack of respect for life..
Those who are most often executed are disproportionately poor and of color.... It was recently said by a Law Enforcement Official that we can not arrest our way out of the current crime wave...
It can even more precisely stated that we can not kill our way out of violent crime.
We get a return on money invested for inner city infrastructure where we are wasting money spent on incarceration and executions after crimes have been committed....

[hokies4ever]

172. Against - Biased and used for revenge, not deterrence

Don't like the death penalty at all. First, people are delusional if they believe that maximum security prison is a wonderful life. It's probably much worse than any other penalty, barring torture. It is very expensive. It hasn't been proven to deter criminal activity. It's too subjective in its use and is horribly biased against preconceived notions about what people are like (e.g. black men are assumed to be more dangerous to society even if the crime is the exact same as many other 'types' of people). It is a violation of our society's civil rights and is seen as such by many countries around the world. I believe one day later in this century we will look back on the death penalty with disdain in this country.

[Bettie]

177. I'm against the death penalty for several reasons

1. even one innocent person being put to death is too many

2. the DP is disproportionately applied to poor and minority defendants

3. I don't see the logic in "an eye for an eye" thinking.

4. Justice and vengeance are two different things. State sanctioned killing is not justice, it is, in my opinion, revenge and should not be part of our system.


A side note. My mother believes in the death penalty for many crimes. Her argument for it is, "what is someone raped and killed your child?". Now, I love my children and I would want that person dead, however, my wish for that wouldn't be for justice, it would be pure and simple revenge. Justice and revenge need to stay separate.

My mother, of course, thinks I'm an idiot, but then, she also thinks that the best way to teach children not to hit each other is to punish them by (wait for it) spanking them!

Go figure.

[Echo In Light]

178. Against

[mainegreen]

180. Yes and no.

For the average man, who may or may not really get a fair trial? No.

For the worst of the worst; aka the monsters who sometimes get control of governments, rebel groups, militia etc and use that power to slaughter, kill and torture? Not just yes, but fuck yes. Because in these situations, it's actually possible to be 100% certain of their crimes, and thus apply death.

I'm not against the death penalty as a punishment, it's just that outside of these extreme cases, in the real world we can't achieve the 100% certainty I think is needed to apply the ultimate punishment. But when we can achieve that certainty, then punish away!

[dorkulon]

181. Against, mainly due to the inevitability that innocent people will be executed. /nt

[lonestarnot]

182. Against! In every situation! Against!

[Prophet 451]

185. I went "other"

I'm for the DP in theory, in very limited numbers, under very specific circumstances and reserved purely for the very worst offenders as a horrific safeguard for society. I'm referring to those thankfully few offenders who cannot be rehabilitated, where the evidence is so conclusive and who are so incredibly dangerous that even the minute chance of their escaping from jail is too big a chance to take, offenders like Fred West, Richard Rameirez. Oh, and hopefully it goes without saying that any form of execution should be as painless as possible.

That said, I disagree with the way the DP is currently used, it's vast racial disparities and, most of all, the way some of it's supporters celebrate it's use. Execution should be a terrible necessity, something used with all due regret for the monsterous wrong we commit. If we must be monsters on occasion (and I think we must) then we must be careful that we do not forget how to be men.

Under those conditions, the number of people executed would amount to perhaps a dozen in the last decade and should a method be invented that can 100% guarentee the confinement of the offender (say, that suspended animation thing from Minority Report) then my support disappears.

EDIT: And incidently, the DP is categorically NOT "state sponsored murder" for the same reason as abortion isn't murder. The definition of "murder" is "the unlawful killing of another human during time of peace" (my emphasis). If it is legal then, by definition, it is not murder. Legally, it would be homicide, subclass execution.

[dwebb210]

186. History Channel

I was watching a program on the History Channel last night.

It basically said that throughout history, serious crime was punishable
by death because it was the greatest deterrent.

Countries with the worst punishments have the least crime.

The United States has pretty light punishments, and also have pretty bad crime.

In my opinion, if we could reduce overall crime by having more terrible punishments,
that is what we should be doing.

[Echo In Light]

187. Couldn't disagree more. And I wouldn't base my views around History Channel propaganda

[dwebb210]

188. deterrent

So you don't think punishment deters people from committing crime?

[Echo In Light]

189. Nope

[dwebb210]

190. law

I guess we should do away with all laws then.
Without punishment, laws would have no meaning.
The only reason most people obey laws is because they want to avoid punishment.

[Echo In Light]

191. America uses phony war$ as an extension of state power, which I'm against 110%

The phony "war on drugs" is every bit the grotesque, draconian sham that the equally phony "war on terror" is.

On another note, there have been studies that reveal how capital punishment doesn't dissuade people from committing crimes.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

192. Did you sneak in?

I mean from over in Freepervania?

The History Channel also elevates its programming to include every fantabulous tale from the Bible, presenting t like it really happened. Noah's Ark is an example.

You do know they found it.

Like 20 times.

In 20 different places.

[Raksha]

235. Speak for yourself!

Re The only reason most people obey laws is because they want to avoid punishment.

The reason I obey basic laws, such as those against murder and other major crimes, is because those acts are evil and wrong. I couldn't live with my conscience is I killed or seriously hurt another human being.

[RedCappedBandit]

199. It doesn't matter what you *think*

There is absolutely no evidence that punishment serves as a deterrent. Actually, the data do show that there is a correlation implying the opposite.

[RedCappedBandit]

197. How very typical of a neocon

Spewing bullshit without data to back it up.

If you actually knew what the research indicated regarding punishment and deterrence, you probably wouldn't have bothered to post such nonsense.

It isn't about opinion, it IS about DATA.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout

The US has light punishments? We are the only advanced westernized nation to still use the death penalty, and we have worse crime rates. There goes your theory of deterrence, eh? Click the link, do some research, then get back to me.

As a side note, i'm interested to know how many innocent lives would it be acceptable to murder in the search for justice? Just wondering. Thanks!

[varkam]

218. Actually, our punishments aren't that light.

We lead the world in number of prisoners. Seems kinda harsh to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

222. Way too many statistics that contradict this basic assumption

Sorry

The death penalty has zero deterrent value

[bigwillq]

193. I am against it (nt)

[Indenturedebtor]

196. For it

But with so much regulation that it takes years to execute someone... even more than what we have now.

Rehabilitation only works for some types of criminals. I know that the death penalty actually does nothing to deter anyone, but why should we pay more than double the average American salary to keep some animal in powdered eggs and ciggarettes for the rest of his life? :shrug:

Do what the Chinese do and harvest his organs to keep some kid alive.

[RedCappedBandit]

200. On average, DP costs $2million MORE than life in prison.

:shrug:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108#FromDPIC

[Indenturedebtor]

207. Does it have to though?

And we need to clean up the criminal justice system in any case.

In any case no matter what the arguement I think that a person who is caught red handed killing children (for example) should be shot in the head shortly after his third trial. Is that a deterrent to murduring psychopaths? No. But it would probably be cheap and efficient disposal of a rabid animal.

[RedCappedBandit]

212. Lets assume that it doesn't have to.

Are you okay with the fact that innocents would be murdered? If so, what error rate is acceptable?

[QueenOfCalifornia]

203. That's progressive

Using the Chinese as a sterling example of human rights is BRILLIANT! "Harvest his organs to keep some kid alive."

Sounds like you are for the death penalty for everyone.

Would you like us to install the electric bleachers on the right side of the room or the left?

[blondeatlast]

205. If the Chinese are actually doing that, they aren't keeping that kid alive for long, anyway.

Any method of execution makes for a very poor organ harvest.

[blondeatlast]

204. Harvest the organs? Where did you get THAT? A death penalty donor would be

a very poor donor indeed. Electrocution? Massive organ damage. Lethal injection? Again, too much organ damage from oxygen deprivation. Hanging? Again, oxygen deprivation. A bullet square to the forehead? Same deal.

Organs are harvested from VOLUNTARY donors who are brain dead but still breathing through artificial means.

A little education goes a long way on Democratic Underground--I'll eventure to say we are more highly educated than the normal on-line community, for the most part: http://www.donatelife.net/

You--and perhaps the "Chinese" you claim to speak for--haven't got a clue about organ harvesting.

[blondeatlast]

201. If everyone could see the "justice" system from both sides, as I have, they would oppose the DP too.

Too many cases of prosecutorial misconduct, police collusion, and the fact that even beginning public defenders are allowed to try capital crimes caps it--and I wouldn't be for it even without those things.

The criminal "justice" system is far too fucked up for ANY justice minded person to be in favor of the death penalty.

*Edit: clarification: a dear friend of mine was raped and murdered--and a close relative was incarcerated for a short time due to outlandish prosecutorial misconduct and police collusion (the police report had the WRONG CAR AND LICENSE/REGISTRATION!). Still, said relative was convicted and spent time in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's notorious Tent City--even after it was proven that the police lied on the report and on the stand...

[madokie]

206. for treason only

traitors should be hung

[warren pease]

210. You got it. I'm against, about 99.99 percent of the time...

...Anything that gives the state the right to kill me, or anyone else for that matter, is institutionalized brutality and a prime element in the fascist system of terrorizing domestic populations.

The bastards already have militarized cops, DEA crazies and paramilitary armies to do their dirty work. Lethal injections are just icing on the cake for these murdering pricks.

I want no part of a legal system that acquits the rich and kills the poor -- and does so in every city, county and state 100 percent of the time. If I've managed to miss a case in the past 50 years or so where money hasn't produced a good enough legal defense to at least hang a jury, then I stand corrected. I don't think so, though. The general rule is, in court as elsewhere, money talks and bullshit walks.

But about that lone .01 percent of the time when capital punishment seems appropriate to me. This would apply exclusively to about two or three dozen of the worst of the worst, the most treacherous of the bunch of treasonous thieves and mass murderers currently occupying the executive branch.

They need to be arrested, shipped to The Hague, tried and convicted on literally thousands of counts of war crimes, with state-sponsored torture at the very top of the list. A few of the top PNAC and CFR people would also be good candidates for extradition. And by special request: Can we please, please ship Limbaugh and O'Really over there too? Like yesterday? Hannity also? How about Annie and Dr. Laura? The list could easily run to 10 pages, single spaced.

Does anybody think it's possible that this human crime wave could be exonerated in, say, a decade or so? Conclusively proven to have been a benign, public-spirited administration that only wanted to improve the lives of the poor and innocent here and around the world? Or that the whole story built up around sanctioning torture was just a ruse and was never meant to be applied at Gitmo or anywhere else?

If so, then your name must be Pollyanna and you must be looking forward to another benign administration headed by another big torture fan, the honorable Senator McMelanoma.

This is the only case in my personal history for which I've ever even considered applying the death penalty if the perps are found guilty -- and if they're not, then they've managed to find EU judges who can either be bribed, blackmailed or threatened sufficiently to cause them to suspend disbelief and acquit these thugs.

I have more faith in Europeans, who aren't nearly as money grubbing or tolerant of fascists as we are, to tell the Bushies' fixers to fuck off and die.

I hope I live long enough (and Cheney does, too) to see the look on cyborg Dick's virtual face when somebody finally tells him to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

And yes, it's largely about revenge. I want them to experience a little of what the rest of the planet had to experience thanks to their blood lust and insatiable greed.

But beyond revenge, I want them put completely out of business -- permanently. I want it to be literally impossible for the Bushies to resume screwing the people of the world upon release from prison, and there's only one way to guarantee that outcome.

I also want the Future Fascists of America, now honing their skills at various collegiate young republican brownshirt training camps -- and recently labeled "Chickenhawk Breeding Preserves" by some online genius -- to get the message that their political ideology went out with the Third Reich (or maybe our own Fourth Reich happening right here, right now).

Further, they need to understand unequivocally that fascists are no longer welcome in post-Bushean America in any capacity whatsoever. Maybe a one-way ticket to Islamabad would send the proper message.

Parroting Malloy, have I mentioned lately how much I hate these people?


wp

[LeftishBrit]

239. Just to note: the International Criminal Court doesn't use the death penalty

If convicted at The Hague of serious war crimes, Bush et al would get a life sentence. Which I certainly wouldn't object to! Send Blair there too, while you're at it.

[slackmaster]

209. Against, because while it may be justified people aren't smart enough to be absolutely sure

That they aren't executing the wrong person.

I would support it if a higher standard of proof than "reasonable doubt" was possible. I do not believe it is.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

211. for the death penalty

because I'm not as enlightened as the rest of you.

[Uncle Joe]

216. I'm against it and see no logical reason to have a death penalty, however

I do see good reason not to have one.

Innocent people may be executed by the state by mistake or by corrupt means, this makes the state at best guilty of involuntary manslaughter and at worst premeditated murder.

I believe if someone is guilty of a particularly heinous crime, put them in prison for life without the possibility of parole, I see no reward to a prisoner in that form of punishment and it keeps the state from becoming a murderer.

[Yavapai]

220. Against it because,

1. It is not universally applied. Some get the death penalty when they killed one person, others get life after killing 40 (Green river killer).

2. The chances of getting the death penalty is directly tied to your personal wealth and the quality of the lawyer that you can afford.

3. More likely to receive death if the prosecutor has higher political ambitions.

4. Sloppy police work causes many mistakes as proved by many reversals after DNA proof.

5. If the reason for the death penalty is for deterrence, then it should be done by hanging and in full view by the public. So far it has not been shown to be a deterrence. The one thing that I have noticed that does seem to be a deterrence against crime is the legal concealed weapons permits laws that have been passed by several states (Google search for the statistics.)




FLAMES START AFTER NUMBER 5

[Contradistinction]

221. Whack 'em all

You get a couple of years & a couple of appeals. Then you get to choose how you're going to die. Electric chair, hanging, firing line, lethal injection, etc. Then, it's also on PPV. Prisons could also have tours & stuff....Come see the freakshow! Maybe even have a family day....Kids get in for free...

[aquarius dawning]

224. quick, edit in the sarcasm emoticon...

[aquarius dawning]

223. I'm completely forgainst it.

I'm against it until I see some horrendous act of violence perpetrated against an inocent victim and then I become for it temporarily. In the end, as bad as that picture is, I'm basically for it.

[Orsino]

225. Killing is wrong.

I understand that it is sometimes the least evil alternative, but when the state has a violent offender already in prison, we don't need to kill. We sure as hell don't need to contract it out just so we can pretend it isn't happening.

Stop killing people when you don't have to, and if you find yourself wanting to, or wanting someone else to do it for you, get treatment.

[Raksha]

234. Opposed on general principles. It's giving the state too much power.

After all, it's NOT like you can take it back and say "sorry about that!" if you make a mistake. Innocent people have been put to death and will continue to be put to death as long as it exists anywhere. Plus, it will always be applied disproportionately to minorities, but that's a secondary reason.

[Asgaya Dihi]

238. Other

As punishment or deterrent the death penalty seems pointless to me. The only use I can see for it would be just one step removed from outright self defense.

I've seen and in other ways been aware of people who are very good at hurting people, and what's more they seemed to like doing it and worked pretty hard at getting good at it. Sociopaths who care nothing for themselves so they care nothing for the pain of others either and often enjoy it. That's the only circumstance where the death penalty might be suitable, and even then only for limited ones. When they are really good at it, really motivated, and really dedicated to hurting people even in custody.

You don't put down a rabid dog out of anger or revenge, you do it because it's too dangerous to do anything else with them. If someone through their own actions and history reduces themselves to the equivalent of a rabid dog, if there is no reasonable way to confine them without endangering others or putting them under such isolation that this in itself might be cruel and unusual punishment, then yeah. It might be an option. Never for punishment or revenge.

[Snarkturian Clone]

240. I'm for it but only under extreme circumstances. NT