Your position on the death penalty

[MODU]

Hmmm . . . sounds like a terrible waste of tax payers funds.  If someone is convicted of multiple murders or rapes, I say they should meet their maker.  Coddling them for 30 years and giving them education just so they can go back into public and commit the crime again to go back into jail, an environment they are comfortable in, does not show a sign of rehabilitation, and that the past 30 years were a waste.  Save the jail space and money for lesser crimes.

[Virginian87]

Hmmm . . . sounds like a terrible waste of tax payers funds.  If someone is convicted of multiple murders or rapes, I say they should meet their maker.  Coddling them for 30 years and giving them education just so they can go back into public and commit the crime again to go back into jail, an environment they are comfortable in, does not show a sign of rehabilitation, and that the past 30 years were a waste.  Save the jail space and money for lesser crimes.

Exactly.  It WOULD be a waste of tax payer money to support a convicted murderer for the rest of his life.  The money could be put to better use.  Frankly, I don't understand how MissCatholic can say that molesting children warrants a death penalty (and it is a terrible crime) while murder and serial raping do not.

[dazzleman]

I favor the death penalty for murder, and only murder.  There is a certain symmetry to being forced to give up your life if you deliberately and wantonly take somebody else's.

I think it's crazy to advocate the death penalty for rapists, child molesters, etc., as terrible as those crimes are, while opposing it for murder.

I've heard all the studies about the death penalty not being a deterrent.  I don't care.  I think one function of the legal system is to exact vengeance, on behalf of society, for heinous crimes, and as such, the death penalty is a perfectly legitimate way to do this.

I do think the burden of proof should be very high in death penalty cases.  For example, I would not have given Scott Peterson the death penalty because the evidence is largely circumstantial, and while I think it was sufficient to convict him, I wouldn't put him to death based upon it.

[© tweed]

I do think the burden of proof should be very high in death penalty cases.  For example, I would not have given Scott Peterson the death penalty because the evidence is largely circumstantial, and while I think it was sufficient to convict him, I wouldn't put him to death based upon it.

I disagree here.  While I don't advocate the death penalty in most cases, I believe that if you have the death penalty for first-degree murder it must include all people convicted of first degree murder.  Giving one person the death penalty and another life in prison when convicted of the same crime is like saying "we think you're guilty, but we're not entirely sure."  If the courts are to decide who's gulity and who isn't, you have to have faith in them to do just that.

[dazzleman]

I do think the burden of proof should be very high in death penalty cases.  For example, I would not have given Scott Peterson the death penalty because the evidence is largely circumstantial, and while I think it was sufficient to convict him, I wouldn't put him to death based upon it.

I disagree here.  While I don't advocate the death penalty in most cases, I believe that if you have the death penalty for first-degree murder it must include all people convicted of first degree murder.  Giving one person the death penalty and another life in prison when convicted of the same crime is like saying "we think you're guilty, but we're not entirely sure."  If the courts are to decide who's gulity and who isn't, you have to have faith in them to do just that.

You have a point.  Theoretically, I agree with you, but your position isn't all that practical.

I believe the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that while the death penalty is permissible, it can't be assigned automatically, so I don't think it would be possible to assign the death penalty to all first-degree murder cases.

My most "liberal" position is probably my belief that the justice system favors the rich, and the death penalty is a good example.  A person with the money for a good lawyer will ALWAYS beat the death penalty, no matter how serious the crime, and that is not fair.  Unlike most liberals though, I don't believe the solution lies in being more lenient with the poor, but in treating the rich harshly when they break the law in a serious manner.