Your position on the death penalty

[raggage]

I'm against it in all cases except those who kill under the influence of methamphetamines.

[The Duke]

against in the case of civilian crimes, because it can't be reversed.

For treason, espionage, etc, I favor it.

[WMS]

Favor, but not strongly. Mainly, I want to make *really* certain the right person is on Death Row.

And the ones who say the death penalty is horrible but abortion isn't have some...interesting...moral views, to say the least...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And the ones who say the death penalty is horrible but abortion isn't have some...interesting...moral views, to say the least...

They are both horrible

[Baggy Green]

I think it should only be used when dealing with especially gruesome crimes(rape/murder of a child, mass murder, etc.).

[Redefeatbush04]

I think it should only be used when dealing with especially gruesome crimes(rape/murder of a child, mass murder, etc.).

Lets say someone is convicted of rape and sentenced to death. Through our tax money, they are painfully electrocuted. Evidence shows up 2 months later vindicating him. The problem is he is dead. Death is not reversable. Furthermore you have just spent a ton of money on NOTHING, far more than you would have had he been sentenced to life in prison.

[Aegir]

In favor of the death penalty

[WMS]

And the ones who say the death penalty is horrible but abortion isn't have some...interesting...moral views, to say the least...

They are both horrible

That I can respect.

[MN-Troy]

I am in favor of the death penalty and it should be administered to our cruelest and coldest murderers. When a murderer is executed, the message is powerful and that is the crime that was committed was so terrible, the person has no right to live. Furthermore, executing a murderer not only sends a message that justice has been serve, but it also protects the lives of the innocent.

I also do understand that no undertaking humans may partake is completely infallible; however, given the current context of how the death penalty is applied, the benefits of the death penalty outweigh the known risks.

[MN-Troy]

Institutionalized murder.

Equating execution and murder is fundamentally flawed. By your definition, the legal incarnation of a criminal could be construed as institutionalized kidnapping or the legal taking of property to pay off debt could be interpreted as institutionalized theft.

The moral equivalency argument between execution and murder is an untenable position, and with all due respect there is an absence of reality of what you are equating.

[minionofmidas]

Institutionalized murder.

Equating execution and murder is fundamentally flawed. By your definition, the legal incarnation of a criminal could be construed as institutionalized kidnapping or the legal taking of property to pay off debt could be interpreted as institutionalized theft.

The legal incarnation of a criminal is institutionalized kidnapping. That's what the "state monopoly of [insert correct English expression here, the German one, Gewalt, may mean power or force or violence]" is all about: Citizens have abdicated the right to do these things to the state.
What's wrong with the Gurl's phrase is that it doesn't say that not even the state should be allowed to take somebody's life, especially since the decision will, in the end, be up to individuals - more or less just like in ordinary homicides.

[John Dibble]

You've seen my opinion earlier, and I'd like to elaborate on why I support the death penalty at least in principle, and sometimes in practice. I believe simply that when you commit a crime, you have violated someone else's rights. If you steal or vandilize, you violate private property rights, if you kill, rape, or assault, you violate a person's right to control their own life and body. Once you violate these rights, you have shown that you do not have respect for the rights of others - in turn this means I shouldn't have to show respect for your rights. Of course, degree applies - a thief doesn't necessarily cease to have respect for life, as he is not necessarily a killer, so the degree of respect I lose for the thiefs rights is lower than that of a murderer. Since your rights no longer have to be respected by me or others, we can morally punish you within the degree of the rights you violated. If you have violated someone by murder(attempted or successful, doesn't matter, intent is the same as the deed, the punishment should be the same), you show no respect for people to control their own life, so there is no reason the people who normally show respect for other's rights have to show respect for your right to control your life. This way of thinking bases itself off of mutual respect - the contract that civilized human beings enter by being part of a society - and so I think there is nothing immoral about ending the life of a murderer, it may even be considered moral to do so.

Of course, as I said earlier, we should use caution, science, and good judgement when determining when to use the death penalty, otherwise just use life imprisonment with hard labor.

[visioncat]

The death penalty is nothing less than evil.

- it is no deterrant
- innocent people get executed *
- the death penalty discriminates against the poor
- the death penalty is racist
- it is applied arbitrarily
- it costs taxpayers more than LWOP
- it is often politically motivated
- it is a human rights abuse to execute the mentally ill, the and children, both of which the US does
- LWOP is a real solution

But above all, executing people creates a new set of victims - the families and loved ones of the executed, who have committed no crimes of their own. Where's the sense in that?

* Last night, I went to a talk with Ryan Matthews who was exonerated on DNA evidence from LA Death Row a few months back. He is unambiguously innocent. He lost seven years of his life, nearly lost his life to the state that was determined to kill him. How many Ryan Matthews have been killed already?

The USA is a human rights abuser on this issue and must sort this out before they question other countries human rights record.

Rant over... sorry!

[visioncat]

Once more thing...

I'd like to know how supporters of capital punishment can tolerate the Supreme Court ruling that states: 'innocence is not a bar to execution as long as due process has been followed' (Hererra v Collins)

I'd love to know how this can be squared with the desire for the state to kill many and quickly.

[The Duke]

The death penalty is nothing less than evil.

- it is no deterrant
- innocent people get executed *
- the death penalty discriminates against the poor
- the death penalty is racist
- it is applied arbitrarily
- it costs taxpayers more than LWOP
- it is often politically motivated
- it is a human rights abuse to execute the mentally ill, the and children, both of which the US does
- LWOP is a real solution

But above all, executing people creates a new set of victims - the families and loved ones of the executed, who have committed no crimes of their own. Where's the sense in that?

* Last night, I went to a talk with Ryan Matthews who was exonerated on DNA evidence from LA Death Row a few months back. He is unambiguously innocent. He lost seven years of his life, nearly lost his life to the state that was determined to kill him. How many Ryan Matthews have been killed already?

The USA is a human rights abuser on this issue and must sort this out before they question other countries human rights record.

Rant over... sorry!

Just a few points.  The death penalty is a deterrent, and social statistics show this.  There is no evidence of an innocent person being executed.  The death penalty is not inherently discriminatory, opnly iots application.  These are not adequate philosophical disagreements.  Cost is no issue, since justice should be applied, regardless of the price.  Application is not arbitrary, there are strict rules for when the DP can be used.  I've never seen a political execution in the US.  The feelings of the criominals parents should not play a greater role in sentencing than victim's parents (both should play no role).  The US does not execute the mentally ill, the US Supreme Court has ruled it unconstiutional.  Regarding the execution of children, again this is a seperate issue from the principle of the death penalty.  It is a side issue and immaterial to the central point.

Be against this for the RIGHT reasons, not the wrong ones.

[Platypus]

the last man executed in Australia has recently bee found most likely to be innocnt.

[A18]

the last man executed in Australia has recently bee found most likely to be innocnt.

So he shouldn't have been executed then. Sometimes there's no doubt.

[iosip]

i am against the death penalty when imposed by the government, as the government does not have that moral authority.

however...

i am strongly in favor of action taken by the community against evildoers. in many villages around the world, a known child molester is likely to be ringed with tires, doused with gasoline, and burned to death. this is a system that works.

call me rough. call me old-fashioned. but that's justice.

[John Dibble]

i am strongly in favor of action taken by the community against evildoers. in many villages around the world, a known child molester is likely to be ringed with tires, doused with gasoline, and burned to death. this is a system that works.

call me rough. call me old-fashioned. but that's justice.

And how is an angry mob more likely to come to an accurate verdict if a court that uses forensic evidence and such is unable? May I remind you that witchhunts were action taken by the community against 'evildoers'.

[angus]

Strongly against.  After I voted I was very surprised, and delighted, to see such overwhelming opposition.  Must be lots of foreigners posting here, as I'm quite sure my countrymen generally enjoy a good public hanging once in a while. 

The more interesting question, for those who disapprove, is why?  Is it that an innocent man may be killed?  In this case if we could, by DNA or some other evidence, alleviate this problem, would it be okay?  Or is it a moralism issue, like abolition of slavery or eradication of famine, etc.?

[iosip]

And how is an angry mob more likely to come to an accurate verdict if a court that uses forensic evidence and such is unable?

what i advocate isn't mob rule.

i don't support this action unless the person is a KNOWN child molester.

[Gabu]

If he's known to be a child molester, wouldn't a court be able to find him as such?

[iosip]

If he's known to be a child molester, wouldn't a court be able to find him as such?

hopefully yes, but unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way. probably because half the government is child molesters themselves.

[John Dibble]

And how is an angry mob more likely to come to an accurate verdict if a court that uses forensic evidence and such is unable?

what i advocate isn't mob rule.

i don't support this action unless the person is a KNOWN child molester.

A KNOWN child molestor - and how would this criteria be determined? You might get an innocent man. It is many times the case that kids falsely claim to have been molested, and people are made to pay for crimes they didn't commit. Face it - you are a hypocrite. You say you don't support the death penalty, but when an angry mob wants to do it it's fine(and yes, it's a frikkin mob, when was the last time a bunch of people who were not members of law enforcement took someone and hung him and was not an angry mob?). Institutionalized death penalty is no different - the very existence of the death penalty relies on the consent of the people, as do all government functions.

[John Dibble]

If he's known to be a child molester, wouldn't a court be able to find him as such?

hopefully yes, but unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way. probably because half the government is child molesters themselves.

Half the government? Wow, that's a lot of frikkin people - where do you get this absolutely assinine statistic?