Your position on the death penalty

[angus]

iosip,
yours is an interesting viewpoint.  my wife shares it.  in fact, just last night we watched a movie entitled "a time to kill" in which a man shot other men in cold blood, and was acquitted of the crime on the moral basis that he had the right to extract vengeance on the perpetrators of a crime against a member of his family.  She, being a supporter of capital punishment in general, agreed with the verdict.  I do not.  I think it was a miscarriage of justice.  But I'd not appeal, if I were the DA, as I think the jury's decision should be final.  Another point of law is that one could argue a mistrial in that particular case based on some testimony of a deputy sheriff who was also shot, but not killed, by the defendant.  Carl Lee Haley, though understandably aggrieved, murdered two unarmed men in a courthouse, and was therefore the executor.  A capital punisher, if you will, and the jury, all of whom had to swear that they supported capital punishment to even be allowed as jurors, saw it his way.  Well, of course they saw it his way.  They all supported capital punishment, a priori!  (Like, who didn't see that not-guilty verdict coming??!)

[YRABNNRM]

I support the death penalty especially in the cases of terrorists and those who have murdered a child. However I believe that we need to attempt to perfect the system, to ensure that innocents do not meet this fate. Through DNA we can help ensure that we do not execute the wrong people, which is what we need to perfect.

[iosip]

iosip,
yours is an interesting viewpoint.

unfortunately, most of those who support capital punishment do not share my viewpoint.

i remember a couple years ago up in covington there was this one scumbag who admitted to molesting several young boys. so the mom of one of the boys confronted the scumbag and shot his testicles off.

so the prosecutors - all of whom support the death penalty - placed the mom on trial for felony attempted murder.

she was acquitted. but, despite the acquittal, the prosecutors decided to override the jury and try her again for the same charge.

don't know if she was acquitted again, but the point is, they were going out of their way to harshly punish a woman for taking matters into her own hands, while they made sure the scumbag who molested her son got a slap on the wrist.

child molesters are worse than murderers. i hate these guys with a passion.

[ncjake]

Capital punishment is wrong in most cases, but in matters of national security or for reasons of national interest(Osama) I think it should definately be an option.

[The Duke]

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

I should clarigfy, I was referring to cases in the US only.

[orunje]

- it is no deterrant

There are two types of deterents enacted by the death penalty.  "General deterence" of recidivism is the most debated.  General deterence is the idea that people will commit less crime because they are afraid of the punishment.  The truth is that the the death penalty, or any penalty for that matter, does not show itself to be a significant deterent to any future crimes committed by adults.  General deterence works very well in small children, as this is a form of training that can be compared to pavlov's dog experiments.  However, a minor spanking or other punishments such as "grounding" are generally adequate for the young.

But, with that said, the most important form of deterence is "specific deterence."  Specific deterence is the idea that the penalty directly prevents another act from occurring.  Since the perpetrator is dead, the death penalty is EXTREMELY effective at this.  This person will commit no more crime.  They will never murder, rape, pillage, drive drunk, vandalize or even jaywalk ever again.

- innocent people get executed *

This is war.  Some Innocent people will die, but far more innocent will be saved since these criminals will not be able to propagate their crimes on the unwilling public.

- the death penalty discriminates against the poor
- the death penalty is racist

patently untrue.  This liberal position is a false argument.  I will use my own state as an example.  Kansas has 8 men on death row.  Six are white and only two are black.  Yet violent crime in Kansas is slightly more prevelent amonst blacks than whites.  If the death penalty is racist in Kansas, then it is obviously racist towards caucasions.

- it costs taxpayers more than LWOP

Not entirely true either.  The death penalty itself is very cheap.  One can buy good rope for $.37 per foot and it can be re-used.  The real cost comes in the form of unneeded appeals.  If we have DNA and a video, there is no need of any appeals, yet these appeals are mandatory.  Most capital punishment cases are appealed more than 20 times.

- it is often politically motivated
- it is applied arbitrarily

Please give examples.

- it is a human rights abuse to execute the mentally ill, the and children, both of which the US does

The crime was still commited.  And justice must still be done.

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?

The penalty does not create these victims.  The criminal created these victims.

[Redefeatbush04]

.

- innocent people get executed *

This is war.  Some Innocent people will die, but far more innocent will be saved since these criminals will not be able to propagate their crimes on the unwilling public.

Why not just lock them up for life. No innocent people die. They will not be able to commit any further crimes. We also save money. The united states is the only developed nation, other than japan, to still have the death penalty. Sure lots of other nations have it (Iraq, North Korea, China, Iran), but most have abolished it.

[Confabulator]

Death penalty never.  What you should ask yourself is, do you want the power of life and death in the hands of your government?  THe power to try you, to hold you, and in the end murder you in cold blood? 

Child Molestors don't need to be killed by the government.  Why not release his name and a picture of him, along with his crimes?  He will never be employed or talked to by anyone again.

[Richard]

Death penalty never.  What you should ask yourself is, do you want the power of life and death in the hands of your government?  THe power to try you, to hold you, and in the end murder you in cold blood? 

Child Molestors don't need to be killed by the government.  Why not release his name and a picture of him, along with his crimes?  He will never be employed or talked to by anyone again.

It is not in the power of the government.  A jury makes the sentence.


I'm in favor of death penalty for murder, rape, kidnapping, and treason.  I'm also in favor of the death penalty for doctors that perform abortions, and people that purposefully injure women in order to kill their unborn babies.

[Cashcow]

You'd have done well in Germany, say, 70 years ago.

[J-Mann]

Interesting timing for this topic to be resurrected; the Kansas Supreme Court just ruled our death penalty to be unconstitutional yesterday.

[Richard]

You'd have done well in Germany, say, 70 years ago.

And in UK 120 years ago.  What is your point?

[Hitchabrut]

This is probably the issue where people can call me an extremist. Murderers took a life, and they don't deserve to keep theirs, and they will spend an eternity in hell for it. I don't care if you're a nun, you're insane, or you're ten years old, if you killed someone, it's over. Manslaughter is a completely different story.

[Redefeatbush04]

This is probably the issue where people can call me an extremist. Murderers took a life, and they don't deserve to keep theirs, and they will spend an eternity in hell for it. I don't care if you're a nun, you're insane, or you're ten years old, if you killed someone, it's over. Manslaughter is a completely different story.

If you believe they spend an eternity in hell, why should they deserve to suffer their last minutes on earth. One murder does not justify another murder. It does no good, only harm.

[Lunar]

My position towards the death penalty is mostly neutral.

I am, however, uncomfortable with the idea of state-sponsored murder.    I'm a skeptic of state power.

It seems much more productive to find some hard labor and some crappy living conditions and have the prisoners pay back society in a real, concrete hell.

[senatortombstone]

Murder is killing an innocent person.  Executing a person guilty of a capital crime is punishment and justice.  If it were up to me the following would be executed:  Serial killers, stranger rapists and mass murders.

Molesters and sex offenders, depending on their offenses and severity, would be sentences to life in prison.

I believe that prisons should be forces of work and reform, for the reformable.

Why allow prisoners to work out and become stronger than the guards?  Why allow prisons to be strongholds for gangs?  Why allow prisoners to sodomize each other?

Being in prison is punishment enough, why allow them to harm each other?  Make them work, so we can get our money's worth out of them.

[Democratic Hawk]

I opted for neither. Personally, I'm against it - but I believe its an issue for the states to decide (be they for or against)

Dave

[FerrisBueller86]

I'm in the middle of the issue and voted accordingly.  I suppose my middle-of-the-road position is the reason my libertarian/authoritarian score is only -4.26 and not -7 or -9.

I think the death penalty is appropriate for the most extreme crimes, such as serial killers and terrorists.  It prevents them from ever striking again.  However, I don't think that the death penalty is the silver bullet that the death penalty advocates think.

The opponents of the death penalty have some valid points, such as a judicial system that discriminates against the poor and African Americans and the irreversible nature of death.  On the other hand, I disagree with some of the philosophical arguments.

[Lunar]

Murder is killing an innocent person.  Executing a person guilty of a capital crime is punishment and justice.

I guess murder might have been a bad term for it.  Murder implies that the killing is illegal.  State-sanctioned killing, by its very nature, can never be "murder."

[Redefeatbush04]

Murder is killing an innocent person.  Executing a person guilty of a capital crime is punishment and justice.

I guess murder might have been a bad term for it.  Murder implies that the killing is illegal.  State-sanctioned killing, by its very nature, can never be "murder."

Murder by definition is the "premeditated killing of one human being by another"

[scorpiogurl]

Strongly against!!! Not sure there is any justification for it in a modern mature democracy.
Pro-death penalty arguments are usually based on the dual arguments of deterrence and revenge. To my knowledge, in general, statistics regarding deterence do not support the pro-death penalty argument. Consequently the pro-death penalty lobby has used the revenge argument to justify their view. This phenomenon is evident in the USA where I believe the victims' family is allowed to testify as to the severity of their loss. The death penalty thus becomes an emotive issue.......the law is not and should not be governed by emotion because justice is not emotional. The use of emotion in the legal system often leads to miscarriages of justice (as evidenced by the "Birmingham six" and "Guilford four" convictions in the UK during the 1970s.

The evidence from western democracies that have abolished the death penalty is that murder rates do not dramatically increase.

Finally I fail to see how committed Christians can agree and support the death penalty. "Thou shalt not kill" seems pretty unequivocal to me, and the argument that the perpetrator has killed does not justify the "State" then taking their life. It always seems the ultimate contradiction to me, that some of the most ardent pro-life campaigners are also the most ardent campaigners for capital punishment!!!

Finally, it is interesting to note that in 2000 Texas carried out more executions than in any year.......would that be political use of the death penalty by the current US President??? Cynical perhaps, but if it was..........isn't that quite sad.

[GLOBAL DICTATOR]

What does everyone think about capital punishment?

First, it shouldn't be more expensive to put someone to death than to incarcerate them. Second, Immediately after their appeal is denied, take them out in the courtyard, tie them to a post and shoot them in front of the public, for all to see, I guarantee-death penalty crimes will drop dramatically in this country. After all, what's the price of a bullet? Not much at all, and you can reuse the post over and over again.  Let the ravens eat away at their flesh, no mess, it's all cleaned up!

[dazzleman]

I favor the death penalty, though not strongly.

What keeps me supporting it is the fact that the most vocal opponents of the death penalty are people who have their focus totally in the wrong place.  They show great concern for a murderer, and will go to great efforts to protect scum like them, but show no concern for the victims, and wouldn't lift a finger to help them, in most cases.

I see nothing wrong with executing a person who has demonstrably committed a horrific crime.  I don't even care whether it's a deterrent.  I suspect it's not, because it is used too infrequently to have any real certainty to it.  The greater the certainty of a punishment, the more a deterrent it is.  Plus the type of people who commit death penalty-level crimes are usually not the most intelligent or rational of people.

But I think it is necessary for the good of society to see some people receive the ultimate form of justice.

I also fear that if death penalty opponents are victorious, they will next be arguing for unsupervised furloughs for murderers serving life sentences (already tried in liberal Massachusetts).

[J. J.]

I favor it, with reservations.

I would kill a mad dog that threatened my community.  Likewise, some people will kill and will be a threat to my community.

Now, that said, most killers are not mad dogs.

I also would not favor it if there was not any reasonable possibility of error.  Scott Peterson, for example.  The case was not solid enough for me to convince me that there should be the death penalty in that case.

[dazzleman]

I favor it, with reservations.

I would kill a mad dog that threatened my community.  Likewise, some people will kill and will be a threat to my community.

Now, that said, most killers are not mad dogs.

I also would not favor it if there was not any reasonable possibility of error.  Scott Peterson, for example.  The case was not solid enough for me to convince me that there should be the death penalty in that case.

I tend to agree on the Peterson case.  While I think he's guilty, the case is not air-tight.  I think the death penalty should be reserved for cases in which there is no doubt of the person's guilt.