Do you support the Death Penalty

[SPC]

Ideally, I would support it, but since, for now at least, the government is in charge of capital punishment, there would have to be a lot of evidence.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Ideally, I would support it, but since, for now at least, the government is in charge of capital punishment, there would have to be a lot of evidence.

So if the state were in charge, you'd ask for less evidence?

[SPC]

Ideally, I would support it, but since, for now at least, the government is in charge of capital punishment, there would have to be a lot of evidence.

So if the state were in charge, you'd ask for less evidence?

No, I said that since the government is in charge of capital punishment, there would have to be a lot of evidence. I never referred to any specific level of government.

[RosettaStoned]

Hell yeah!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Ideally, I would support it, but since, for now at least, the government is in charge of capital punishment, there would have to be a lot of evidence.

So if the state were in charge, you'd ask for less evidence?

No, I said that since the government is in charge of capital punishment, there would have to be a lot of evidence. I never referred to any specific level of government.

Who do you think should be in charge of capital punishment?

[Coburn In 2012]

Yes and we should actually use it.  Often.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Yes.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes and we should actually use it.  Often.

How much more can we use it?  We're already in the Top 5.

[ChrisJG777]

I am very much opposed to the Death Penalty on the grounds that not only is it extremely unethical and unreliable on the grounds that there is always a risk of getting the wrong person, but it's not even an effective punishment in the long run.  Give 'em life instead, I say.  At least then if it turns out that you've imprisoned the wrong guy, there is a higher chance of you being able to release him, saving the family much unneeded grief (that's not to say that they won't still be pissed off, though).

[Mint]

I am very much opposed to the Death Penalty on the grounds that not only is it extremely unethical and unreliable on the grounds that there is always a risk of getting the wrong person but it's not even an effective punishment in the long run.

Even putting aside DNA and the massive improvements we've seen in forensics, how much more effective do you get than not having someone around? No chance of re-offending there!

[ChrisJG777]

I am very much opposed to the Death Penalty on the grounds that not only is it extremely unethical and unreliable on the grounds that there is always a risk of getting the wrong person but it's not even an effective punishment in the long run.

Even putting aside DNA and the massive improvements we've seen in forensics, how much more effective do you get than not having someone around? No chance of re-offending there!

The thing about execution, once the guy's dead it's not exactly possible to resurrect him, is it?  Furthermore, there is always going to be the risk of getting the wrong person, which on those grounds alone helps to make Capital Punishment an unacceptable method.

As for my remark on it not being an effective punishment, I was not referring to the people who've been executed, but to the fact that people still commit capital crimes en masse.  Really, what should be the main focus is not so much as dealing with the consequences of a crime but working to prevent it in the first place!

[Mint]

I am very much opposed to the Death Penalty on the grounds that not only is it extremely unethical and unreliable on the grounds that there is always a risk of getting the wrong person but it's not even an effective punishment in the long run.

Even putting aside DNA and the massive improvements we've seen in forensics, how much more effective do you get than not having someone around? No chance of re-offending there!

The thing about execution, once the guy's dead it's not exactly possible to resurrect him, is it?  Furthermore, there is always going to be the risk of getting the wrong person, which on those grounds alone helps to make Capital Punishment an unacceptable method.

Yes but are you going to give him back all the years he wasted in prison? And what about all the people that wind up being murdered, horrendously beaten or otherwise dying there? Plus with new technologies the rate of error is again, nominal. We're not talking about fingerprints or things like that which are falling by the wayside (justifiably so).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't view the two as mutually exclusive (the opposite, actually).

[ilikeverin]

I am very much opposed to the Death Penalty on the grounds that not only is it extremely unethical and unreliable on the grounds that there is always a risk of getting the wrong person but it's not even an effective punishment in the long run.

Even putting aside DNA and the massive improvements we've seen in forensics, how much more effective do you get than not having someone around? No chance of re-offending there!

The thing about execution, once the guy's dead it's not exactly possible to resurrect him, is it?  Furthermore, there is always going to be the risk of getting the wrong person, which on those grounds alone helps to make Capital Punishment an unacceptable method.

Yes but are you going to give him back all the years he wasted in prison? And what about all the people that wind up being murdered, horrendously beaten or otherwise dying there? Plus with new technologies the rate of error is again, nominal. We're not talking about fingerprints or things like that which are falling by the wayside (justifiably so).

But many, many, many of the convictions already on the books are without DNA evidence (which I agree is very good) and many of the cases being tried now are without them.  Requiring DNA evidence is probably even more impractical; the backlog is already immense, but would become astronomical if every case being considered for the death penalty were added.

[Mint]

I am very much opposed to the Death Penalty on the grounds that not only is it extremely unethical and unreliable on the grounds that there is always a risk of getting the wrong person but it's not even an effective punishment in the long run.

Even putting aside DNA and the massive improvements we've seen in forensics, how much more effective do you get than not having someone around? No chance of re-offending there!

The thing about execution, once the guy's dead it's not exactly possible to resurrect him, is it?  Furthermore, there is always going to be the risk of getting the wrong person, which on those grounds alone helps to make Capital Punishment an unacceptable method.

Yes but are you going to give him back all the years he wasted in prison? And what about all the people that wind up being murdered, horrendously beaten or otherwise dying there? Plus with new technologies the rate of error is again, nominal. We're not talking about fingerprints or things like that which are falling by the wayside (justifiably so).

But many, many, many of the convictions already on the books are without DNA evidence (which I agree is very good) and many of the cases being tried now are without them.

I'd agree that there's still a lot of convictions that should be commuted or at least re-examined. That's not to say that I think DNA should be used for all cases. If there's something like say, several eyewitnesses to corroborate that could be sufficient.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually according to studies it only adds about $1,397, and the rate of conviction is more than twice as high. If we streamlined appeals and mandated DNA testing it would actually be significantly cheaper than currently. And that ignores the millions which many estimate are saved simply through increased plea bargaining.

[ChrisJG777]

I am very much opposed to the Death Penalty on the grounds that not only is it extremely unethical and unreliable on the grounds that there is always a risk of getting the wrong person but it's not even an effective punishment in the long run.

Even putting aside DNA and the massive improvements we've seen in forensics, how much more effective do you get than not having someone around? No chance of re-offending there!

The thing about execution, once the guy's dead it's not exactly possible to resurrect him, is it?  Furthermore, there is always going to be the risk of getting the wrong person, which on those grounds alone helps to make Capital Punishment an unacceptable method.

Yes but are you going to give him back all the years he wasted in prison? And what about all the people that wind up being murdered, horrendously beaten or otherwise dying there? Plus with new technologies the rate of error is again, nominal. We're not talking about fingerprints or things like that which are falling by the wayside (justifiably so).

I'm well aware that you can't "give back the years" to someone who's been wrongfully imprisoned, but at least there's a significantly reduced chance of him not being dead, and whether or not he dies or gets seriously maimed in prison all depends on where he's being held.

Also, it doesn't matter what forensic technology is used, the human element will always be there somewhere along the line, and there is always the chance of something going wrong...

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Absolutely (I)

[JSojourner]

Absolutely (I)

Never.

(Unless we're talking about Cleveland Browns players or fans.)

[Coburn In 2012]

Yes and we should actually use it.  Often.

How much more can we use it?  We're already in the Top 5.

How many people are in jail for murder in your state?  That's how often your state should use it.  And maybe for rape and child molesting also. 

We should not be in the top 5 we should lead the way.  After two or three years of cleaning the scum off of our streets crime would be almost non existent.

When are liberals going to get it through there thick heads?  If a criminal is afraid he is going to get the chair, the gas or a bullet in the brain he will think twice before he puills the trigger or diddles some defenseless little kid.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Not necessarily.  Quite a few crimes are committed in a fit of passion; people don't stop to think, and having more frequent executions won't change that.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

Nope. especially since you die in such a painful way. Also it costs money to do it. And you wait for ever to die. Oh and sometimes it is the wrong person.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Yes, but we shouldn't be as giddy to use it as we are.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

Yes, but we shouldn't be as giddy to use it as we are.

but there are less crimes in states in which there is no death penalty.

http://blogs.thinkingtogether.org/hdupre/files/2009/05/murderratesdpndp1.jpg

[Magic 8-Ball]

Yes, but we shouldn't be as giddy to use it as we are.

but there are less crimes in states in which there is no death penalty.

http://blogs.thinkingtogether.org/hdupre/files/2009/05/murderratesdpndp1.jpg

That's lovely, but how does that relate to DAs being overly enthusiastic about using the death penalty?

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

Yes, but we shouldn't be as giddy to use it as we are.

but there are less crimes in states in which there is no death penalty.

http://blogs.thinkingtogether.org/hdupre/files/2009/05/murderratesdpndp1.jpg

That's lovely, but how does that relate to DAs being overly enthusiastic about using the death penalty?

oh i was responding to your yes. For the DA part, that is just disturbing.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Yes, but we shouldn't be as giddy to use it as we are.

but there are less crimes in states in which there is no death penalty.

http://blogs.thinkingtogether.org/hdupre/files/2009/05/murderratesdpndp1.jpg

That's lovely, but how does that relate to DAs being overly enthusiastic about using the death penalty?

oh i was responding to your yes. For the DA part, that is just disturbing.

I'm not sure that I follow your logic.  Why wouldn't states with higher murder rates be more inclined to support the death penalty?