Talk Elections

A board for death penalty discussions as we were getting off topic int he Guns forum.

Death penalty is hard to discuss. Either you believe that the government should have the right to kill it's own citizens in times of peace, or you don't. That's the dividing line and few people change their minds on that, I think death penalty is often used as an example of an issue where people have deeply held beliefs and are unlikely to change.

Well, yes, but it doesn't change the fundamental issue. The state decides whether a crime is horrible enough to warrant death, but that is a side issue, especially since the views there vary from country to country. In Nigeria women get executed by stoning for adultery. I don't think that is a crime that warrant death, but they do. So I think my definition holds.  

I blieve it is 37 states that have the death penalty now.  Plus the federal and military courts.

Juries must now recommend the sdeath sentence and usually the death penalty is given by an "Aggravating factor" rather than just a plain murder.

Just curious, but which ones?

I am opposed to capital punishment in all cases.

ditto

I oppose the death penalty. I see no logical argument supporting it. Murder is immoral and despicable in any shape or form, whether sanctioned by an individual or by government. I'm much happier letting a murderer rot in jail. Besides, I'm yet to see any proof that the death penalty works as a deterrent.

Capital punishment effectively makes murderers out of government, the judicial system, and consequently society as a whole, which makes it totally self-defeatist. But obviously that's just my personal belief.

See jravnsbo!  I'm not the only one.

What about the logical arument about the expense of keeping someone locked up for the rest of their natural life?
It would be nice to see all of the larger states impose a swift death penalty. Not put someone on death row until all appeals have been exhausted.
My proposal, if I were governor in a state that had the death penalty, would be to have an automatic, swift appeals process, whereby the Supreme Court no longer had to accept cases of that nature. Once original sentence is passed, the convict would be placed in a holding cell. Then a special appeals court would meet immediately following the verdict, prosecution and attorneys for both sides present, and then they can validate or invalidate the circuit court's ruling. Once validated, the prisoner is taken to the courtyard, tied and bound to a post and given one last cigarette/prayer to make things right with GOD, a chance to ask for frogiveness of the victims, and whatever other statement, then shoot em. Very painless, very quick, very justice served.

I think tying someone to a post outdoors and shooting them makes a spectacle out of something that could be performed in a semi-private venue with a more reliable method. Also, your idea of an appelate court gives very little time for both the petitioner and the respondent to formulate an argument. Christopher Michael, I am once again awestruck in horror at one of your ideas. While God was revealing to you that you'd be a conservative Democratic president, why didn't He tell you to lay off the whip and chains approach to criminal justice?

And what if 10 or even 20 years afterwards evidence would surface that this person was innocent after all. Then you would have to face up to your God for having murdered an innocent man.

What about the whip and chains approach upon the American Tax Payer? Also, Have you ever been a loved one to a victim of a horrendous bloody murder? I have, my favorite first cousin was cleaning up at the Pub where he worked at in Butte, Montana. There was a Jewelry Heist that had gone on right across the street from the Pub. He was shot to death 2 x in the chest and once in his back. So, before you make any accusations against me not having compassion for cold-blooded killers, think twice. Why am I a conservative democrat? On Moral/Social issues I am more Republican in nature. On Economic policy I am a Liberal Democrat. So, go blow your horn of Judgment elsewhere!

That is precisely why you cannot be considered objective on this issue. You have a personal stake in the continuance of the death penalty, and this emotional factor obviously influences your opinion. I haven't suffered the pain of losing someone in a murder, so I can speak on this issue. While I realize retribution is on the mind of those left behind, I would advise them to consider its similarity to vengeance. Rather than swallowing themselves up in vengenace, they could always forgive and show mercy, for forgiveness and mercy are the highest attributes of the human soul.

which ones, what?  states or aggravating factors?

Yes but still in the minority of Americans.  37 states have it and the fed and military systems have it.

Well I don't think it should be immediate, as to safeguard the system somewhat.  But I do think DNA should be done during the trial and then automatic appeal straight to the state supreme court, skipping any court of appeals.

I like the VA method of running the fed and state appeals concurrently.

sorry to hear about your loss.  That woiuld be very tramatic for anyone.

punishment for ones crimes does not just include rehab, it include paying for your crimes and preventing it from happening again.  An executed killer has never murdered again.

I'm in the minority in almost everything.  So it doesn't bother me.

Another point, ina  number of cases by having the death penalty hanging ove rthe head of a killer he will confess where the body is or some evidence to then plead to a deal and just get life.  That brings closure to the family and the case.  If you did not have that sentence hanging out there, many have said they would never have told.

So am I! :)

good then you won't feel bad after election day 2004. :)

Did you feel bad after election 2000?  47.87%

no, because we won in the electoral college and that is all that matters and then had both houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years, it was great!  and since then the GOP majorities in the states and federal levels have only expanded.

Your candidate had the second most votes of anyone running for president in 2000.

GORE FOR PRESIDENT 2008

Sure! Gore in 4!  ( at least int he primary!) :)

Gore in '08 would have a better chance.

states

I guess there are 38 states with it.

check out this link for further info as you desire.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=121&scid=11#with

New York has the death penalty but has never executed anyone.  I believe Texas has executed over 300 people since they reinstated the death penalty.  Many states have the death penalty but never put it into effect.

Connecticut also has the death penalty but has not used it since 1960.  I think New York last used it around that time.

I support the death penalty because I believe in the saying that "mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."  There are some people who deserve no better than death.

But I think it has to be used very carefully.

I would probably be happy with if killers were given a true life sentence with no possibility of parole.  But we can't trust liberal states like New York to keep these people behind bars.

 It makes my blood boil that NY state released Kathy Boudin, who participated in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which several policemen were killed.  She did only 22 years for those murders, while the families of those killed are effectively serving a life sentence.  She should never have been released.

Neither way is perfect.  But execting the innocent is the worst thing you can possibly do.

good point.  Most people think that housing a criminal is more expensive, but that is not the case.

very odd-- cop killers should never get out.

but what is a human life worth to you?

I keep pointing to the TX case where the thugs got life and then escaped and went ont he killing spree.  Plus how about the killer in Massachusets that killed the priest that was a child molester.  He killed and nothing will happen to him further, maybe it wasn't mass, was a non death penalty state.

Not for child molesters at all, but example iof a killer with life able to kill and no punishment, what is his deterent?

How is the life sentence not punishment?

It is a punsihment but I was giving 2 quick examples of how life sentence does not stopa  killer from killing again unlike the death sentence, which stops killers from killing again.  

And I'm sure there are 2 cases where an innocent person was given the death penalty.

prove it outside of a liberal source.

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

I remember that DNA-tecnhology made it possible to determine that someone who was executed something like 30 years ago was innocent. I don't remember the name of the case, but I recall wwatching it on the news a few years ago.

When you're dealing with liberal judges, liberal parole boards and liberal juries, all sorts of outrageous things are possible.

Why does it cost so much though? There doesn't seem reason enough to justify such costs. Some countries execute their convicted killers right away after being taken out of the courtroom. Let's do that? What? The price of a few High Powered Rifles and bullets. Done.

You want to shoot the convicted criminals?

Utah still has the firing squad as a form of the death penalty.

They even executed the first person in the US after the SCT reversed itself.  So some joked I remember that the death penalty came back witha  BANG!

Ah, but Christopher, bullets were deemed too expensive as a way of execution in Germany 60 years ago, and thus they used gas chambers instead. Gas chambers are clearly the most efficient and least expensive way to kill people. So really, we ought to use those instead, right?

Why not the Chinese way? You charge the executed person's family for the cost of the bullet.

oh that chinese way would be doubling insulting!  ouch, sting

Yeah, that makes  alot of sense.

All I'm gonna say is that I support the death penalty.

Interesting.

Who would have guessed!

I support the death penalty. But under certain conditions.

One condition that holds the up-most importance, is that they are 100% CERTAIN that the person being put to death committed the crime, without a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, you should have DNA testing, perhaps a confession, some audio evidence, pictures, something caught on VIDEO (eye witness accounts shouldn't always count. Just think, what if these "eye witnesses" are out to get the person, and they all band together and say.."oh yeah, I saw him do it")

A person should only be put to death for the most HEINOUS crimes. And ONLY for the most heinous. If you kill someone, or even TWO people, you should get life in prison at most, but not the death penalty. But if you kill many, many people (serial killer) and or you do HORRIBLE things to them. Torture, mangle the body, EAT them, then that would count as a heinous crime.

Also, it is good to only kill people who won't be anymore use to anyone. By that I mean, if the killer may be holding vital information, then he should not be put to death. Like, an important member of a crime organization, or certain terrorists.

The most important thing, however, is that the accused is 100% guilty.

It is hard to be a 100% certain. Regarding eye-witnesses there was recently a lot of commotion in Norway, where, in certain villages, almost all men were accused of child molesting or rape and were found guilty based on the children's testimonies. Now, after many years, they have all been found not-guilty. It was a modern version of witch-burning. Very scary.  

You're never 100% certain, but I do take Dean's point.

Dean? Do you mean Dan? ;)

Yeah, yeah, Dan.

I oppose the death penalty because I believe that government should not have the right to execute its citizens under any circumstances. I feel that the government should set a moral example and not stoop to the levels of the criminals. I do not believe in an eye for an eye, I feel that we as a society should be better than the criminal. The death penalty breeds a culture in which killing is considered acceptable for moral reasons. The murderers probably have their own twisted warped moral reasons for why what they are doing is correct, and thus any acknowledgement that murder is acceptable for any moral reasons at all helps to breed these attitudes.
I feel that life in prison is, in some ways, a greater punishment than death. It gives the person the rest of their life to live with what they have done, and to not have any freedom to be a part of society.

Good post.  And, yes, life imprisionment is a greater punishment than death.

I still like the death penalty hanging out there over some of there heads.  As I said before it can produce a missing body or evidence for closure to the family.  You can always plea it down to life, but if no death penalty then you have nothing to offer them and they have noreason to talk and thus no closure for the family.  Which is the saddest part.

I'm in favor of the death penalty

This is one of these issues, which make gap between Americans and Europeans. In other hand polls show that even 30-50% of Finnish are ready to accept the capital punishment in some circumstances. And I thin there have been similar results of gallup in even Sweden too (Gustaf??)

In other hand in most of the European countries there is almost political suicide to suggest to restore death penalty as the act of seriously taken politician. Except is far right Le Pen styling moviments. At least in Scandinavia all in major conservative parties are against. I don't know how this issue is in Britain. (English members?)

And which is Silvio Berlusconi's wiew?

I can accept death penalty in cases of war crime, terrorism and some childmurder.
 

But I don't want to see return of capital punishment in Europe. (except maybe in cases of war crime, genocide and terrorism)

Well I am flip-floper.

In Britain the issue is very split. Most people in the UK (+70%?) would advocate using the death penalty for child murderers and paedophiles. In practice however the majority of Brits would vote against it's re-introduction in any referendum. The reason? There have been dozens of miscarriages of justice in the UK, people have very little faith in our justice system. Too many people have been convicted of serious crimes they didn't do. Presumably these people would've been put to death when they were completely innocent? No thanks!

I support the Death Penalty because we have the technology to prove guilt or innocense. Only after this evidence processing has been done correctly, and the proof is indisputable, should the death peanalty be imposed upon an individual.

I tend to lean in favour of the death penalty for people who have comitted unspeakably evil crimes. Unfortunately as it stands I don't trust British justice whatsoever, so I would never agree to it's return. It seems the UK police are quite willing to frame people just to get a conviction! Ever heard of the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6?

Polls tend to show that a substantial minority, and a clear majority of young people, support the death penalty in Sweden. The major parties are all against it though. I actually convinced a woman to vote no to the euro by telling her that Le Pen was in favour of reintroducing capital punishment. She was shocked! ;)

The greatest problem with the death penalty is our justice system is not a truth seeking device, but an advesarial competition grounded in arguement and sway. Would it be better if the investigation was run by the courts, without the prosecution having an influence on the investigators?

Ultimately the death penalty is supposed to be for henious criminals; I guess we could look at the death penalty as the only way to be certain said person doesn't do it again? Some criminals just keep on killing no matter where they are--they attack other convicts, and guards.

Now we have prisons that are basically 24/7 isolation.
But if someone in such a place gets the opportunity, they will kill again because they want to. I don't want to be the one trying to explain it to the family of a guard why their loved one is dead because a mass murderer can't receive anything more than the multiple life sentences they are already serving. And my step-daughter is married to a correction officer so I'm familiar with the job these people do and the daily dangers they face.

Also, a lot of future killers keep getting second chances until they 'finally go too far.' Three strikes can be severe given some of the crimes out there, so maybe we need a system to recognize criminals whose crimes are escelating in seriousness?

I agree that the state shouldn't be in the business of killing people, especially given the imperfections of our legal system. But we are one hell of a righteously indignant society, and goshdarnit, ever since we got civilized in this nation it became illegal for the victim's family to seek out justice...

If one looks at the situation in such a manner, then no punishments can stop a criminal from committing a crime again, save the death penalty. Of course, there is a slight difference, in that once one is imprisoned for life, and there is no higher punishment, there is little to deter one from committing further crimes.

I must once again state my unequivocal objection to the use of capital punishment under all circumstances. We are simply too far into human history to continue to administer it and recognize the primacy of a universal sense of justice.

When a state condemns a person, they reject their worth, and do something even more heinous than ending a life. They demean it. Until the end of a person's days, they must live with the opprobium of social condemnation. Regardless of the enormity of a crime, any nation which has any pretensions of calling itself a civilization cannot do such a thing.

The arguments about how the death penalty is not blind as to its victim's race or class are well known, and need not be presented here. Yet I am compelled to contradict one thing that is often heard said: Capital punishment recognizes a family's need for closure. We all are befallen with certain tragic events in our lives. And anyone with a scrap of humanity left in them will provide sympathy to those who are afflicted by grief. However, we cannot extend this desire to provide aid and comfort to serve as a call to act as condottiere to oblige these people's most bloodthirsty wishes. For any person that claims that they are asking for closure and retribution, I would reply that they ask for vengeance, and perpetuate a cycle of violence in a fashion that can indeed be described as evil.

Perhaps the most compelling arguments are the simplest. When all is said and done, how can the state reconcile itself as being nothing more than a murderer itself? How can it answer that cry for help that is violent crime by responding with the ultimate scorn conceivable? In any nation which sets kindness and mercy as ideals to which the government endeavors, the government cannot do either of those things and be consistent with its precepts. No longer should we attempt to fine-tune the machinery of death and expect to see something that is fair. While I may not live to see society recognize the dignity and worth of all its citizens, I believe that history is on my side, and someday this abomination shall be righted.

bless ya

Half the time I can't understand what he says...

Migrendel, that is.

Do you support the death penalty for vehicular manslaughter?

Just find an island on the other side of the planet.

Put your prisoners on a boat and sail them around the globe to your new island to be incarcerated.

What could go wrong?

Pure barbarism. Canada and France don’t do it but Iran and Nigeria do.