Talk Elections

Yes (D)

Yes (D)

No, of course not.

This is an issue where the US stands with some very questionable company on a human rights issue.

()

I feel we both use the death penalty too much and too little.  Too much because there should be solid and testable forensic evidence that directly links the accused to the murder before it is invoked and too little because it is not applied enough.  Any homicide resulting from a felony act, not just the act of planning to kill someone, should cause death to be an applicable punishment and extenuating circumstances should have no bearing.  Executing a few people for killing someone while DWI might just sober up some people, and if not would at least start thinning the gene pool of those too susceptible to alcoholism that they cannot keep from drinking and driving.

However, for our European humanitarians, I'd be perfectly happy to commute the death penalty to permanent exile and imprisonment according to the term established by another country if that other country is willing to agree to take them and keep them.

I'm with the green countries on the map. They have to be extraordinary circumstances.

no (r)

Green

No, I oppose it in all cases (D).

No.

I do find it kind of interesting just from a sociological examination standpoint, however, how the United States is the only country in the First World in which the death penalty is still in use.  I've always kind of wondered what's different about it that would make that be the case.

Japan and South Korea are hardly developing countries.

Pretty much my opinion. I'm more than okay with it for war crimes, mass murder, etc. I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of using it for "ordinary" crimes like murder though.

Only in a few cases (such as treason, repeat murderers, etc.) and only with near indisputable evidence, but generally No (D).

Okay, western First World, sue me.

You're right though, it's interesting that we've diverged that much from the Europeans. Just another example of the US increasingly having more in common with the East and South than the people it's supposedly the "leader" of.

Agreed. I voted no since I support a great reduction in its use, but it should be used occasionally, for say serial killers, or those already serving a life sentence who then murder someone else in prison. Also murders that threaten the very sanctity of the entire justice system, such as murder of a police officer, judge, juror, witness, etc.

Its use should be rare enough that it is a major news event.

I oppose it in every case and in every imaginable scenario.

Japan and South Korea also have close to the lowest use of the death penalty among nations where it is legal. By contrast, the US executed more people in 2006 than any country except China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and Sudan. Even India, which has the death penalty and nearly quadruple the population, didn't execute as many people in 2006.

Generally, No (D)

No. Some excerpts of my lenghty debate on this topic a while back:

I remain undecided on whether the Death Penalty serves as a legitimate deterrent, although I'm generally opposed in all circumstances. Not that this issue really has any importance to me.

There´s also a resolution on the DP coming up in the UN in a few weeks:

UNITED NATIONS - European Union and other countries opposed to the death penalty are to launch a fresh bid in coming weeks to have the UN General Assembly pass a resolution urging an end to it, diplomats said.

Two previous similar attempts failed, due partly to opposition from the United States, where many states still perform executions, but a diplomat familiar with the campaign said this time the text would tone down the demand.

Instead of asking outright for abolition, a draft obtained by Reuters calls on countries that put criminals to death to "establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty."

It calls application of the death penalty "a denial of human dignity and integrity," says it "provides no added value in terms of deterrence" and notes that "any miscarriage or failure of justice in its implementation is irreversible and irreparable."

Unlike Security Council resolutions, those passed by the General Assembly are not binding, but they have moral force.

The diplomat said sponsors of the resolution would hold an informal meeting later this week before circulating it to a General Assembly committee. The aim was to have a vote by mid-November by the full Assembly, where a simple majority of the 192 member states is needed.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10471596

Yes, though it's application should require a heinous crime and enough solid evidence to remove any reasonable doubt of innocence.

Of course not!

It should be abolished for all crimes, including "the very worst of cases."

As do I.

People who commit murder or molest children should, if the states and the juries so choose, face the death penalty.

How can a libertarian support the use of the death penalty?

I support the death penalty in theory but have a lot of problems with it in actual practice.  I agree that some individuals deserve to die.  The death penalty can also be a strong tool for prosecutors when negotiating with guilty defendants, such as in the Gary Ridgway case.  (Though many were disappointed that the prosecutor in question did not seek the death penalty for Ridgway).

In practice, however, the death penalty has serious issues.  In Illinois, for instance, they had to put a moratorium on their death penalty when DNA evidence exonerated several convicts on death row.  The fear of executing an innocent person is a huge deal for me.  If we are going to have the death penalty, it goes without saying that the process must be held to the highest possible critical standard.  It is like brain surgery -- there is no room for error.

I support it only for indisputable evidence of child molesting (that led to the death of the children), mass and/or serial murder (over 10 persons killed by the same person), high treason, and war crimes. In other cases, no. (I/Oth)

Looking at the Wiki map Jas posted, it's quite interesting that Turkmenistan has outlawed the death penalty. Was Turkmenbashi pro-life? :p

There's no requirement in libertarian philosophy that requires a libertarian to support keeping or abolishing the death penalty. Like abortion, it's at least partially an issue of personal morals and the Libertarian Party has no official stance on the subject.

My personal view is that it is the only way to truly remove a very violent and dangerous criminal from society so that they will not pose a threat to anyone. You could put such people in prison for life, but this will not necessarily mean they can't cause any harm. Often such people can and do harm prison guards, nurses, etc. as well as their fellow inmates who may include non-violent criminals. (ideally non-violent and violent criminals would be separated, but unfortunately that isn't always the case) High ranking gang leaders who have been imprisoned on multiple life sentences still somehow manage to direct their gangs from a prison cell. Though rare, there's also the chance of escape. Theoretically, you could lock them in solitary confinement for life, but this still involves guards, nurses, etc. having to interact with them occasionally which can put them at risk. There's also potential mental and physical health issues associated with solitary confinement, so it could be construed as cruel and unusual. (personally, I think solitary confinement for many years is much worse than dying)

To me, the first goal of a good justice system is to protect the people from criminals. Punishment and (where applicable) rehabilitation are secondary. I hold no particular love for the death penalty, and again I stress that it must be applied only in rare situations, but I do feel that it's use is unfortunately a necessity in those situations.

Yes, though I would be fine with life-imprisonment if capital punishment was overturned.  This really isn't an issue I am particularly passionate about, so I am fine whichever way the wind blows. 

Al, haven't we learned by now that *ahem* "libertarians" are only for liberty for rich, white, protestant men? Respectable people who know their place in society.

I had been under the impression that the whole point of libertarianism is opposition to the power of the state.
Otherwise what is it but an ideology created to defend the lifestyles of those who follow it?

A question that I pondered for some time before finally deciding that I could not. If you follow the libertarian ideology of the minimal state and reducing the power of the state then taking away its power to take life is an essential part of that. If a government has power over the life and death of its citizens it therefore has the ultimate power over all it rules. If judges and justices hold the power of capital punishment then they hold a power that I seriously don't believe that any libertarian would condone.

The whole goal, as I understand it, is a maximization of rights and freedoms.  It seems to me that a case could be made that those who are known to be murderous individuals are both a danger to others' rights and freedoms and undeserving of their own rights and freedoms, having taken those of other people away, and as such, that removing these people from society helps achieve the goal I stated.

A similar justification could be found for allowing the state to imprison people; indeed, if someone supported neither the death penalty nor imprisonment for the reason you gave, that person would be an anarchist, not a simple libertarian.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy of non-aggression against the person and property of individuals. But it is not a political philosophy of non-retaliation. If it were, not merely capital punishment, but imprisonment as well, would be incompatible with it.


Few libertarians oppose the punishment of crime, legitimately defined. An anarchocapitalist would wish to separate this function from the state; a minarchist would see this as one of government's only legitimate functions. In either case, there is no inherent conflict with capital punishment.

There are, of course, numerous philosophical trappings when it comes to libertarian law enforcement. For who is to be the judge of whether a person is actually guilty, and where does he (or they, it, whatever) get this authority? Someone's rights are, in some sense, going to be held at the mercy of others. But this is equally true when it comes to imprisonment or even imposition of a fine.


We are not for the equal liberty of criminals.

True, but similar justifications could be made for any expanse of government power. In fact I would argue that the vast majority of government programs actually enhance freedom overall, when one truly considers all people and all possible types of freedom.

Libertarianism as a philosophy seems to focus on the idea that the only source of tyranny and oppression is the government, which is in my opinion its biggest failing.


Interesting and well put.

The problem with this, however, is that it's a bit simplistic; what exactly constitutes property is very much in debate, for one. For example, what would the libertarian position have been on slavery? Or what about intellectual property such as copyright?

What about things like one's emotions, hopes, fears, dreams, or ambitions? These all could, or could not, be considered property, depending on how one wants to define the term. The entire concept of land as property was, of course, the greatest overall source of conflict in the settlement of the Western world.

ABSOLUTELY! (R)

Interesting!  So if I killed one child with a blunt object I would not be executed, as long as it wasn't my blunt object?

No, not really. I might make an exception for Hitler/Bush types, though.

True, which is why as people of intelligence we must consider such arguments in depth rather than taking them at face value. Some degree of government is necessary otherwise you get chaos and anarchy which likely leads to tyranny in the long run. Too much government however leads to the people being controlled and freedoms being restricted. While similar justifications could be made for many government expansions, that doesn't mean those justifications are necessarily valid. We may come to different conclusions, but what matters more to me is that we use logic and reason to come to those conclusions.


It isn't the only source, but it is a large one. Since the government has the most power, (they probably wouldn't be in charge otherwise) it has the greatest ability to oppress the people, so it seems natural to concentrate one's efforts mainly on the government. For the same reasons, other oppressive forces will often concentrate their efforts on getting the government to do what they want. Take for instance corporations lobbying government for corporate welfare, land seizures for private use, etc. - libertarians oppose these things, but we aren't going to get them to stop lobbying for them by asking the corporations nicely. It's the government that gives them these things, so we need to get the government to say "no" before anything else can be done.


Libertarian views of property start with self-ownership, so slavery is abhorrent to libertarians.


Most libertarians would agree to some degree of law involving copyright. That degree varies by individual though.


One's emotions, hopes, fears, dreams, and ambitions are part of one's self, so under the doctrine of self-ownership they belong the person they came from.

While I do not support the death penalty in any case, it find it interesting that one would support the death penalty for child molestation (if it doesn't result in the child's death).

Though I don't agree with that idea, there is an argument to be made that it might be even worse for a child to get terribly molested and then live, scarred for life.

It's also viewed as a heinous crime by pretty much everyone - even prison inmates hate child molesters. Might have to do with our maternal and paternal instincts that drive us to protect children.

Weakly support, and only in the case of premeditated homicide (or whatever the legal term is for cold-blooded murder).

In most sensible jurisdictions nowadays, the bump-up from first degree "intent to kill" murder to a death-penalty eligible murder occurs through the occurrence of aggravated circumstances in the crime as defined by statute - such as killing a police officer or being convicted of aggravated robbery, as well as murder in the same crime.

This occurred because of the difficulty of defining what "premeditated murder" is.  Does it occur in a split-second or does it take a period of time?  Courts are all over the place on this one.

Oh, and I support the death penalty (even for some members of this forum, likely).  Repeated child rape, murder with aggravated circumstances, probably not much more than that.

I assumed there would be some confusion over how 'premeditated' is defined.

I don't quite agree with the idea that the question "who have you killed?" should play a part in determining whether a homicide is aggravated or not. But it is somewhat rational, so I suppose I support it.

Well, it's not necessarily who have you killed.  It can also be "what other crimes did you commit while murdering someone", for example. 

Go look at the Texas capital murder statute (you can find it on the web quite easily) or the New York Penal Law for common examples of aggravated circumstances statutes.

No. Everyone deserves a chance to repent and become Christians, even if they are terrorist nutjobs.

I do not support the death penalty except for high-prolife terrorists and war criminals.

72 countries push for UN moratorium on death penalty

New York, 2 Nov. (AKI) - The UN General Assembly has received a draft resolution signed by 72 countries calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty - one of the most controversial issues dividing the world body.

Italian prime minister Romano Prodi began a push for a UN resolution to ban capital punishment worldwide in January, after the execution of toppled former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The planned resolution has faced resistance from Asian and Middle Eastern countries which along with the United States carry out the highest number of executions annually.

The resolution was circulated late on Thursday in the UN's human rights committee. It has been co-authored by 36 countries including the 27 EU member states, and has the support of 72 countries.

The draft is due to be voted on by the committee in mid-November.

If the resolution passes in the committee, the 192 nation UN General Assembly will vote on it in mid-December, where it requires the backing of 97 countries to pass.

Italy hopes to use its influence when it next month becomes rotating president of the UN Security Council to convince a further 25 countries to support the resolution.

The resolution, if passed in the assembly is non-binding, but will carry moral and political weight.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=1.0.1504751114

There is simply no reason to have the death penalty, even for "high profile" cases.  I mean, really, what's the point?

While I agree, I also advocate leniency for any of the victim's family member killing the murderer in blind revenge.

To me, if you take someone's life, you forfeit your own life.

If a rapist is convicted, does he forfeit the right not to be raped?

"Prolife Terrorists"?

I strongly oppose the death penalty.

Agreed, we should use it more often for those crimes. It's really a shame the Supreme Court ruled it couldn't be applied to child rapists. That said they should require that DNA evidence be included too along with limits on appeals.

you're some Christian.

_________________________

no, I oppose the death penalty in all cases.

Absolutely.
And that person's previous crimes have nothing to do with it. And the legal situation has nothing to do with it. And abetting murders - say, financing your state's department of corrections despite its exercise of the death penalty - is the same as committing them.
And noone but you has the right to enforce your own sentence.

     I don't like the death penalty, though I believe that a sovereign nation must reserve the right to exercise such punishment against those elements that are the greatest threat to society, namely the most dangerous of murderers & traitors.

No for common criminals, yes in cases of national security (treason, spies, etc.)

No, I see no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Oppose.

Old stuff, and Gabu's gone now, but most things that make America different from the rest of the West can be traced back to the frontier mentality.

First time I've read this thread.  I love how the lefties tried to bash libertarianism and got their ass kicked.  Great job (as always) Dibble.

"The lefties"?

Your blanket terms are always amusing.

What is/was the political ideology of the kids that did it?  If I was wrong, please feel free to correct.

Gully Foyle a leftist? LOL.

i strongly oppose the death penalty.

Support, but it should only be applies where one is absolutely sure one is offing the right killer.

Yes I do.

No (Independent)

No (D).

The government should not be taking it upon it's self to kill it's own citizens, for any reason.

No I do not. (R)

No I do not and I'm very proud of my country's record regarding this issue (1 execution in 60 years, and he was a Nazi war criminal).
I am conservative but it is my religious and moral views that don't allow me to support such a punishment and the crime is not relevant since the question is not whether he deserves to be beheaded (many people do) but whether we are allowed and capable of making the decision to take someone's life.
I believe the answer is-no, plus I don't believe it deters future offenders.

An Israeli Jew :D

How do you know he's a Jew?

Yep, I support it.

You would.

Well, viewing the statistics it's really not a brave call (80% of us are), but you're right.
God willing in a couple of weeks you'll have someone to report on new elections in Israel...

Shana Tova.

Shana Tova to you.

Would any of you consider the death penalty a form of human sacrifice to the state?

I used to support it, as a republican, but my main roots as a Republican come from being a Christian, and therefore, as a Christian, I can not in trueness support the Death Penalty.  It is fairly hypocritical to support a death penalty, but be opposed to pro-choice, therefore I DO NOT support the Death Penalty.  Another reason is that the man or woman could be falsely accused, or might change later in life and repent therefore saving their afterlife which we should not be able to just take away.  NO EXCEPTIONS, treason should be treated with the worst type of punishment, and death is not that.

Under no circumstance.

There are times when I am so disgusted and enraged about the criminal acts of a person that I wish them death just for revenge....

But I can't succumb to that.  It has taken a lot of thinking... but I just cannot justify the taking of somebody else's life except in extreme cases of self defense.

At the same time, if a man was raping your child and you caught him and shot him, I don't think you should be charged with a crime... you obviously don't have a lot of time or the wherewithal to think to yourself "okay.. let's calm down and think about this rationally"... it's gonna be shoot now, ask questions later no matter who you are.  And any judge or jury who doesn't accept that is not worthy.

No (D)

Yes (R)

I actually used to... I don't anymore... I'm a flip-flopper. ;)

No

Absolutely not.

I support It , but I would rather just reform our prison system to start with.

I do, but I think that there are other ways to punish those are in the extreme wrong(not beating them up).

no

REFORM the prison system and you wouldn't need the death penalty.

how so? Considering the question of the death penalty tends to be more of an ideological debate...what does the prison system have to do with it?

The death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent.

Ok well by reform of the prison system you wouldn't no longer need the DP anymore.

Whats my reform?

I would get rid of general population which is NOT working and actually creating more problems in terms of crime inside prison and outside.   My prisons would be basically like a max lockdown. One cell, One person in the cell, and you would never see the light of day.  2 meals a day, books and even TV ( education channels and NEWS only) this would all be in that cell.   We already have something sorta like this in our maxium federal prisons, although I would apply it to state prisons and pretty much do away with our current ones. 

Sounds extreme , but our current prisons are a MESS.

After spending 5 years in my type of prison you wouldn't think about wanting to ever go back.  Unlike now most repeat offenders will tell you that they rather be in prison because its like a home.  More gangs are created in our prisons then on the streets.  This is a direct result of failed  "general population".

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.

Hell yeah!

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

Yes and we should actually use it.  Often.

Yes.

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

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).

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!

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

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.

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.


Actually according to studies it only adds about $1,397 (http://www.urban.org/publications/411697.html), 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.

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...

Absolutely (I)

Never.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

because it is not a deterrent. look at my graph.

I never said that it serves as a deterrent.

i know. I am saying that it is not viewed like one by the criminals and such.

Then, why did you create this straw man?

tell me when you actually have a reason for supporting the death penalty.

Serial rape/murder comes to mind.

what if they have the wrong person? It happens.

If DNA linked one guy to multiple rapes or murders, isn't that fairly conclusive?

keep in mind that it might have been consensual and she is just crying rape? it can turn into her word against his and she will win.

So, multiple women are going to band together and cry rape?  I suppose anything is possible, but I find the likelihood to be quite low.  That's why I included the word "serial" in my original answer.

also why would you want to kill a guy painfully?
there are other ways to punish someone.

I don't believe that one can seriously rehabilitate criminals who habitually rape or kill others, and I find this to be a better solution for the victims and their families than free room and board and a gym membership.

well it would increase if you have the death penalty. so basically you want to kill people who do something wrong. "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

What would increase with the death penalty?

N, I do not support it.

And let there be no mistake: anyone who professes to be a great lover of liberty and still upholds this practice is a hypocrite and a charlatan of the most base sort. For, firstly, the death penalty is the ultimate and total realization of the State’s desire to monopolize lethal force; for centuries the State has sought a method by which to buttress its waning power in the face of popular demands for liberty, and for just as long the people have been more than obliging in sacrificing their freedom to it in exchange for the etherealities of security and the feeling of peace with the world. Until such a day comes when the mindless masses are no longer led about by their collective nose at the mere thought of some unfathomable Other cavorting about their yards at night, it is prudent that we dispose of the barbaric penalty so as to preserve some semblance of republicanism as against mob rule.

Likewise, the politicization in the service of a socialistic cultural cause is repugnant to me. If we in this country were more open to absolute freedom - that is, the sort of freedom that would permit a Michael Dukakis to express his antipathy towards the thing without costing him ten states instantaneously - then it would seem quite likely to me that fewer individuals would be reduced to channeling their latent aggressiveness into a murderous outlet. Quite frankly, statistics show that three-fourths of all State-sponsored executions relate back ultimately to the prohibition against narcotics; remove said prohibition and one removes the impetus for murder in a vast majority of cases.

If the drug business were not pushed underground (owing, of course, to the moralistic impulses of the Mediocratic Median, who have always had the political instincts of an ancient race horse in the glue factory), then it is patently obvious that our homicide rate should decline concurrently with the easing of restrictions against the trade, hence obviating the need for the death penalty as a so-called deterrent. This particular form of social engineering is not only harmful, it is downright predatory: it seeks to pit our socially-inveighed morals against our own individual consciences.

But the Big-Government-Conservatives (i.e.Reaganists) who hold the real power down yonder will ultimately have their way -- and who can argue against them? After all, it was the oh-so-liberal Nixon who first declared the War on Drugs, as well as the War on Brown-Skinned Cambodians- and the one ties inextricably into the Other: the Brownies must die so that the pure Lilywhites might preserve. Such is the innate hierarchy of values in the Union of Racially-Socialist Republics (the old Confederacy), and such is its priorities. The raw hatred of a genuinely free-market (a free-market for drugs or for life) runs deep in the swampy heartland of pseudo-patriotism; it is the mucky blood that runs through its ivy-throttled veins.

But what do I know? I might as well go back to my booze-buzz. After all, it's not like any tried-and-true Reaganist quasi-libertarian would ever publicly admit to agreeing with me, for fear that he might splinter his rapidly-decaying Coalition.

The moment the legal system begins to pander to the victims and their families, all hell breaks loose.

Yes, though the system needs to be overhauled (D)

What a stupid one, I was quickly enchaining things and thus I submit "Yes", while I firmly stand against this. Shame.

Given that I think, that if ever we make some choices in life, we don't have a lot to choose, and given that I think that it's our greatness to welcome someone who did the bad to transform him into someone to make the good, or at least someone better, using his mistakes to understand what had lead him to make this in order to get some teachings for him and for the whole society. Given all of this and plus the fact that I think that giving the death is something that just goes against the only thing through the one we exist, the life, I can just strongly reject death penalty.

When did I say that the legal system should pander to families?  Did you not read the post where I said that I'm uncomfortable with how enthusiastic DAs are in seeking it?

I did read that, but I was responding specifically to the above post. The wording of it.

Fair enough. 

Hell no. It's ineffective, backwards, and unethical.
Isn't life imprisonment enough? I sure as hell don't want to wake up with a sore ass every morning for the rest of my life.

Yes. Wholeheartedly

No offense but, luckily people of less than 18 don't vote in reality!

Just because such a comment on such an issue from someone who have a small experience of life is a bit...displaced.

I take no offense ,I get worse ocmments then that.

I got over 100 death threats (on youtube)  last year before election night for teens who wanted me to like Obama

"VOTE OBAma whitey or i'll rip your faces offz"

Very common.  Liberals say they are for peace and nonviolence but really they are closet terrorists.  I get lots of hate mail right here on this forum threatening me.  But what the libs don't realize is that there are lots of lurkers and quiter posters who have written to me encouraging me to keep up the good fight.  One of them recently even had a red avatar.  I am working on him to switch!  he is a true conservative and realizes that traditional social values, American pride and patriotism and fiscal conservatism are the only way to save our nation.

So glad you are here, Jews.  Keep up the good work we conservatives need to encourage one another.s

I've been opposed to the death penalty since I've joined the forum, when I was 13.  So saying he can't comment means I couldn't've commented until last August :P

Yes (R)

Oh sure, everybody can enjoy to make such or such comment, I just gave my opinion about that one and said why, that's all.

No, because it does not deter, it's completely cost ineffective, human rights abusing and racially biased. Not to mention the possibility of executing an innocent.

Look at the statistics:

1980 is a good year to compare the 2007 numbers because in all 3 states I use, the homicide rate peaked in this year.

TX (death penalty): 1980 (16.9 murders/100.000) 2007 (5.9 murders) drop: 65%

New York (no death penalty, has not executed anyone for at least the last 45 years):

1980 (12.7 murders/100.000) 2007 (4.2 murders) drop: 67%

If you think NY does not count, because it had a DP statute for at least until 2005) then use

Hawaii: (no death penalty): 1980 (8.7 murders/100.000) 2007 (1.7 murders) drop: 81%

And the fact that murder rates are generally lower in states/countries that have no death penalty than states/countries who have (except if you are living in an epic fail country like Colombia or South Africa with a culture of violence and social dispair).