Is there ever a case where the death penalty is appropriate?

these days. Convicted spies Andrew Daulton Lee and Christopher Boyce who sold secrets to the Russians back in the 70's are both free men today. Lee, who had received a life sentence, was parolled several years ago, and Boyce, who received additional time for escaping from prison and robbing banks to support himself, was parolled last year.

But under the circumstances that the murderer commits the act in a crowded mall, the victim is a very young boy or girl with no history of computer fraud, market manipulation, or hosting vicious alien conquerors, the killer drops his I.D. spattered with his victims blood, he/she is captured at the scene and found not to be wearing a disguise, he admits it to the jury, shows no regret or remorse, and promises to do it again and again...

I challenge anyone to deny he/she should get a nice crispy frying.

{typo}

as the sibling of a death row inmate for over 20 years.

Regardless of how heinous killer's actions, that killer is a human being with relatives who will mourn his or her murder by the state. The killing you have suggested is certainly no more cruel than the torture imposed on the loved ones of those on death row who are dragged repeatedly through the threatened murder of their brother, sister, parent, or child, sometimes to within minutes of the premeditated vicious murder (electrocution - that "nice crispy frying" you suggested - in my sibling's case), only to be granted a momentary reprieve and then go through it again, and again.

That is not to minimize the pain felt by the families of the killer's victims, to excuse the behavior of killers, or even to suggest that such killers should necessarily ever have the opportunity to live outside of prison walls again. It is to point out that state sanctioned murder creates an additional innocent family that is forced to grieve for yet another murder victim.

You have helped me to more understand the depth of that saying.
Thank You.

Do please understand, the example that I use is for the sake of illustrating circumstance under which guilt could not be in question.

I cannot understand your pain, but I know that having known a person for the most formative years of one's life is to know more deeply their motivations than sometimes they do themselves.

Should my own son fit the description of the monster I illustrated, I myself would hasten his dispatch from this world.

I do not for one second believe that your sibling was such a despotic monster.

Thus I do believe that there are such circumstances one should face death at the hands of the society one has victimized.

It is very disturbing that this punishment is administered so frequently, for that indeed punishes many more who are innocent.

I am sorry for your pain.
We do need less of that in the world.

-Dr. E

Ted Bundy, there's another. Serial murderers... why bother wasting food on these predators.

with whether or not killers (serial or otherwise) deserve our tears. My comments were addressed to what becoming murderers ourselves does to us individually and as a society, and to the families of our murder victims (the state acts in our names when it carries out our verdict of vengeance - so we are all complicit in its acts). The societal costs are even higher when we later find out that the "killer" we murdered was innocent.

As for "wasting food," the cost for the years of appeals (which must be paid for in whole or in part by the state) is much higher than the cost of keeping someone in jail and "wasting food" on him or her for the remainder of his or her life by imposing a life sentence in the first place. Given the large numbers of innocent individuals executed or set free after years of time on death row the costs cannot realistically be lowered by eliminating or shortening the appeals process without sacrificing whatever semblance of fairness remains in our judicial system - not that it is fair now when a defense lawyer can fall asleep during the trial for the life of his client (so long as he was not sleeping during a critical portion of the trial) and still be declared competent counsel.

TB was a serial killer ....I believe JD was very mentally ill, he meant no harm. IF he had lived he would have served society better by allowing us the study him....There was much to learn.

I support life without parole because in MOST cases it the 'handicap' that a moral society' gives the underclass. The playing field is just simply not level. A poor (in most cases minorty) has a state appointed PD...He is overworked/underpaided and has little training in capital cases. He has NO training in capital appeals. when we continuously proved to many innocent men are wrongly on death row the only fair penalty has to life w/o parole to allow the system to work in time.

we cannot sanction murder by the state. not necessarily because the executed doesn't deserve it, but because by extention we all become murderers.

Until this election, my answer would have always been "NO". Now I need to think about it, depending on what happens in the next few years. Seriously.

A traitor, a child murder, a serial killer and a cult leader, who lies to their people about fake information which leads to war.

I might make an exception, but ONLY if our system is fixed, which is to badly needs.

i've always thought that Rape should be punishable by death. It's utterly reprehensible.

rapists are pure scum

NEVER!

and deal with death so intimately so often, I have changed my mind on capital punishment entirely. No matter how heinous the crime, I just cannot reconcile a verdict of death. No man should hold that much power. I remember reading one soldier's account of killing: everytime I kill a person, I lose a bit of my soul.

We assume that death is the worst possible punishment and I disagree with that notion. Some people's lives are hellacious punishments in itself. Death would be a welcome. Instead of truly enforcing justice, we just get our hands bloodier.

repeat after me: we don't legislate killing our own citizens, no matter what. that's called tyranny.

then I would be in favor of the death penalty for his crimes against Americans.

Killing in immediate self-defense is understandable.

The death penalty is not self-defense. It's revenge. We can put those people off the street for life, and overall - taking into account all the court doings, including those who go through all the trials and appeals and end up NOT getting the death penalty, it's cheaper to just lock them up.

And when I say cheaper, what I mean is that money that is saved can be used to feed a starving child or provide life saving medical care.

By having a death penalty, we aren't just taking the life of the criminal. We are taking the lives of those who do without critical services they need to survive, so that we can fund the death penalty process.

After reading the other posts, I want to add that even in the case of the current administration, as strongly as I feel they are guilty of treason, there is not one child I could look at and tell them I'm willing to sacrifice their medicine or their education or their assistance to feed their family, in order to satisfy my anger.

My brother put it best: "It demeans us."

should receive the death penalty.

I would also require a higher proof standards, and no executing minors would be allowed

It's a completely barbaric practice which needs to be scrapped entirely. There is no justice in state-sanctioned murder.

That, more or less, is my answer to anybody who ever asks me, "Should (fill in the blank) get the death penalty?"

And for those who say they agree in theory but not in practice, violent crimes rise in the wake of executions in those states that practice it. Those who advocate for the DP are willing accomplices in the backlash of violence that inevitably follows state sanctioned murder.

Like two mirrors facing each other, the ripples of killing to condemn killing go on as far as the eye can see.

I don't want to go into the whole debate again but yes I believe in capital punishment.

Period.

The state should not sanction murder anor make us all culpable in that murder.

Cletus

So far the death penalty has been instituded by majority in certain states.

Majority is still supposed to rule a Democracy, whether any one of us approves or not, and no matter how misguided we feel the majority is.

If the majority of the US wanted to legalize slavery, take away the voting rights of non-white men, etc. the Court would be obligated to slap the proposals down. So majority rule does not always apply.

such. But There's still enough people with a medieval mindset to keep the death penalty around for a while.

Usually when this country finally makes some 'forward progress', it is unlikely that we will regress.

Unless the Christian Reconstructionists have their way.
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

"Usually when this country finally makes some 'forward progress', it is unlikely that we will regress." I completely agree. I hope to see this forward progress in my lifetime.

But for me anyway, I don't see the point... I am not afraid of death at all. In fact, I'd rather get lethal injection than have to spend the rest of my life in jail. I think life in prison without the possibility of parole is the worst punishment one can receive (sans torture, electrocution, gas chamber, etc.)

With that said, I am not vehemently opposed to capital punishment either. I have no sympathy at all for serial killers, serial rapists, pedophiles, etc. My opposition to the death penalty is strictly pragmatic. Considering that one out of ten people on death row are probably innocent, I don't think it's a good idea. The chances of killing an innocent person are too great. Plus, killing a killer to show that killing is wrong is pretty fucked up.

would be appropriate in executing a criminal?

Some crimes are so awful and some criminals are hopelessly unremorseful, we might think that person should die. But the question really is - Should a civil society kill as part of the criminal justice system.

I think not because it does not improve the society at large. Let's analyze what citizens feel like after an execution. Is there satisfaction or a feeling of revenge completed? Is there peace of mind? Or is there an empty feeling or frustration that the criminal is not even aware of his/her punishment - they are dead after all.

Since there is no data, my feelings are that as a society we are diminished by executions. Who are we if we celebrate state sponsored murder. Who are we when an innocent person is executed. Who are we if someone is executed and it does not relieve any suffering.

Let's really look at the outcome of state sponsored executions so we are sure what we are talking about.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Murder is murder whether it is government sanctioned murder or not.

I would support it.

Just joking!

like whoever's responsible for this

You don't kill to stop the killing. It's like declaring a war in the name of peace.

I think "killing to stop the killing" and "declaring a war in the name of peace" are both justifiable in some circumstances (e.g. shooting a hostage-taker, WWII).

The death penalty isn't killing to stop killing, though: it works no better as a deterrent than life in prison, and by the time you have someone in a position where you can execute them they are almost invariably not in a position to kill anyone else.

I'll know if it's appropriate when I see it.

But if someone ever caused serious harm to one of my children I'd probably kill them myself.

for a MASSIVE group of people.

Even then, I'm very uncomfortable with it.

The person had damned well have better DONE the deed, too.

when Jeffrey Curley was killed by two men, and there was a big push here in Massachusetts to bring back the death penalty. I was on the fence because of the fact that a child was killed. I remember thinking about what the right thing to do was, when it occurred to me (pretty stupid that it took as long as it did, but that's a story for another time!) that as a believer in God, I had to acknowledge that these two evil men were creations of God as much as the young victim was. I decided then that I am not qualified to make decisions about life and death regarding any creation of God. That's really up to God. That doesn't necessarily mean that people like that should live to be productive citizens, only that the decision regarding the fate of any other human is not mine to make.

this happened not far from where I live in Cambridge. It was undoubtedly the worst crime that's ever happened here in this progressive city and made lots of liberals question the death penalty. I struggled with this myself, but remain opposed to the death penalty.

Life in prison as a child molester and murderer is a lot harsher than a lethal injection.

want to exact vengence, the state cannot execute people without becoming a murderer, itself. Who do you punish if the state makes a mistake?

In addition, something no one seems to think about are the people involved in the actual act of execution. Each one of those people is affected for the rest of their lives by this. The state does this to them.

edited to add that actually some people here have thought of this. I am impressed by the eloquence of many here.

On a personal, visceral level, if someone near and dear to me was murdered, I'd want revenge. PURE & PAINFUL.

And I have no problem with the execution of Ted Bundy, the in prison killing of Jeffrey Dahmer, and the demise other sociopathic serial killers.

On the other hand, however, I realize the system is flawed, that there are innocents on death row, that killing one innocent is wrong...

those motherfuckers (like scott peterson) should get the death penalty, cause we had to hear about his stupid ass every day for a year

god i hate the media in this country

on edit: i was being facetious, i voted no

Not to mention just plain wrong and immoral.

It's a barbarous relic of a barbarous past that should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

when the act of killing the guilty brings the victim back to life. I guess there are still some significant technical glitches to work out before it's justified.

I think the death penalty is wrong for a lot of reasons, not just the possibility of human error in convicting someone. I do understand why people support it, especially for serial killers and child killers, because they take so much from the families of their victims, and frequently torture their victims first.

I just don't think killing the killers solves that much in the long run, when incarceration for life is possible. For example, I saw an interview with a couple of the Manson killers, two of the girls who are serving life sentences. Both have great remorse for the things they did, both were young when they committed the murders, and one had found meaningful service to society by being a teacher in the prison's school program, helping inmates who will someday be released gain better academic skills. The other seemed to have serious mental health issues, and I had sympathy for her to some degree, although I think both belong in prison for life.

I do think that the nature of prison life needs to change. Inmates who can work, should work either supporting the daily routine of a prison (groundskeeping, kitchen duty, gardening, which can benefit their health by providing better food, etc) or by doing socially beneficial work. Payback to society should not mean that they are just deprived of their freedom, there should be more positive activity involved.

our justice system should be corrective...not punitive, even for those in there for life...

the death penalty would be appropriate for the Bush administration upon conviction.

right now our government thinks that punishing non-violent 'criminals' with mandatory sentencing is the way to go...take someone with an ounce of pot and just happens to have a weapon on him and give him 55 years and then let a rapist get off with seven...that is screwed up. You MAKE criminals that way...if we would concentrate on really punishing the violent and rehabilitating the non-violent then this might not even be an issue...

For me...I think :

Murder -> Life in prison...no parole...no TV...no weight room...
Rape -> same
Assault\Batter -> depends on the nature of the attack
Petty crimes -> shorter sentences focused on rehab

Simple...I know...would take a lot of time to flesh that out...

theProdigal

Should these monsters have been spared?

Killing is killing is killing.

Not because they are worth sparing, but because by refusing to kill even these we can be positive that we have not killed an innocent person.

It probably sucks more than death (granted I wouldn't know, but...)

Did you catch his "inside" home video? With his breast implants, cocaine and wads of cash?

Anyone who causes another suffering and death should get THE WORST PUNISHMENT: solitary confinement for the rest of his or her life, with absolutely no comforts, including light, good food and drink, TV, etc. That's hell on Earth.

That is nomadic and cannot build prisons.

I would add that if they have someone in prison and he's killing inmates. But even then, we have the capability for super max so that's what we should do. And could do if we weren't locking up pot smokers.

I just don't think that death is a viable punishment. It's just plain disgusting and barbaric for the government to be employing people to murder other people in the name of the USA. It dehumanizes everyone.

PLUS the death penalty assumes the system is without error, and it ISN'T, no system is flawless. And because there are flaws, a PERMANENT punishment is not fair.

Of course there are horrendous criminals that I'd love to see burning in hell -- but that's just plain vengefulness. We have to act from our brains, not our guts.

I am a pro-death penalty democrat. Sorry, I just think society needs an ultimate penalty for barbaric acts. It needs to be reformed, however. Only cases where there is irrefutable DNA evidence should qualify for the death penalty. Otherwise, if there is even a 1 and a million chance the person could be found innocent at a later date, he should get life without parole.

I support the death penalty.

From all the biblical reading I've done, even none of the various gods would qualify as a judge or juror to make this ruling.

but I would support a moratorium on the DP in order to clean up the justice system...

One where the judge is omniscient, having the power to see everything that happened and thus able to make a judgement free from the taint of errors, bias, bad legal representation, etc.

Its a reprehensible act, condemned by a majority of western nations.

on the death penalty, please read the EU position papers.

EU MEMORANDUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY


"If I can prove that this punishment is neither useful nor necessary, I will have furthered the cause of humanity."

Cesare Beccaria, Dei delitti e delle pene (1764)


http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/eumemorandum.htm

Thus, there is no way that I can support the death penalty.

more difficult sentence to serve, and if you are really looking to punish a lifetime in solitary would be the way to go.If a criminal is evil enough to deserve the death penalty, why put him out of his misery?

It's who has the moral authority to administer it.

Governments, which should be in the business of promoting civilization, should not participate in that activity.

This is above the notion that it would be administered imperfectly, which, of course, it would.

--IMM

Homicide is wrong, no matter what.

see also:
limp bizkit, korn, staind, pod, backstreet boys, n sync, justin timberlake (revive him and fry him again), ashlee simpson, menudo, cher, creed, etc,,,

I couldn't find a previous thread I posted on this subject. Anyway, it concerned the murderers of Matthew Shepherd being interviewed on 20/20 this Friday night. If nothing else, why should these criminals deserve prime time attention? I also mentioned in my previous posting about Leopold and Loeb. They were sentenced to life in prison PLUS 99 years for the murder of a young kid (Bobby Franks). I forget which one was murdered in prison (Loeb?) but Leopold(?) was released after serving 33 years. Huh? That's life plus 99 years? I wonder if the murderers of Matthew Sheherd are trying to gain attention so they might get paroled some day. After all, life in prison without parole is not as long as it seems. Someone brought up Timothy McVeigh. Another fine specimen of human degradation is Richard Davis killer of Polly Klass. How long has Davis been on death row now ? 10 years?

Too dumb to take on the responsibility for ending a person's life.

I think back to the Hi-Fi killers and the inconceivable torture they put their victims through, and I answer "yes"

I think of violent pedophiles who put truly innocent children through the most unspeakable pain and anxiety before killing them and I answer "yes"

Then I think of the woman who has lived through years of abuse at the hands of her husband, finally having enough she plans and kills him in one way or the other, and I answer "No"


Then one has to be aware that innocent people have been punished for crimes they did not commit, convicted on circumstantial evidence. The answer then has to be "No"

But, those who kill for the pleasure they get from it, admit to it or are linked by DNA or eye witness evidence....how do you say no? Why would I want that person to have the benefit of living a life, when he denied others the same for a thrill?

Frankly I am torn.

I am however dead set on the violent pedophile issue. I just cannot bring myself to wish anything but death on adults that torture and murder little children. period

I think that there are cases where the crime is of such magnitude as to justify murdering the criminal, and there is no doubt of guilt and no mitigating factors, but the only place where one can draw a hard line and be certain of not executing anyone where any of those conditions don't hold is to execute no-one.

... but a recent poll in the UK (sorry no link, can't recall which poll it was) showed that around 75% of people here would support bringing back the death penalty.

I'm one who considers ritual killing by the state an unbearable act, in general. Every
performance of it is a degrading and ludicrous act, glorifying common criminality,
and is always marked by the human degradation of society, the victim, and the 'grieving'
relatives. The perpetrator is the least of the victims of the thing.

There is the rare crime that is not merely a crime against common people, it's a
violation of any notion of civilization. A 'crime against humanity' is a misnomer for it.
It's not the number of killings but their meaning.

So I call my notion 'the Adolf Eichmann exception'. The man never stood up and
admitted responsibility for what he participated in and did- but if he had I would
be ambivalent about executing him also. I'm with Hannah Arendt and Magnes and
Buber on that.

Not ever.

For example, if I were to be apprehended while gunning down school-kids. There is no question of who did the crime. They can place me there.

If before they begin prosecution, they know that it is possible that I was not the person to do the crime then the death penalty should be off the table.

Those who willingly kill certainly deserve to be killed, but death penalty is only feasible in a society of perfect beings who cannot make mistakes in judging. We humans are not perfect beings, so we cannot take the risk of killing an innocent. However, if we were perfect beings, there would be no crime, so death penalty would not be necessary. So death penalty is unfeasible both in a society of perfect beings and in a society of imperfect beings.

This thesis I defended years ago during a college debate, and I won! :)

Serial Killers. (As mentioned before, like Dahmer and Bundy.)

Child Molestors. Study after study has shown that pedophiles have a very high recidivism rate. Kill 'em and let them rot in hell.

No, nothing can be proven, but who cares. Let the rule of man take over the rule of law.

The state shouldn't perform executions.

have said no..TODAY YES ! My son's girlfriend (they had broken up 5 months ago) had her brains blown out where nothing was left and she was like a daughter to me last week. Multiple gunshot wounds to the head in Alabama. What was her crime.? Wrong place. In the wrong area. Her family was multiracial and in Alabama? We including our son had not seen her in 5 months but she thought and she was a very trusting person from what we gather, she had met on rebound someone that would maybe give her children. Well.. I feel responsible because she and my son were constantly breaking up and going back together over silly stuff and she had issues and I said you two are never gonna work it out and she tended to run off with her Mother who did not like this family much. Well they were poor, undeducated but she was precious and always helping me with veterans.
Why someone destroyed her and a friend of her's that was 67 is beyond me. All suspect the new boyfriend. We are going through Hell and my son was depressed before but now, OMG....and our kids are losing it and my husband who already has PTSD is trying to function. I am guilt tripping because I asked them to part ways for the sake of everyone involved. They were constantly bickering and they did and now she is gone. YEah I believe in the Death Peanalty if they get the right one......I didn't two weeks ago..I do today ! She had an addiction problem and our son beat his ..she never did. I tried to get help and this consrvative area didn't giver her any ! I don't know who killed her but I hope they Fry ! Off and on she and my son were together taking care of my blind Dad for 5 years. Happy thanksgiving.. Yeah right !. I won't be posting much, because I am so upset ! They didn't find the body for three days. A double homicide.

...hard to respond to...

Random violence is so hard to cope with, and when it takes a loved one away with as many loose ends between you as you have mentioned it is doubly hard. There are so many "I wish I had..." "If only..." and "I should haves" left hanging that you want so desperately to finish.

As a survivor of violence years ago, it was very helpful to me to find other survivors - a lot of what I felt or thought seemed so crazy. It was a blessing to be able to talk about it with others who had similar experiences. Most of my current contacts tend to be in crossover groups which include both families of murder victims and families of death row/executed murderers - and that may not be helpful right now, but I can see if I can use those contacts to find a group that focuses more particularly on families of murder victims, if that would be helpful. PM me if you would like me to see what I can find.

In the meantime, I will hold you and your family in the Light through this difficult period.

Rape, exceptionally brutal murders, and of course treason.

I believe that it is appropriate for rape, as the difference there is that unlike murder the victim has to live with the violation of their body and it has serious long-term effects.

In terms of a brutal murder, if it was a case where they took a long time to die or suffered serious pain or were flayed alive or something horrific like that, then YES!

Treason ALWAYS deserve the death penalty. A traitor is a person that, in my opinion anyway, has committed the most ethically and morally bankrupt thing that can be done and deserve nothing less than a short drop with a sudden stop at the end.

As an aside, my perspective on the death penalty is that it is a way of saying, "We, as mortals, cannot effectively punish this person for the crime they have committed is so heinous that we cannot effectively give them as they deserve, so we are sending this criminal on to the Gods for Them to deal with the criminal as They see fit."

Yeah...I'm in favor of the death penalty...

Hey, and while we're at it...(I mean since my tax dollars are paying for it and all)...I want to see it performed in public. And none of this "lethal injection" crap....I want to see it at half-time of the Superbowl...public impalings right on the fifty yard line! Or how 'bout drawing and quartering them...that is what I want to see...maybe two strong horses ripping a man in two right before our eyes...it would be glorious.

Nothing like a being able to find closure between Janet Jackson and U2.

NOT IN MY NAME AND NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS...When are we going to join the rest of the industrialized world and leave this barbaric practice behind.

-Paige

"Murder" is the unlawful taking of another person's life.

When the State makes capital punishment an available punishment for certain defined crimes and then carries it out pursuant to a jury's determination, it is not unlawful. Ergo, it is not "murder," legally defined.

Just FYI, vis a vis, the use of terms.

Allowing the government, by the use of sanitized language, to pretend it is doing something essentially different from the act for which it is punishing its victim makes it easier for us to swallow.

Our government has, over time, sanctioned a whole range of things that are abhorrent and should never have been accepted as lawful (slavery, internment of Japanese Americans, defrauding Native Americans, and consigning them to reservations, to name a few). Just because something is sanctioned by our government does not mean I am required to acknowledge it as lawful. That is the basis for most challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty - that the death penalty it is not, in fact, lawful.

As far as I am concerned it is torture and murder to imprison someone, to describe in detail when and how you are going to kill them (perhaps repeat it a half dozen times before you actually do so) and then to carry it out in a semi-public spectacle in which your victim must be nearly completely covered and encased in a sound and smell proof room in order to avoid the sights, sounds, and smells of burning flesh unreasonably distressing your official witnesses - whether or not these activities are sanctioned by our government.

That the government (or each of us, since it is carried out in our names) cannot be punished for carrying out this murder is irrelevant to the reality of what is inflicted on the victim of state murder and on the innocent family and friends of that murder victim. In general conversation I will not assist the state in making it more palatable by calling it anything other than what it is - state sanctioned murder.

When I am in court or drafting legal documents - I will refrain from calling it murder (although I will most certainly continue to assert that it is unlawful) - otherwise, I am free to call a skunk a skunk, and choose to do so.

When are we going to join the rest of the industrialized world and leave this barbaric practice behind.
Japan still has the death penalty. And I think we can agree that Japan is industrialized.

hollow retribution.

So you are going to send him to Jesus to be forgiven and go to Heaven..

Remember that the 2 chicken thieves that were crucified with Jesus went to heaven...

A famous Jewish academic (I forget the name) said of Adolf Eichmann:

"But what can you do with this bastard?"

So, yes, Adolf Eichman, Martin Bormann, shoot 'em. Retarded Texans? Don't.

But don't put them in the White House.

is wrong.

i support Caning much like they have in singapore... could you imagine how much the crime rate would go down if people got caned for minor offenses... boy howdy...

While I will readily admit that there are cases that make a strong argument for it, the death penalty states plain and simple that killing people is an appropriate way to solve problems.

Many people who murder are "solving" their problems as well.

Further, it is expensive and does not deter crime. People often respond, "well then let's make it less expensive". The innocence project has proven beyond any doubt that innocent people are tried, found guilty, sentenced to death, and perhaps even executed as it is.

A "life in prison" sentence can be reversed when error is found.