Candidates' positions on the death penalty

From an email I just received:

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has a web page dedicated to the positions of the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates on capital punishment. It's at:


http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Death_Penalty


Joe Biden
The Biden-authored Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 expanded the federal death penalty to cover 60 offenses, including terrorist homicides, murder of federal law enforcement officials, large-scale drug trafficking, drive-by shootings resulting in death and car jackings resulting in death. In 1996, Biden voted against limiting appeals of those facing the death penalty.


Sam Brownback
Brownback opposes the death penalty except in rare, extreme cases. He has said that the Constitution does not mandate or prohibit the use of the death penalty but that "if we're trying to establish a culture of life, it's difficult to have the state sponsoring executions."


Hillary Clinton
Clinton has been a longtime advocate of the death penalty. Clinton cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 which became law in 2004 as part of the Justice for All Act. The bill provides funding for post-conviction DNA testing and establishes a DNA testing process for individuals sentenced to the death penalty under federal law. As first lady, she lobbied for President Clinton's crime bill, which expanded the list of crimes subject to the federal death penalty.


Christopher Dodd
Dodd has said that capital punishment is used too widely, but there are certain circumstances where he "would not exclude the use of the death penalty." He says that he would not call for a moratorium on capital punishment. He has called for judicial reform and a closer look at the country's criminal justice system so that "we can do a better job of making decisions" about the death penalty.


John Edwards
Edwards supports the death penalty, saying some crimes "deserve the ultimate penalty." He was a supporter of capital punishment reform while in the Senate and told the Associated Press in 2004 he believes that "we need reforms in the death penalty to ensure that defendants receive fair trials, with zealous and competent lawyers, and with full access to DNA testing."


Rudolph Giuliani
Giuliani favors the death penalty and has advocated for capital punishment for those who commit treason against the United States. He testified in convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui's death penalty trial and urged prosecutors to pursue the death penalty against American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh. Giuliani has said the death penalty is "justified and effective deterrent for other people doing the same thing."


Mike Huckabee
Huckabee supports the death penalty. In his book, From Hope to Higher Ground, he described the death penalty as "a tough issue." He wrote that he believes "some crimes deserve it, but that does not mean I like it." He also described carrying out the death penalty as the worst part of his job as governor of Arkansas. In a December 2005 interview on PBS that he said that he has had to "carry out the death penalty more than any governor in the history of my state" and that "it is not something I'm proud of."


Duncan Hunter
A supporter of capital punishment, Hunter has opposed efforts that would make it easier for criminals on death row to appeal their sentences. He also voted against a 1994 initiative to curtail the list of crimes subject to a federal death penalty.


Dennis Kucinich
Kucinich opposes the death penalty. He says, "Morally, I simply do not believe that we as human beings have the right to 'play God' and take a human life – especially since our human judgments are fallible and often wrong." Kucinich says that his position on the death penalty is "derived from my moral and spiritual convictions."


John McCain
McCain supports the death penalty for federal crimes. As senator from Arizona, he voted to prohibit the use of racial statistics in death penalty appeals and ban the death penalty for minors. He also supported legislation to allow the death penalty for acts of terrorism and has said he would consider further expansion of capital punishment laws for other crimes.


Barack Obama
Obama says the death penalty "does little to deter crime" but he supports it for cases in which "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage." While a state senator, Obama pushed for reform of the Illinois capital punishment system and authored a bill to mandate the videotaping of interrogations and confessions.


Bill Richardson
Richardson supports the death penalty "for the most heinous of crimes" and with the "strictest of safeguards." During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Richardson said that before executions occur, he wants to be certain that defendants have proper legal representation and a chance to use DNA evidence. He also said he wants to be sure that "minorities are not unfairly singled out."


W. Mitt Romney
Romney supports the death penalty for deadly acts of terrorism, killing sprees, murders involving torture and the killing of law enforcement authorities. As governor, he filed a bill to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts that required verifiable scientific evidence, such as DNA, in order to impose the death penalty. The bill also proposed measures to ensure proper representation for the indigent and allowed jurors who oppose the death penalty to participate in the guilt phase of a trial.


Fred Thompson
Thompson has said that while "the use of DNA evidence to clear long-held prisoners from murder charges proves that we need to be more careful about handing out death sentences," scientific studies have shown "that the death penalty deters murders." Thompson voted for a 1996 bill to limit death penalty appeals. In a 1994 political questionnaire, Thompson indicated support for "impos the death penalty for certain federal crimes, including civil rights murders, rape and child molestation murders, death resulting from drive-by shootings or carjacking, and murder of court officers or federal witnesses."


Note that:

Democrat Mike Gravel and Republican Ron Paul were not included in the Pew survey. Both candidates are opposed to the death penalty.


No minority party or independent candidates were included in the Pew survey. The Green Party is totally opposed to the death penalty.


No undeclared candidate was included in the survey. Al Gore favors capital punishment.

If killing is wrong then the death penalty is wrong also. How is the state to be believed when they have laws against killing when the state itself allows itself to kill?

Those who have proven that they will not abide by the rules of society have, in my opinion, forfeited their right to be a part of society.





In this matter I believe that Dennis is wrong in his opposition to Capital punishment.





Corrected spelling

While I am not saying that some crimes are indeed heinous, life w/o parole would be fine with me.

They are out of society, it costs less to keep a prisoner incarcerated than it does to appeal and execute. In most cases, appeals take many years, and essentially become a life sentence anyway.

And for the moral reason, that the possibility exists that the individual may actually feel remorse for the crime committed and while "payment" to society may be still be "due", the DP ensures that even the possibility of reconciliation, (even on a personal level), is discounted.

Karla Faye Tucker is an example of someone who did a 180 before her execution. bush chuckled as he described her coming death at the hands of the state. Would it have been so horrible in that case to have commuted the sentence to Life?

There is one other item that brings this all down to heated point. Most people know that there haver been innocents executed. Not only does this mean that an innocent individual died at the hands of the state, but it also means that justice was never served on the initiator of the crime. In many cases, the perpetrator still walks among the living, while another is long dead, and the case is closed.

A "what if", let's say, a person accuses you of a crime. You know you didn't commit it, but you look like the person who did, and witnesses attest it was you. You are going to die, how would you feel?

One other thing, the "eye for an eye" was a limit, not a demand. One could not demand two eyes, for the loss of one. And if one reads the whole "eye for an eye" account, one realizes that the law leaned toward mercy, more than retribution. That is why limits were set, but they are no absolutes.

and unless there is a clone of me walking around out there somewhere, when a murder or other heinous crime is committed, that DNA evidence will be able to set a person who has been wrongly accused free.




I am not advocating a 1 appeal and out, but I do think that for those who are willing to take a life, they should be faced with the consequence of losing their life.

perpetrator?

DNA only works if you have some to make a match.

It has also become apparent that DNA evidence that can exonerate an individual is occasionally suppressed by the prosecutor.

All things considered, there really is no use for the DP. It does not deter crime, it is more expensive than life w/o parole...the only thing it does, is make vengeance, not justice, a part of the system.

did, they most assuredly would not drop the weapon, they would take it w/them. they would disappear into the night, and then find a place of relative safety, while trying to establish an alibi. If a revolver was used, there is no ejected shell casing, and if a magazine is loaded by someone wearing gloves, or if one has someone else load the magazine, fingerprints are pretty well out of the question as well.

Police work is not always easy, an many times, there simply is not enough to go on to convict or even enough to arrest. This creates a situation where a prosecutor can manipulate the situation, and get a Grand Jury to take the plunge.

And unless there was a clone of you walking around out there somewhere, when a murder or other heinous crime was committed, that fingerprint evidence would have been able to set a person who had been wrongly accused free.

Of course, that did not happen as hundreds of innocent people have been executed to satisfy our thirst for vengance.

I have seen several instances where family members of the victim complained about the convicted murderer being freed because it was later discovered the man did not, in fact, kill the victim. The families did not complain about the wrong man being convicted, they complained about him being set free. The fact that he didn't actually commit the crime no longer mattered to those family members. They wanted their revenge and had lost all reason.

And this is why we still have the death penalty. Too many "good" people want revenge.

5 of the 10 Bill of Rights guarantee the rights of those suspected, accused or convicted of a crime.

but should the state really be the one to do it? Its a little hypocritical of me, I know, to feel this way, but I think if a family member did it.... I'd look the other way. But I cannot and will not allow the state to be a harbinger of death

Correct again.
He is protecting the big tent.

penalty. none of the above surprises me. Some gratify me greatly however.

but have seen the polls and altered their public positions to be more politically palatable . . . at least the real "fry 'em" supporters aren't hypocrites . . . not on this issue, anyhow . . .

one more star to Dennis Kucinich for not caving to the public's blood lust . . . I'm likin' him more and more every day . . .

to Kucinich on this.

You are probably right that some, like maybe Obama, prefer not to be too much against it.

Hillary and Rudy appear from past acts and statements to love it to death.

WOW!

DNA proved he did it....why should he sit in a cell for 50-60 years?....

you deserve to die a slow, painful death.

Torture?

I never want the government acting out revenge in my name.

Not in my name is what I say. Once behind bars, offenders are no longer a threat. While in prison, they should be treated humanly because our prisons are not a torture / prison rape sanctioned facility and it goes against the values of human rights.

If we act out in revenge we become the offender.

Throughout history, the main point of DP advocates is that the DP deters crime, but crime rises every year. I find those that prey on the defenseless as the scum of the earth, but where is the line drawn?

Is a child molester/murder any threat while in prison for life?

Is there a difference between your life and a cop's? Why should a cop be "protected" and not you?

Death is a possibility for treason, but have traitors to this nation been faced w/the DP in the past 50 years?

Once a person is incarcerated, particularly in a Death Row type of state, they are no longer a threat to society. If they are allowed into the general population of prisoners, they might be threat to others, but those that molest and kill children are more of a target, than they are a threat.

The DP simply does nothing but justify state sponsored killing.

Throughout history, and especially in this country, the DP has never truly deterred any crime. Especially during the Revolution where the people hung from trees all over the Colonies, and yet fought to give this nation a baseline of a society based on Law. Those who hung from the trees, would no doubt, disagree w/the DP.

worthy of death and others not. The parsing of evil intentions and acts and the attempts to come up with "relative evils" always tends to end badly with justice rarely being served.

I doubt we'll see a complete revamping of our official views on justice during my lifetime, and doubt even more that we'll ever see one along my lines of thought, but we have to at least attempt to define "justice" as something other than vengeance or bloodlust.

And just stop the state-sanctioned killing while we work it all out like other countries have.

Kill 'em all and let god sort them out?

Its also color blind, class blind, and absolutely fair to defendants. Now excuse me while I start laughing so hard my sides will split. Even I cannot believe I said that!

Way, way too much CSI.

Even shows like Law and Order shows people getting wrongly convicted, etc. Though even that isn't completely accurate. People have a screwed up perspective when it comes to the justice system, people think it is fair and removed from prejudices, that's just untrue, our justice system is as fair as our society at large, in other words, not at all.

Due to the costs of trials.

The justice system wasn't designed to bring maximum amount of suffering to the convicted, nor should it be. If that were the case, we'd tie him up and let the child's parents beat him to death with a baseball bat. The point of punishing him with life in prison is that he must be isolated from the community because his crime was so heinous that we can't take a chance that he won't do it again.

like the one in Houston, which was shown to be careless, sloppy and dishonest in its methods?


May 12, 2006, 12:38PM
Police lab tailored tests to theories, report says
Investigators hope to establish whether mistakes were deliberate

By ROMA KHANNA and STEVE MCVICKER
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Houston crime lab analysts skewed reports to fit police theories in several cases, ignoring results that conflicted with police expectations because of a lack of confidence in their own skills or a conscious effort to secure convictions, an independent investigator says in his latest report on the scandal.

In more than 20 cases reviewed in this stage of the ongoing probe, the investigative team concluded that analysts at the Houston Police Department crime lab failed to report the results of blood-typing and DNA tests that did not implicate the suspects police had identified.

"We have found a clear and troubling pattern of reluctance in the serology and DNA sections to report typing results that were not consistent with the blood types or DNA profiles of either the victim or a known suspect; in many such cases the results were reported as inconclusive," investigator Michael Bromwich wrote.


more:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3858054.html

Because we're not a bunch of pack animals?

Well I'm not. I'm not so sure about you.

doesn't necessarily have anything to do with penetration . . . on a very slippery slope when the "rape" is statutory . . .

That's tragic, and it reflects very poorly on our nation.

The reflection is worse than "poor", it is hideous.

Obama opposes it a little. Thinks its a bad idea, but votes to give $1Trillion to bush.
Would like to withdraw, but wants to "fight Al Qaeda" inIraq for years. :shrug:

Only one of them is for Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care.

Interestingly enough, they are all the same one.

Sounds like a winner to me.

ahem consistency

I'll tip my hat to him on this one, and keep it on the rest of the time from here on out.

Let these blood worshipers rot in jail for the rest of their lives. The idea that these people should "meet there maker" is utter BS. There is no proof of this "maker" and the "soul" that is supposed to meet them. Let them pay the price in a jail cell on this planet, in the real world.

Also, it's horrible to see an innocent person to to their death.

revenge.

There is never justice in revenge, justice is an intellectual process, vengeance is an emotional process. It is difficult at best to bring the two together in any form, and the emotional aspect almost always wins. One of the reasons there are "victims advocates" allowed to make statements before sentencing, is to assure that the emotional aspect reaches a peak level. It is difficult for any jury to not be swayed by relatives of the individual attesting to the nearly divine nature of the victim.

All cases should be tested on the merits of the facts presented. It is up to the prosecutor to present such a case, if that fails, then so be it. I believe that guilty have been set free because of errors in "system" by those prosecuting the crime, but there have been innocents placed in jeopardy as well. The system is far from perfect, but I agree that it is better to allow 10 guilty to go free, than one innocent to placed in jeopardy by being wrongfully convicted.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.