Who was the last President who was against the death Penalty?

I actually don't know.

When he ran for president he opposed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Death_penalty_issues

I think it means he was against it both times. It's vague though.

Death penalty issues

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Georgia's death penalty law in 1972, Governor Carter quickly proposed state legislature to replace the death penalty with life in prison (previously life in prison option didn't exist).<25>

When legislature passed a new death penalty statute, Carter signed new legislation on March 28, 1973<26> to authorize the death penalty for murder, rape and other offenses and to implement trial procedures which would conform to the newly-announced constitutional requirements. In 1976, the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's new death penalty for murder; in the case of Coker v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States the death penalty was unconstitutional as applied to rape. In the words of Justice Lewis Powell, the victim of the rape did not sustain any "serious or lasting injury" (concurring and dissenting opinion).

Despite his earlier support, Carter soon became a death penalty opponent and during Presidential campaigns (like previous nominee George McGovern and two successive nominees, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis) this was noted.<27>

Currently Carter is known for his outspoken opposition to the death penalty in all forms and in his Nobel Prize lecture he urges "prohibition of the death penalty."<28>

but it didn't work out of them as well as I would have wanted. :(

Thanks for the info.

"It's been nearly 25 years since a sitting president was against the death penalty. President Carter generally opposed it, though as governor he signed legislation reinstating Georgia's death penalty."

http://www.fdp.dk/act/040329_kerry.php

I'm just trying to find out if a Candidate who doesn't support the death penalty while we are at war and terror is a big part of the national discussion could get elected.

I'm suspecting that No, that would be very difficult in this climate, and based on how our media is set up these days.

Does anyone actually think that Barrack could be against the Death penalty in this climate and win?

Cause I'm pretty doubting it.

http://www.fdp.dk/act/040329_kerry.php


:hi:

No, no quiz.

I'm just trying to find out how the anti death penalty stance and winning presidential elections stack up next to each other.

In reference to the SCOTUS rule, they have ruled.....so whether Obama agreed with them or not doesn't change a thing. In this case I believe to have agreed with SCOTUS would not have been wise for Obama. Somehow, I don't think it would have gone well. That's just my gut feeling.....cause I do remember the Dukakis debate, and that is what sunk his nomination; moreso than Willie Horton.

I've already shared my thoughts on this subject in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6411393&mesg_id=6411850

So yes I do think someone who is anti death penalty could be elected albeit it would be an additional hurdle. The problem is that some people don't see the issue in any depth. If you're against the death penalty, it leads people to believe that you are inhuman because you don't want to see horrible people suffer. It's hard to make people understand that you hate murderers just as much as they do but have reasons for not liking the death penalty as an institution.

probably because I am pro-choice, and some folks call that murder.....

It's like listening to Pro-lifers who support the death penalty. I have always used their support for the death penalty as a way of pointing out their selectivity on sanctity of life.
I have always found that to be convenient inconsistency. So I've never wanted to be the same, in reverse.

Whether or not murderers live or die isn't my concern. What is my concern is the nation's attitude about our corrections system. I believe that we should punish people for their crimes. But punishment should not be used to make people suffer for their crimes. It should be used to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated and isolate those who cannot.

Our emphasis on making criminals suffer is fundamentally at odds with the principles of our justice system in my view.

If the death penalty were indeed cheaper than life in prison, I might be open to persuasion on the issue. But it is less expensive and less efficient and therefore it is irrational policy.

And he was perfectly willing to carry out executions as president because that was the law. But he personally opposed it, just like he personally opposed segregation, but didn't do anything about that either.

The country was on the verge of collapsing into a dictatorship like much of Europe was when he came into office. An aide told him that if he succeeded he would be the best President in history. He responded that if he failed, he would be the last.

Passing the New Deal wasn't just about relieving poverty it was about saving democracy as we know it in this country. And while we may not have known it at the time, if democracy had failed in the United States, Hitler likely would have ruled the world.

A majority of American people support the Death Penalty. Not saying you shouldn't stand on principle but if the choice is supporting it with limits and winning or not supporting it at all and losing I'll take winning anyday because the guy your running against is for using it with abandon.

All I remember is some question posed to him about whether he would favor the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered. Don't remember the answer.

Sorry