For which crimes would you waive your anti-death penalty stance?

I'm anti-death penalty, but if someone is proven 100% to be guilty of child rape/murder, I have no problem sending that person to death because I view that person as a menace to society, who will most likely strike again.

The death penalty is wrong under any circumstances.

'Nuff said.

No exceptions.

The State has no right to kill people.

It's one thing to steal something but to kill over it then I really don't care what happens to that person. I have children and because people will kill to rob makes me afraid for them.
My neighbor's sister was killed in a robbery of a small family mattress and furniture business. It tore the family apart as the mother never got over it.

am i right?

penalty should not be used and in general I am against taking a life for a life. I am torn because I think if it happened to one of my friends of family I really wouldn't give a shit what happens to the killer. In principle I am against the death penalty though.

which does not benefit any of us and is a major reason why we took these issues away from the victims and gave them to the courts.

There may be crimes that warrant it, but I don't trust the system to be able to effectively sort the good from the bad.

after all the mess-ups that have been proved and shown publicaly - not any more.

I recently saw a man served 22 years for rape that later DNA test showed he did not do. Just think if he were put to death. It is horrible enough that he has served most of his youth for something he did not do.

I've tried to put myself into this guy's thoughts and can't even imagine how he must have felt - day in and day out - serving 22 years for a crime you know you didn't do - makes my blood run cold.

To me there's nothing worse than punishing an innocent person for something he or she didn't do. I think John Adams has a quote to this effect, as a matter of fact.

Being for the death penalty says you think it's ok for the government to put it citizens to death. You trust them. You think they're competent and will neither make a mistake nor abuse that power. And by the way, the government is the one that makes the rules about what gets the death penalty.

You are essentially saying that murder is ok in certain circumstances.

against its most heinous offenders. It's not murder in certain cicumstances - it's justice.

It's murder.

The crime of putting someone to death has all of the requisite elements of mens rea and actus reus:

It's murder all the same.

Calling it justice only makes you sleep better at night.

Rachel: What you're talking about isn't justice, it's revenge.
Bruce: Well sometimes they're the same thing.
Rachel: No, they never are.

It's true. Just killing a person after they've committed a crime isn't the way to deal with it. I remember after Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death seeing a bunch of people whose loved ones died in the bombings cheering and celebrating. At the time, it seemed logical to me, but when I think of it today I realize none of those people really feel any better knowing he's dead. All that happened was the government did to him the same thing he did to others and think they made the world a better place. It's really quite sad.

go back to lynch mobs and give up on the whole "nation of laws" idea.

If you're pro death penalty, then that's your belief system. I don't agree, but you have a complete right to believe that. But, it is murder.

And, you sue the word "revenge," not justice. You just explained why I'm against the death penalty. The State has no right to revenge against anyone. They do have aright to justice and punishment, and that's why life in prison without parole is such a wonderful tool of justice.

You're either pro-murder or anti-murder.

That's why I'm for life in prison without chance of parole, for violent crimes, including rape.

"the government" only does what it's citizens want it to do.

Example -- we had a 17 yr old black boy knock up a 15 yr old white girl. It's Georgia. Naturally her dad went all googles and before long 17 yr old boy is convicted of rape and child molestation regardless of girl saying over and over it was consentual. He got life without parole. -- Community goes bloody murder over it - boy is pardoned - law is changed regarding teenagers.

I'd like to see the criteria more stringent -- as in DNA physical evidence is required. I would also like to see a moritorium put on it until DNA testing is done on all cases currently on death row. There's too many that were railroaded through on spotty evidence.

If we are going to start killing politicians for war crimes I have no problem with that. However, I don't agree simply a war I don't agree with rises to the definition of war crimes.

Just MHO.

What DNA evidence would you expect if, for example, a victim is murdered by a rifle shot from fifty yards? And why would you require DNA evidence if there happened to be a video of the murder, a clear sequence of events with motive leading up to the crime, the criminal warning beforehand that he would do so, and confessing afterward that he did? DNA can mislead as well clarify. Like fingerprint here are all sorts of ways that third-party DNA can be left at a crime scene or on a victim.

People need to stop thinking of DNA as some kind of magic.

However I'm not going to lose any sleep when a child murderer/rapist is put down.

The vapid posts often appearing on this board which say "I'm usually against the death penalty, but for THIS guy..." are really the lamest of the lot. Ethics on a sliding scale. There is no case which justifies the state to murder. Period.

have to be excused because I - me PERSONALLY - could never, ever be responsible for putting someone to death.

Most people think in the abstract. If they personalize their decisions - they will most likely be a LOT different.

Persons convicted of supporting the death penalty should be the first to be executed.

If you're like me and don't believe in Hell, then death can be viewed as an end to suffering. That's why I'd make an exception for child rapists/murderers--they are suffering similarly to a cow with BSE. On the other hand, our jail system is way to comfortable. If BushCo is found guilty of war crimes I'd like to see them do life imprisonment in Iraq.

Except that prison is far from comfortable.

Since you just openly supported and endorsed the state sponsored murder of a group of people you disagree with... :shrug:

in my lifetime, and I'm OLD. That case was Ted Bundy. He escaped from custody TWICE to resume killing.

Other than that, I consider everyone who has died at the hands of the state to have been murdered in simple revenge.

And yes, I am a survivor of a murder of a family member.

period, end of story.

Here are the crimes where I think it makes the most sense to impose capital punishment: (1) Murder of a witness for the purpose of keeping secret another crime, or preventing testimony related to another crime. (2) Murder of juror or police officer or court officer, for the purpose of derailing a prosecution or trial. (3) Murder as a negotiating ploy with law enforcement. (4) Murder while serving a life sentence. (5) Solicitation of murder in any of the circumstances preceding.

If a long prison term is the worst sentence that the criminal justice system can impose, there is the considerable risk that someone who is serving such a term or already facing the strong likelihood of such a term will then feel free to commit any crime to avoid that. The logic is clear-cut: what more punishment can you impose on someone who is already facing or serving life in prison? The justice system has fired its last shot, and the criminal has nothing further to lose. If the death penalty is reserved only for that circumstance, it provides an answer to that question.

like this, is that if there are any reasons for supporting the DP, it cannot be delineated along said reason...one supports the DP.

On the other hand, if one opposes the DP, and is true to that conviction, acceptance of Life w/o parole is the option that suits justice well.

One cannot have half a conviction, this is one of the rare instances where black/white is actually the reality as opposed to grey areas.

And then later proven to be innocent.

When I say "This case makes it hard to argue against the death penalty," that doesn't mean it is impossible to argue against it. If I had caught John Couey burying Jessica Lunsford and the only way to stop him in time was to kill him, I would have. That's how serious his crime was. That is a far cry from a cold and calculated murder done by the state, however. By law, we can only kill in self defense of ourselves or another when there is a direct and immediate threat to life. Executions do not obey that law.

A psychologist on Nancy Grace was saying how Couey was a psychopath who enjoys harming children. That is a form of schadenfreude, and so is wanting to put him to death. Schadenfreude = schadenfreude. That's why I fear there may be more child murders after Jessica's Law. Couey evidently did not bury her out of some psychopathic lust, but did so to cover the crime. Jessica's Law might make that more common.

Edit: sp.

causes that person's victim to rise out of the grave and live to see another day, then I'll consider supporting the death penalty. Until then, I don't see it's purpose.

Don't lower yourself to killing another.

opposed.

And I prefer candidates for public office who also oppose the death penalty.

Killing people doesn't do anything.

Frankly I'm surprised at the poll results. I've seen some very hateful, atrocious comments here on DU.

I'm against the death penalty in principle. There are, however, a number of crimes for which I would support life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.

Why are humans so fixated on causing the death or harm of another....it is so sad.

If the police have to kill someone to protect society, that's one thing. Taking out snipers, etc. has to be done in whatever way keeps the most people from getting hurt or killed.

But a death penalty, no. I understand why people support it-someone kills someone you love and that person is now gone forever, or someone brutally rapes a child.

In the latter case, I particularly oppose the death penalty, for specific reasons, not just philosophical.
Children who are victims of rape are victimized by people they know a good part of the time, and by someone they have mixed feelings about. If they know that person can get killed for raping them, they will be less likely to seek help from the police or CPS. This would be especially true in circumstances in which the abuser lives in the same house as the child-a father, stepfather, mother, etc.

I also find it very offensive to hear child sexual abuse referred to as "ruining" a child's life. It is a terrible thing, yes, but it doesn't necessarily ruin a child's life. Life goes on, people recover and heal, and why give that person who hurts children that kind of emotional power over them once the abuse has ended? It's not healthy for those who have been abused to see their abusers as having ruined their lives.

That's the only exception I'd make.

to the DP in basic principle, I think it should only be used in the following circumstances:

1) The evidence must be not just beyond reasonable doubt, but virtually beyond doubt. I wouldn't go quite as far as Talmudic rules, but pretty close; among other things, circumstancial evidence alone should never be sufficient for imposing the DP.

2) The crime must belong to a certain category*:

a) a crime where it has been shown that imprisonment is not sufficient to prevent it, such as murder in prison, or murder by someone who's escaped prison
b) The falsification of evidence or testimony to secure the conviction of a man in a capital case (when the falsifier knows it's a capital case


*Note I'm talking in a civilian context; some crimes besides these may merit the DP in wartime or in the military, such as treason or desertion under fire

Peculiar.