Do you support the death penalty?

Setting executions as the government's most sacred duty sets a bad example.

--IMM

n/t

I support a corporate death penalty and a white collar criminal death penalty. The Enron incident did a lot to impoverish a lot of people for many, many years. That kind of crookery spawns more and more crookery since people that don't have means have to find a way to make ends meet.

opinions on this depending on the case. IOW for the most heinous crimes I may feel it is justified. Probably if I thought my vote would change something in this regard, I would vote against the death penalty, because the risk of wrongly executing innocents is too great.

We have a case in my town right now where a woman called for a cab and then tried to rob him and ended up repeatedly stabbing the driver.

The driver tried to get out but the seatbelt kept him tied to the side of the car so she drove off with him screaming for over a mile while she dragged him to death.

The woman said his cries got to her so she side-swiped some cars trying to scrape him off the car. It didn't work and she abandoned the car with him ripped to shreds but still breathing. He died shortly after.

She plea bargained to life without parole but now she wants to go back for a trial. She said life was too harsh because some people kill their own kids and only get 30 years.

I'm all for giving her a trial and I'm pretty sure she'll get death here in Texas.

I'd also pick the Carr brothers from Kansas as an example of when the rare death penalty should be used. The Witchita massacre is what their crime spree is called where they took five young people hostage, repeatedly raped them all night, stole their money and then drove them to a snowy field, lined them up naked and shot them each in the head execution style. One woman survived when the bullet was deflected by a brooch in her hair so the bullet cracked her skull but didn't pierce it. She is the only survivor and with her wounds (her shot body was also run over by the culprits) she also now has herpes thanks to the rapist.

So for me there are a very few cases that show such a disdain for life
and society that I'd vote for death.

Edit: and States in the USA that don't have it don't look like Murderers' Paradise either.

The UK did away with the death penalty over 40 years ago, and has a lower murder rate than many countries.

The psychopaths and terrorists who would seem most 'deserving' of the death penalty are the least likely to be deterred by it.

I also think that it puts ALL of us in the position of revenge-killers, and has a corrupting influence on society. Plus the real risk of executing the innocent.

We did away with it over 40 years ago. And we STILL have a lower murder rate.

So much for the "deterance" argument.

We're used to being ignored. It's our national pastime.

:hi:

but ONLY in extreme cases were there are NO doubts about the persons guilt.

I don't see a difference between where an individual murders someone and where everyone murders someone.

Personally, I would like to require that each and every juror and judge who condemns a person to death be physically present when that sentence is carried out. Better yet, make all of them press the button that initiates the execution. If there is at least one person who refuses, then the death is automatically commuted to life in prison with no possibility for parole.

That's pretty harsh, because if you read the wording of the poll, "Yes" means the death penalty should be applied in ALL cases.

Now I'm not sure if that means all criminal cases, all legal cases, or simply all cases. Would jaywalkers and speeders be sent to the chair? What about people seeking divorces or damages? Or should all people just be put to death as a matter of principle?

I can get behind that: Down with people!

Of course I'm just being silly, but I think this is a silly poll. We all know DU is divided on this issue.

Personally, having no kids, I swing between the vhemt model and maybe having one or two children (to stay below the replacement rate of ~2.2). At other times, I think of the fundies out-reproducing me and think I should go out and impregnate as many women as I can. And then I realize that ideas aren't genetic; just ask my grossly overweight racist fundie uncle.

In the end, this movement is saying what all socially liberal movements say, which is, let's do something other than violently exterminate each other. Unfortunately, there will always be more people to get behind violent extermination. Of course, they don't want their own tribes to go extinct, even though they work hard at it. We could call the majority of humanity the IHEMT, the Inadvertent Human Extinction Movement.

I don't like the death penalty, by the way. Mainly because, as it's currently applied, it doesn't deter crime. We execute irrational people, most of whom probably welcome death--the threat of death doesn't prevent others from repeating the same crime. If anything, it's an incentive, especially the part where you get to make the state look like a big hypocrite (killing for killing) and the media attention.

I could agree with a death penalty for the worst RATIONAL crimes, which also tend to leave no doubt as to guilt. In murder it's almost always questionable, but when a politician or corporate officer is corrupt, there's usually no doubt when the guilt emerges. Just something to think about.

I meant to click the "yes in certain circumstances", but hit the straight yes instead.

I'm not going to get into this argument again (I've had it before, it goes nowhere), but basically I agree with the death penalty in murder cases where there is zero doubt of guilt (confession + dna, video + dna, or something similar), where the crimes were especially inhuman, and where there is little doubt that they will offend again. Hitler is an example of a guy that deserved execution. Mengele is another. Serial killers like John Wayne Gacy also qualify.

I believe that we execute too many people in this country, and that it should be reserved for the worst of the worst. I also believe that more humane methods need to be employed to execute these people. Still, I don't agree with eliminating it completely.

And that's all I'm going to say on the subject. It's been argued to death here, and I don't have the time or energy to rehash the debate today.

You summed it up for me.

Dap

the Ted Bundy case. He was a serial killer who kept escaping and killing more and more. I think that if they could have kept him locked up for life without chance for more escapes that would be fine. But, he always was able to escape and kill. If we could be assured that they could be locked up forever and never escape, I would be against the death penalty. I am against it more and more the older I get but Ted Bundy keeps me from being 100% against it.

I agree with your post totally. I think that the death penalty should be used rarely but I can't see abolishing it totally.

emdee

"Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever," as Bill Hicks infamously once said.

Oh well, I feel pretty secure in saying that absolutely every man woman and child in America today will most certainly face death...eventually.

just saying

I would be in agreement with them if you are correct.

just saying

But do I support state-sponsored revenge murders? Hell no. Not in any fashion. No way.

and no qualifications, just No.

On edit: My loved ones also know that I would not want the Death Penalty used on someone in my name either, meaning, if I'm murdered, I don't want the Death Penalty as a punishment. That's how strongly I feel about it. Mr. kt and my parents do not want it used for them, the same as me.

people to death.

Lynch mobs at least have to work to get the prisoner, the State doesn't, well... unless the guy is like Harrison Ford in The Fugitive a death row inmate is going to have a hard time escaping the noose or needle or pellet...

I would not vote for the death penalty myself if I was a juror but I wouldn't oppose the death penalty for the "worst of the worst" like child murderer/rapists...

I had a friend come very close to being executed. It turned out he did not commit the crime he almost was sentenced to the electric chair for.

It just isn’t healthy to become a revenge murderer, which is what the death penalty is..

eom

If our system could guarantee 100% that a person was guilty of a crime, I could see a use for the DP in some cases. As it stands, no. In an imperfect human system, there needs to always be a chance for one more appeal in new evidence comes up.

While I have to admit I shed no tears for people who murder, and in a few cases I feel that some people deserve the death penalty, the criminal justice system in this country is too flawed for an irreversible punishment.

Plus, state-sponsored killing is just disgusting.

And I'm not religious

We are such a backward country

It is infuriating that we are so archaic

A lifetime of incarceration is hell. Why can't people get that?

Maybe everyone should work a stint in a prison, then they will
have a better understanding


:hangover: :hurts: :freak: :argh:

Serial killers, like that one they just offed in Florida, I'm all for it. Same with John Allen Muhummad, the DC area sniper. Not for his accomplice, Malvo, though, because Malvo was just a kid and was heavily influenced by this dirtbag. If they ever manage to catch Osama or Zawahiri alive, I'd happily line up to throw the switch on him. But for "ordinary" murders, no. The DP has turned into the ultimate revenge. These days, victims don't feel that "justice was served" if the murderer isn't sentenced to death. Personally, I'd rather see someone rot in prison for the rest of his/her life rather than just being "put to sleep" like you would the family pet.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Try as I might I cannot justify giving Tim Mc Veigh a life sentence. I sadly believe that the world is a better place without him.

On the other hand, I am beyond anger at the way Mumia was railroaded onto Death Row.

Not to mention that when the Oklahoma City bombing occured I was living in OK. I wanted Timothy McVeigh sentenced to death. Well, when it finally happened, I got no pleasure at all, no relief for what happened. It was a hollow *victory*. Never again for me.

It's state-sanctioned revenge, which doesn't work. And as others have noted, it will always be unevenly applied.

It's something third world despots do.

For serial killers, serial rapists, or serial child molesters, it's the best thing going. :patriot:

Even if they are HIV positive.

So I say let 'em fry. :D

Clearly we disagree. Heh.

Rape alot of times is misinterpreted and sometimes come down to he said, she said. As I said earlier the death penalty should only be used in EXTREME cases, same goes for Castration. Scott Peterson IMO should not be on death row because there was no conclusive evidence linking him to the crime.

Maybe one rape case could come down to he said/she said (which is a RW talking point, BTW. There are very few false rape allegations) but if you've been convicted of rape twice, you can't tell me that's coincidence.

I agree on Scott Peterson, I said "serial killers" as well. I'm talking about seriously sick fucked up individuals who are past the point of rehabilitation and need to be wiped the off the freaking earth.

No, that was simply my opinion.

In cases where a person faces two counts at the same time they could wrongly be sentenced to death and I'm sure the law would not point out the difference between two counts vs. two separate convictions. OTOH If the person has two convictions the maximum they should receive is castration and only as a last resort.

I agree on serial killers they should be wiped off the face of this earth.

I vote yes in certain circumstances.

The system just allows rich people to murder and scapegoat poor people. I can't support something to corrupt and inaccurate when the stakes are that high.

I don't oppose it for moral reasons, just for practical reasons. If the system was 100% accurate and I was sure the guilty party was being executed I'd probably support it. Of course it can't be 100% accurate.

no one can excuse child rape, and severe penalties are certainly appropriate for those who commit such a heinous crime . . .

but in today's society, defining sexual crimes -- particularly those involving children and teens -- has lost all meaning . . . under many laws, activities that might even be legal in some jurisdictions are considered "child rape" -- de facto if not in law . . .

most thinking humans would not put a consensual relationship between a 19-year-old male and his 16-year-old girlfriend in the child rape category . . . yet some laws do . . . as do many individuals for whom any "intergenerational" sexual contact is worse than mass murder -- even in cases where middle, "illegal" teens are in fully consensual relationships with older, "legal" teens . . .

so I think you have to be careful about blanket statements like this when the issue is so volatile and the definitions so imprecise, so lacking in uniformity from one jurisdiction to another, and so fluid . . .

fyi . . . I'm against the death penalty on principle -- but can occasionally overlook its application when the offense is truly heinous and where proof of guilt is absolutely unquestionable (i.e. it's caught on tape, or witnessed by a dozen people) . . . I don't like it, but I won't lose sleep over it . . .

PROVEN killer, I say, set that parent free. But for the state to exact retribution, which is what the death penalty is all about I say NO WAY!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, CondiLIAR, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and any other members of the cabal I left out..

It is barbarism.

Even though I do enjoy seeing the bad guys get it in movies. But in real life, when cases are brought up for deliberation, it makes no sense to me to deliberate another person's life away as punishment. I just don't believe the state should be given that much power over whether people live or die. Ever.

And that's when they are making a valid attempt to do so. It's disgusting how prosecutors push for the death penalty in certain high profile cases just so it will look good when they are running for Governor. On top of that, taxpayers have to finance the sentencing phase of the trial in which the court spends just as much time and money deciding death penalty or life without parole as they did deciding guilty or innocent. Sorry, but I'm not all that wild about my tax dollars financing a campaign commercial for a prosecutor who seeks to gain off of somebody's death.

It is also proven a) ineffective as a deterrent, b) biased in its use against minorities and the poor, and c) unacceptably used on innocent people (which is arguably never acceptable, but it is especially so in that it is irreversible).

I understand that those close to the victims want justice (in lieu of getting their loved one back), but I'm not convinced that killing the murderer is the way to achieve justice.

Absolutely.

but there are times that I wish I didn't feel this way.

:evilgrin:

my state so, for me, a definite NO, HELL NO. I've seen this system up close and personal. The application of the death penalty is a miserable failure in our society!

We should have a a DU group for the death penalty. I've always been surprised that a message board with so many progressives doesn't have this forum.

Never mind them - :yourock:

It can be hard sometimes, especially when I hear about horrible cases. I can understand the temptation to give in to feelings of revenge. But the arguments against it are just too compelling. Ultimately, it's barbaric. A civilized, progressive society doesn't kill people. It doesn't serve justice.

Plus, killing is just plain wrong and serves no end other than retribution.

I want the fuckers to suffer for fifty years in solitary.

And have the opportunity to be released if, at too often happens, new evidence appears to prove their innocence.

Plus killing, in any form, is barbaric. As with eating meat, I wouldn't be able to do the deed, so I can't support it indirectly, either.

While i will agree some crimes deserve death, i don't trust or government to apply any standard fairly.

And anyone who does gets little respect from me.

When will this country finally understand how barbaric and archaic the death penalty is? Killing people who kill people to prove killing is wrong.

Insanity!

They are traitors trying to destroy democracy & bring about the deaths of millions by fascist rule. They are more dangerous than any single murderer.

It's not punishment. I always had the idea that our judicial/penal system was for one, not the other in cases of proven guilt.

NO and absolutely NOT!!!

It's a hypocritical stance for any government to take. If killing is wrong, then killing is wrong. To punish someone for murder by taking their life is to approve basically of what they have done. I do not support this kind of conduct. Further, there is NO manner in which to rectify a mistake once the DP is done. Frankly, it is barbaric and below what a decent society does. What is essential is that society is protected. Furthermore, IMO, locking someone up for life is a far greater punishment than setting them free in death. Society is protected and the person pays their dues to society by imprisoning them ~~ we do NOT need to add a pound of flesh to this. I do not wish to have the blood of public state-carried-out murder on my hands and morally I cannot support killing in the name of the state to revenge the breaking of a law of the state.

Just my opinion....

Diebold Election Systems, Halliburton, Fox News Corp ...

I'm a definite NO.

except in the case of animal cruelty.

It is murder for circumstance.

....no state should have that power....killing your fellow citizen just looks bad....society can be protected without it....

....besides, if you have too people in need of execution or you can't afford to pay for prisons or prisoners, you've got bigger problems....you probably need a new society....

Make the person suffer for life in prison, maybe even find out the that person was actually innocent. It's happened quite a few times already...