Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?

Moliere

Thinker
Moliere
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
196
At first I was always for the death penalty. Then a couple of years ago my wife converted me with the simple statement that we can't trust the government to get it right so why take that irreversible step. Even for people that we just "know" are guilty (e.g., Michael Jackson) we can't make any exceptions because there have been too many people released years later when new evidence came out or technology improved to prove their innocence.
 
I was undecided but only because you caught me on thursday.

I'm seriously for it in Mon and Tues, against it on Sat and Sun.

Wed and Thurs I'm undecided.

Fridays I'm usually too intoxicated to render any opinion.
 
Moliere said:
At first I was always for the death penalty. Then a couple of years ago my wife converted me with the simple statement that we can't trust the government to get it right so why take that irreversible step. Even for people that we just "know" are guilty (e.g., Michael Jackson) we can't make any exceptions because there have been too many people released years later when new evidence came out or technology improved to prove their innocence.
Click to expand...

I felt like your wife for a long time...then there was a local case that changed my mind.

A man and his wife had a large amount of cash in their home, preparing to make a down payment on a new home. the next day. The man's "best friend", who didn't like his wife, came in while he was out, shot and killed his wife, took the cash and set fire to the house. The couples infant daughter was in the house at the time. She eventually died from the burns.

The man's defense, to try and beat the death penalty? He claimed he wasn't responsible for the infant's death. Her death was due in part to all the morphine she was given while in the hospital being treated for the burns.

As far as I'm concerned, he deserved to die for his crimes. I still don't like the death penalty. But there are some crimes so henious that, if you can be absolutely sure you have the right person, the death penalty is appropriate. That guy's still on death row btw and the crime he committed happened more than a decade ago.

Beth
 
No.

I'm against it in any circumstances available to the current criminal justice system.

It is only proportionate to the most heinous crimes if you can dig up someone like Charles Manson, or Jim Jones, and give them multiple death penalties.

Absent that, it is too far removed from the time of the crime to satisfy my personal sense that deadly force is only OK to stop a serious crime....capital punishment only works long after the fact, as revenge, and I don't support having the government being in the revenge business.

Don't buy the deterrence argument, don't buy the 'but it deters *that criminal*' argument...
because so does dying in prison while serving life sentences.

And the final nail in the coffin (IMHO) is its irreversability...and the results of the Innocence Project.
 
It depends on how the question is asked.

I am totally satisfied that, from a moral perspective, some crimes merit the death penalty. I for one am quite content that Tim McVeigh (for example) was put to death.

However....

I hold this view mostly in an academic sense. As a practical matter, the actual application of the death penalty has been very troubling. It has been abused so many times and so often that I do not think that I can trust human institutions to use it fairly.

So if someone were to ask me, "Do you think that the death penalty is an appropriate penalty for certain crimes?" I'd answer "Yes, I do."

But if someone were to ask me, "Should this state adopt the death penalty for certain crimes?" I'd answer "No!"
 
Re: Re: Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?

Beth said:
As far as I'm concerned, he deserved to die for his crimes. I still don't like the death penalty. But there are some crimes so henious that, if you can be absolutely sure you have the right person, the death penalty is appropriate.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you about some people deserving to die. Where I have to differ is that I can't imagine any legal standard for "absolutely sure" that doesn't cause more problems than having a death penalty is worth.
 
No. And a very strong No at that.

I believe there are people who commit crimes so reprehensible they deserve to die with as much fear and misery as possible.

Tsk!

As far as I can tell, that belief is based on emotion and base instincts for revenge, not on reason or research.

The system is fallible. People have been found guilty of crimes they did not commit. They were later released, sometimes after serving many years in prison, when DNA or other evidence proved them innocent.

I would rather see a person guilty of the most heinous crimes remain alive in prison, than to see one innocent person put to death.

This is a personal and emotional subject for me. There is a man on Death Row right now who attempted to abduct me with a stun gun. I escaped. However, my best friends did not. They were both tortured and killed execution-style.

The murderer had previously killed at least one other person in a similar style. There is no doubt. He fully confessed and was linked to the crimes with massive evidence, including DNA and fingerprints.

I remain firmly opposed to the death penalty, even for him.

I seldom speak out on this issue. With my personal experience and bias, I tend to fall into emotional reasoning without even knowing it.
 
We've been over this subject here a few times before, but...


I'm opposed to the death penalty for two reasons: (a) it's merely state-sponsored revenge, usually in kind, and (b) once the guilty party is dead they are no longer being punished.
 
Zep said:

I'm opposed to the death penalty for two reasons: (a) it's merely state-sponsored revenge, usually in kind, and (b) once the guilty party is dead they are no longer being punished.
Click to expand...

Your second reason looks like it's in opposition with your first. I say this because I feel somewhat the same way you do, but because I would like to have revenge. If I really really hated someone, I wouldn't want them to die, I would want them to suffer for the rest of their life. If someone, say, killed my mother in some atrocious way I would be extremely disappointed if they died. Extremely disappointed.
 
Brown put it very well. Some people deserve to die but our system is too fallible to enforce it.

There is one type of case where I am undecided. If a prisoner with a long prison sentence commits murder, I could support a death penalty because it is the only deterent and the two trials make it unlikely that a totally innocent man will be executed.

However, when I was looking for evidence of an inncocent being executed, I found a case where it is likely that a prisoner was mistakenly found guilty of murder while in jail and was executed.

CBL
 
ma1ic3 said:
Your second reason looks like it's in opposition with your first. I say this because I feel somewhat the same way you do, but because I would like to have revenge. If I really really hated someone, I wouldn't want them to die, I would want them to suffer for the rest of their life. If someone, say, killed my mother in some atrocious way I would be extremely disappointed if they died. Extremely disappointed.
Click to expand...

Many mass killers save the last bullet for themselves. Killing them is giving them what they want.

Also, it makes us no better than them.
 
a_unique_person said:
Many mass killers save the last bullet for themselves. Killing them is giving them what they want.
Click to expand...

Them. Not the ones on death row. They fight their execution tooth and nail.
 
I am undecided on the death penalty. Rob Lister kind of described the way I am about the subject. Except for the drunk on Friday part. :)
 
a_unique_person said:
Many mass killers save the last bullet for themselves. Killing them is giving them what they want.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's a pretty good reason to be in favor of the death penalty. If that's what they want, and if it prevents our society from having to watch them for many years, then the logical thing to do is to give them what they want. Keeping them alive is cruel and unusual punishment. Aren't we supposed to be against that?

a_unique_person said:
Also, it makes us no better than them.
Click to expand...
Um... that's incorrect. There is a difference between killing someone that the legal system has given a chance to defend versus killing someone because you felt like it. A big difference.
 
Tricky said:
Actually, that's a pretty good reason to be in favor of the death penalty. If that's what they want, and if it prevents our society from having to watch them for many years, then the logical thing to do is to give them what they want. Keeping them alive is cruel and unusual punishment. Aren't we supposed to be against that?
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself alone, some crimes are so heinous and the criminal so irredeemable that I would prefer that the punishment WAS cruel and unusual, and not a quick and basically painless death.

I've mentioned before that there seems to be a lack of inventiveness when it comes to punishments for henious crimes. I've suggested, as an opener, what in the old days was called "transportation" - removal from society to a tiny, totally isolated prison-island, there to be left alive to make do as best or worst they can. Certainly way cheaper than housing and feeding them for life.
Tricky said:
Um... that's incorrect. There is a difference between killing someone that the legal system has given a chance to defend versus killing someone because you felt like it. A big difference.
Click to expand...
I don't see there is much difference really. In both cases there is a decision process, and then the deed of killing is done. The only real difference is the rationality of the deciders. And even then, much of the "legal" decision process is irrational and clearly revenge-driven.

The "chance to defend yourself" in a trial where the death penalty is a possibility offers as slim a chance of escape, and about as rational a process, as talking a crazed gunman out of shooting you. And this is worse in countries where you are effectively guilty until proven innocent.
 
I am unenthusiastically for it.

While I'm an atheist, I do believe in a kind of natural law. I think seeking revenge is a ratioal and useful characteristic of humans and having the state assist with that goal is reasonable to me.

But I also don't feel strongly enough about the death penalty to base any action on that view including voting for or against a candidate because of his view on that issue.

I did vote for the recall of Rose Bird, a prior California Supreme Court Judge, because I saw her actions in preventing executions as against the rule of law and I think that is a more important issue than whether we have a death penalty or not.
 
No.

Two reasons:

I don’t believe in killing other people, although on an individual level I totally support killing someone in the act of self defence (with all the usual caveats).
I do not believe the state should ever be given the right to kill members of the society that creates it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom