If you are against the death penalty--you are ALWAYS against it

[Horse with no Name]

because you understand that justice denied for one is justice denied for all and state sanctioned killing is not justice under any circumstance.
If you are willing to make exceptions, then you are NOT against the death penalty. You are just very selective in who should receive it.
There is a difference.

[karlrschneider]

1. I subscribe to Michael Valentine Smith's evaluation of the subject.

Best I can do.

[TahitiNut]

6. You mean "You can't enslave a free man, the best you can do is kill him"???

Isn't that from Starship Troopers?

"You can't enslave a free man. Only person that can do that to a man is himself …The most you can do is kill him."

[XOKCowboy]

48. Thou Art God

Share Water. Never Thirst.

[BuyingThyme]

2. It's like being against rape except in the case of total sluts.

[Horse with no Name]

29. Or against abortion unless it is someone that YOU think should have one n/t

[northzax]

94. i find it very similar, in fact

to being against rape, but making jokes about prison rape for people you don't like. see it all the time.

[TahitiNut]

3. Indeed.

What I find most disturbing are those who'd let the heinous nature of the crime blind them to the heinous nature of cold-blooded homicide-by-proxy that is the death "penalty." Even worse, the likelihood of Innocent people being put to death due to the public OUTRAGE is even greater when the outrage is highest.

What's "interesting" is that those who rationalize the death penalty on the basis of its alleged deterrent effect are, under that rationalization, unconcerned with innocence. After all, when it's about deterring others, innocence just ain't relevant. (Think about THAT one.)
:puke:

[Horse with no Name]

8. Blood Lust.

And higher profile crimes DO lend themselves to more public pressure to solve quickly.
Even if prosecutors sometimes have to make square pieces fit round holes to "solve" their cases. The majority of "square pieces" do not have adequate representation when it matters most because they are usually minorities and/or poor.
US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said she has "never seen a death penalty case on appeal before this court in which the defendant was well represented at trial."
That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

[BuyingThyme]

10. What TahitiNut said.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. Stalin understood the deterrent effect quite well.

As do all tyrants. It is not about justice, it is about publicly demonstrating the power of the state over the citizen.

[BlueJazz]

4. Even those big Fat Cockroaches that squirt out that mayonaisse when you step on them ?

:rofl:

[Fresh_Start]

5. In your opinion, its a black and white issue

other people are entitled to hold there own opinions.

[Horse with no Name]

12. It is black and white. You are either FOR or AGAINST

if you are FOR it in ANY case, then you are pro-death penalty.

[Guaranteed]

13. No- not in all cases. nt

[ret5hd]

101. I don't think ANYONE is pro-death penalty for jaywalking...

but that doesn't say anything about whether one is pro or anti death penalty.

If one is anti-death penalty, one is ALWAYS anti-death penalty.

[Fresh_Start]

84. In your opinion

its not FACT, its opinion. And no matter how much you repeat yourself, its still only your opinion and not a fact.

It the same type of opinion that makes people call birth control an abomination against life.

[rucky]

83. I suppose we haven't considered zombies and vampires.

But in most circumstances, death is a black and white issue.

[Fresh_Start]

85. Not even death is 'black and white'

Is death when the heart stops or higher brain function or all brain function?

But the question wasn't whether DEATH is 'black and white', it was whether the "death penalty" is black and white.

[qdemn7]

7. Really?

Well I'm in favor of the Death Penalty. I don't give a damn about the deterrent effects, excepting the fact those executed will never murder again. I just think the nature of some crimes is so heinous the only proper answer is death. And I'm not religious so that "eye for any eye" stuff doesn't even enter into it for me.

[Horse with no Name]

11. But do you "pretend" you are against the death penalty?

It sounds like your opinion is pretty cut and dried to me and you make no bones about it.
This post wasn't about you.

[emilyg]

15. Such as the couple who tortured and killed their little girl.

If I could kill them I would sleep better.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. Does the probability of irrevocable error bother you?

Is there a crime more heinous than the execution of an innocent person?

[qdemn7]

79. Yes, BUT

How many people that are sent to Death Row, have NEVER committed ANY violent felonies? What percentage?

[Warren Stupidity]

80. So it doesn't matter if they are innocent of the crime they are

put to death for, as 'they must be guilty of something'. Wow.

[skipos]

103. You know 200 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence

These people had served 5, 10, 15 years after they were INCORRECTLY found guilty of murder and/or rape in U.S. courts.

How many innocent people do you think have been executed in the U.S.? Give me your best guess.

[MrCoffee]

87. that's a legitimate opinon...what is not legitimate is "usually i'm opposed to the death penalty...

except in this case, they should (insert gruesome method of death here)"

[Guaranteed]

9. How's that?

It sounds as if you're saying that it's impossible to be against the death penalty in one situation, yet for it in another.

That seems plainly wrong. Different circumstances might quite explainably lead to opposite conclusions in different cases. That doesn't seem difficult to imagine.

[Horse with no Name]

14. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not...if you are WILLING to consider

the death penalty in ANY case, then you are PRO-DEATH PENALTY, albeit selective of how you would administer it.
It's not like they give the death penalty for jaywalking.
All crimes that meet the burden of capital punishment are heinous.

[Guaranteed]

16. No- being willing to consider something doesn't make someone pro-that-something.

If I considered the death penalty in a given case and ultimately came out in favor of it, then you could fairly say I was pro-death-penalty- for that case.

But, if I consider the death penalty in a given case and ultimately come out against it, then I'd definitely have to say that I would be against it, in that case. Because, if I decided against it, it would be pretty ridiculous to then come out and say that, really, I was for it. That's absurd. Seriously, I meant it when I said I was against it- in that case. No foolin'.

You see the difference between being "for" something and "against" something?

[Horse with no Name]

17. I know the difference in being "pro" death penalty and "anti" death penalty

Perhaps you should learn the nuances of your own position.

[Guaranteed]

18. What nuances?

You're saying that when I've decided against the death penalty in a case, I'm really for it. I can't even give that the dignity of calling it "nuanced." It's patently contradictory.

[Horse with no Name]

22. If you are willing to CONSIDER the death penalty in ANY case

then YOUR position is one that is pro-death penalty.
As for myself and most of the other anti-death penalty folks, it's not even on the table for discussion in ANY crime.
You are willing to consider it which means you are willing to administer it.
However, you may decide against it in ONE case, but decide to apply it in another.
You are the one that is contradictory.
My position never alters no matter how heinous the crime.

[Guaranteed]

30. We can do this all night, if you like.

You can't say that a person was in favor of the death penalty when they, as premised here, decided against it. You're not accepting the premise you have to accept to establish the logic of your own argument. In other words, you're contradicting yourself.

For every X, X = X. Being against the death penalty in a particular case means you are against the death penalty in that case. Being against the death penalty in one case, in subsequent cases, one can not only consider but also be in favor of the death penalty, without changing the truth value of the statement "I was against the death penalty in a previous case."

It is- clearly- not impossible to be against the death penalty in some cases, yet for it in others.

[Horse with no Name]

31. Justification of a tough moral issue is a common defense mechanism

I'll leave you alone in your justification.

[Guaranteed]

36. What it SOUNDS like you might be saying is that you have to be against

the death penalty for the RIGHT reasons (your reasons, which cover all cases), always, or you're not against the death penalty- ever.

Which would also be false. :P

[treestar]

64. Almost no one is for it for a crime less than murder

So everyone who is for it limits it to some degree. Only being against it in all cases it being against it for itself. Any other position is being for it; albeit in select cases. It just depends how select you are. State laws have it for murder with special circumstances. Yet there are freepers out there who would apply it to all murders, to thefts, to criticizing their Pretzeldent, not going to church, etc.

[0rganism]

105. ...in the United States

Other countries have much different standards for the death penalty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation

Compare the differences in American consideration with, e.g., Saudi Arabian capital offenses.

[provis99]

23. thats such a straw man argument

thats like saying if you are for government intervention in the economy in any shape or form, you are pro-Socialist. All issues are shades of grey, thinking in Manichean black and white terms seem to be more common among Republicans and children.

[Horse with no Name]

24. No. It's really not the same thing.

But carry on. :eyes:

[provis99]

45. yeah. whatever.

:puke:

[blondeatlast]

68. I'm impressed with the maturity and wisdom of your rebuttal.

:rofl:

Geez.

[annabanana]

73. Sure. I guess there are different shapes and forms of

dead.

[wicket]

76. So you follow an accusation of a straw man with an ad hominem

Nice :nopity: You may want to brush up:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[LanternWaste]

104. If I once considered doing acid, that means I'm pro-acid?

If I considered doing acid, that means I'm pro-acid?

[Indi Guy]

19. *Applause* - very well said.

And for the fundies who support the DP, you can tell them that the Good Book doesn't say, "Thou shalt not murder"; The Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill."

[Lil Missy]

20. I am somewhat for the death penalty, but I think it is applied unfairly and racially biased.

For especially cruel and heinous crimes, I am absolutely for the death penalty.

But it is applied unevenly from state to state, (texas for example).

And I've recently seen a quote/decision from ASSHOLE Justice Scalia that absolute proof of innocence is not a justifiable reason to halt an execution as long as the legal process was followed and the decision was arrived at without any other legal points of error raised. That's just outrageous bullshit.

[Justitia]

21. The way I sum up my feelings is this....there are some criminals whose acts are such that I don't

care if they die.

I also have sympathy for the relief of victim's families when their tormentor is no longer living & breathing.

I just don't like the idea of 'The State' killing caged people.

[Horse with no Name]

25. Darlie Routier's crimes were heinous. She was sentenced to death.

Problem is, there is overwhelming evidence that she didn't do it.
Hopefully they will get it sorted out before she gets the needle.

I wonder how many times that is played out across the country.

I support life in prison without the possibility of parole unequivocally.

[Justitia]

42. Darlie Routier's death sentence is beyond outrageous in my opinion.

The kicker is that "life in prison without the possibility of parole" didn't exist in Texas until 2 yrs ago!

That's why we have so many death sentences, it was set up by the legislature that way on purpose. Juries were too wary to give less than death in certain cases for fear of the criminal's release. I've seen these juries, they were torn, but they were more afraid of letting a killer out on the loose. Many DAs wanted to keep it just that way.

We will still have high execution rates because so many death sentences are still in the pipeline.
The new sentence possibility (life w/out possibility of parole) only applies to sentences after Sept 1, 2005 and was not made retroactive.

[Indi Guy]

26. Interesting, but not responsive to the OP

[Justitia]

43. So says you. It is an accurate representation of my feelings on the matter.

I'm looking at it from a different perspective.
I mostly agree w/the statements in the OP, but I'm simply viewing it from another facet of the prism.

There are many perspectives from which to view this topic:

From the perspective of JUSTICE (as in the OP)
From the perspective of CONTINUED THREAT TO SOCIETY
From the perspective of DETERRENCE OF FUTURE CRIME
From the perspective of PUNISHMENT
From the perspective of RELIEF AFFORDED TO VICTIMS

etc., etc.,
The question can be evaluated from each perspective and one can (& most likely will) have conflicting conclusions as to it's effectiveness / appropriateness.

It's a weighted answer with only black & white options.

[Indi Guy]

50. The OP made a black & white statement (which I obviously agree with)...

If I could trust the "justice" system to apply the death penalty uniformly & fairly -- I'd second guess my stance. But you know as well as I that the justice system cannot be trusted.

[Justitia]

55. "Justice" is arbitrary, abstract & has many qualifiers. The DP cannot be argued FOR or AGAINST

based on the concepts of "justice".

That is why I struggled with the OP, because the premise of the argument was rationalized by the entirely subjective concept of "justice",
or more specifically, the concepts of retributive justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice

[Indi Guy]

56. Wow! You sure know how to parse words, while back-tracking...

What's your stance dejur?

[Justitia]

58. I did no such thing. You just refuse to recognize the multiple layers.

I understand you are not in favor of the death penalty, I'm only asking "why?" and describing my problems with it which have NOTHING to do with concepts of "justice" as were put forth in the OP.

There is a reason the DP exists - shouldn't we be evaluating why so many citizens are still in favor of it?

Is there another way to address their concerns that doesn't authorize The State to take a life?

[annabanana]

74. I don't care if they die, I just don't want to be the one to kill them.

exactly

[sandnsea]

27. Absolutely

Killing isn't necessary to mete out justice.

[red2blue]

28. would love to be against it , but

people like Scott Peterson make it very hard.

[Indi Guy]

33. You're missing the point of the OP...

As long as one innocent person can be executed, the DP must be abolished entirely.

[Horse with no Name]

38. Thank you. Chief Justice Earl Warren said it best

“A nation which does not protect itself and its people against serious crimes is, of course, failing in its most important obligation, but a nation which enforces its laws while violating the fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens is contributing to its own ultimate destruction. We must have vigorous enforcement of the law, but that enforcement must be fair, equal in its application, and in accordance with our time-honored and loudly professed freedoms. In all facets of law enforcement—arrest, trial, conviction, punishment—officers and citizens must, in conscience, take heart and try to understand the sordid conditions which breed the vast majority of crimes.”

[sutz12]

32. There are two types of people in the world...

those who divide people into two groups......and those who don't.

Under your "logic" I am pro death penalty. I choose to be selective in who to kill.

So sue me.

[sandnsea]

34. Yes you are

Everybody who supports the death penalty believes they are selectie in who to kill, even George Bush.

[Indi Guy]

37. And what should be the response be when an innocent is executed?

???

[Chovexani]

35. K&R for some truth

[Indi Guy]

39. Like the OP said - there is no middle-ground on this issue...

...

[Zueda]

40. What do you say to the family of the mother who is brutally

raped and murdered and they feel that the only vindication or justice is death.

Whether you are for it or against it you have to admit that no matter how it goes in most cases someone will be hurt.

I'd say to some folks it would be a life sentence of torture. I guess I have more empathy than humanity...sorry.

Do I feel that DP is murder and wrong. yes. But I'm obviously conflicted when it comes to this issue.

on edit: why did you start another thread on this?

on edit2: If I was a judge I guess I could just avoid looking the victim's family in the eye as I doled out what they deem as a lenient sentence.

[Horse with no Name]

46. What happens in other civilized countries who do not have the death penalty?

Does their loved one's death have any more or any less meaning when the state kills the alleged perpetrator?
Justice. Justice can be done without killing someone.
Revenge is NOT justice.

[Zueda]

47. I don't really know to be honest.

True revenge is not justice. But Justice is in the eye of the beholder.

[Horse with no Name]

51. Justice is supposed to be blind.

However, we know that isn't true.
The law should be about justice, not emotion.

[Indi Guy]

53. Exactly - justice is "supposed" to be blind, but (as applied) it's often simply myopic...

Don't anyone forget that many prosecutors are lawyers who hate to lose.

[treestar]

66. The legal system is about justice

Not personal feelings. We are not without empathy, but we can't let that drive the justice system. We always feel sorry for the victims, but these things are for the benefit of society. If we let the victims drive the justice system, it would be no such system at all - only about revenge - and people who are not guilty would pay the penalty just so someone would pay.

The emotional state of the victims needs attention, but not from the justice system. They cannot be allowed blood lust for revenge, and we need to stop enabling that. Reason and not emotion are required for any system to be fair and just.

[Phentex]

69. I'd tell them we already live in a brutal world

why join in the brutality when killing won't bring back their loved one or undo the rape or the torture?

[Nutmegger]

41. Thank you so much. Sending this to the greatest!

:thumbsup::kick:

[Islander Expat]

44. I'm against it for me, thats for sure...

The rest of you, I don't know about, but I'm against the death penalty for me.
That, I'm sure of.

[Usrename]

49. I'm not so sure about any of what you are claiming.

If some of the architects of this war are ever brought to justice, then I can easily accept the death penalty for at least some of the guilty individuals. Many of them have enough juice to eventually buy their freedom and unleash more mayhem on humanity. In fact, some have already been convicted and pardoned for their participation in earlier atrocities.

It seems like it's the same monsters that keep coming back into power, over and over again.

In any event, it was wrong to execute Saddam immediately upon his conviction and sentencing. The Geneva Conventions provide a mandatory six-month stay to effect an appeal. So, killing Saddam int the manner that it was done, that was illegal, and Bush should be put to death for it.

Just my opinion, I'm no lawyer. But until some of these people are dealt with in a more permanent fashion, it seems we're destined to keep allowing some of the same few players to keep making money off the slaughter of the masses. If it is possible to halt this rise of fascism, I'm afraid it will involve putting some folks to death. In the best case scenario, it would be done legally, after a full and fair public hearing.

[Festivito]

52. Okay. Very selective pro-death penalty.

Only in the case of an escapee sentenced to a forfeit life holed with a hostage in a clear line of sight.

But, really, I think you're just playing a semantics game. Saying one is pro-death penalty confuses the stance I take with the one being put by the Republicans, which, I do not support. You'd think the overt pro statement would stop me from saying it -- and you are wrong -- and playing a game.

[ConsAreLiars]

54. Exactly. The BS about "except for" is just BS.

The weasels who claim to oppose the death penalty "except for XXX cases" are different only in degree from those who support it for jaywalking.

[MrSlayer]

57. I agree. You're either against the taking of life or you're not.

I'm pro-DP and I'm pro-choice. Consistency is important.

[Disturbed]

59. The DP is a concept that is ancient. Most nations have

abandoned it as they have public hangings &/or be-headings.

People that are condemned with the DP in most US States remain on Death Row for 12 to 20 years before the actual sentence is carried out. That seems cruel to me. What is the purpose in it?

There is no way that all DP sentenced can be 100% accurate in guilt. Is it alright to execute some innocent people in order to execute some guilty ones? Selective DP concepts are still pro DP notions.

[MrSlayer]

63. It's true that there is no way that all DP sentenced can be 100% accurate in guilt.

I agree. However, a huge majority of those sentenced to death are absolutely, no doubt about it, guilty. Those should be executed within an hour of sentencing. I agree that dragging out the appeals process for years on end is cruel. It's cruel to the criminal as well as the taxpayer and seriously hurts the deterrent effect. Any DP worthy case where there isn't absolute proof of guilt should be commuted to a life sentence until it could be proven or disproven with certainty. Virtually all of those innocent prisoners released from Death Row were released because of modern forensics, particularly DNA technology. The same techniques will help prevent those same things from happening again as they will only improve.

[Richard Steele]

60. K&R

[cali]

61. yes. just yes. n/t

[Mythsaje]

62. Considering the state of the (in)justice system in America

and entirely too many innocent people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit for me to ever contemplate switching my stance.

Besides, by my reasoning, a life sentence could be considered a much worse punishment than death. I know they could be for me.

I won't even hedge on it. As things stand today, I'm against the Death penalty.

In Infinity: Empire series, there is no death penalty, even though there is virtually no chance of an innocent person being convicted of a crime. Before a trial even commences, the investigators know all they need to know--either by mean of necromantic forensic techniques that brings back a part of the victim's spirit to re-enect the crime, or by using telepathy to lok inside his skull.

The more dangerous individuals are usually conscripted to serve the Confed on a scoutship, plunging deeper and deeper into the unknown.

So I do seriously oppose the death penalty...even in my fiction. Cold blooded murder is wrong no mattter who does it.

[blondeatlast]

65. Exactly right and thank you. nt

[Echo In Light]

67. For the record, I completely disagree with the death penalty...

Yet can understand the want of revenge on the side of enraged, grieving loved ones.

[closeupready]

102. I guess that's how I feel, too.

n/t

[mac56]

70. K & R

Thank you.

[sam sarrha]

71. the death penalty has never been proven to be a penalty or a deterrent to capital crime, a penalty b...

definition is 'punishment'... to believe death is a punishment is simple conjecture, religious dogma or opinion. there has never been any proof death is a penalty, scientific or otherwise. but there is no debate that life in prison is punishment.. or an opportunity to later be exonerated for wrongful conviction

but the death penalty is a 'blood sacrifice' when politicians promise to execute prisoners in custody if elected... that is a fact. because it has been proven beyond any doubt it has never been a deterrent it capital crime, but it has been determined that in illinois that 17% of executed prisoners were innocent.

[wicket]

72. Amen

n/t

[Prophet 451]

75. OK, I can live with that

I'm pro-death penalty under very specific guidelines:
1) That the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and clear-cut (think of the kind of evidence used to convict someone like Rameirez or Dahmer).
2) That the DP be reserved purely for the most heinous crimes, the worst of the worst.
3) That there is no realistic hope of rehabilitation.
4) That the method of execution be the most painless we can devise.

That said, I'm also for a moritorium on the actual use of the DP while the numerous flaws in the present system (i.e. racial disparities) are sorted out and LWOP when the conditions above are not met.

My logic here is fairly simple: That some (mercifully few) criminals are so dangerous and represent such a continuing risk to society that we as a society cannot take the chance of them ever being free, no matter how tiny that possibility may be. For example, the chance of any particular prioner escaping from custody is small but for a very few criminals, even that small chance is too big a chance to take.

On edit: I'll also add that the DP should never, ever be a cause for celebration. It is a terrible necessity that makes monsters of us all. If we must be monsters for a time, we must never forget how to also be men.

[Forkboy]

81. I'm am so with you on that one.

:thumbsup:

[ileus]

82. That's why I'm always for the DP.

[SharkSquid]

86. I oppose the Death Penalty

Only becasue I dont think the government should ever have the ability to do something to a citizen that it can not take back.

[Fresh_Start]

88. doesn't leave much that the government can do

they can't control resources because after all once the resources are used they can't put them back
they can't be involved in education because after you educate someone you can't turn them back into a blank slate
they can't be involved in regulation because any regulation involved opportunity costs which can never be recovered

[SharkSquid]

89. Touche, but my principle remains... n/t

[Fresh_Start]

92. I understand your point but it was too blunt

but the same is true when they abandon people on the streets or force people to fulfull military obligations or ignore toxic wastes....and the truth is more people die from government neglect of necessary obligations than die from some silly 'death penalty' philosophy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. I'm normally against the death penalty.

But I hope the guy who did that thing to that kid is blasted out of a cannon into a wall made up of salted razor blades, and then his mangled corpse gets raped sideways in prison by a syphillitic gorilla.

[aikoaiko]

91. I'm for the allowance of the Death Penalty in selective cases.

:)

[Fresh_Start]

96. like gross abuse of the public trust

because the abuse of that trust is far and away more dangerous than any individual criminal action.

the official in China who aided and abetted contaminated or 'fake' drugs resulting in deaths, is not reformable.
Bush administration killing 100,000+ in Iraq is not reformable, I think war criminals should face the death penalty.

[aikoaiko]

98. Ok, so you are for the death penalty too -- right on.

[Fresh_Start]

99. very selective use - literally abuse by government

ordinary criminals are NOT worth the time or effort for 'death penalty'.

[spanone]

93. Thou Shalt Not Kill.....no asterisk

nowhere does it say 'unless state sponsored'

[SharkSquid]

100. Ironic

Since the Torah repeatedly advocates the death penalty.

[madokie]

95. my argument is to a born again there is no punishment in death, hey they're going to heaven you know

I am against the death penality

[JHB]

97. I think it requires a greater standard of proof...

...something above and beyond "beyond reasonable doubt", simply because BRD has proven inadequate in preventing the conviction of the falsely accused. There's a difference there, too.

But the practical effect is that I'm more allied with anti-DP people, as pro-DP people tend to make it easier, not harder, to obtain such sentences.

It's all a melodrama to them, and the fat lady doesn't sing until the designated evildoer pays for the dastardly deeds, and truth is they don't care much wether the one receiving the sentence is the actual guilty party or not. They'll cheer either way.

[0rganism]

106. and you cannot serve (openly) on a "death-qualified" jury in capital cases

Gotta love that good old American jurisprudence...