Being anti death penalty doesn't make someone pro killer/anti victim

[LostinVA]

It just makes us anti DP.

I believe in life in prison without parole for many crimes, including the FIRST TIME you commit rape or sexual assault on anyone.

Being against state-sanctioned murder doesn't make you soft on crime, no matter how many times the Freepers say so.

[Mojambo]

1. Thank you. Very simply and accurately put. n/t

[LostinVA]

2. Thank YOU

[NMMNG]

3. True. Killing to show that killing is wrong is crazy.

And that's only one reason to eschew the DP.

[rasputin1952]

4. The DP has never been a deterrent to crime...

after all, if it was, why would people still murder?

The argument was always bogus.

And most importantly, as we have seen recently, DNA has cleared some people of crimes they never committed, and were prosecuted under some odd circumstances; thereby leaving the criminal out on the streets to commit more crimes while an inocent is staring death in the face.

I have always felt the DP would be wiped off the face of the earth if an innocent man/woman received the DP and were later exonerated, the prosecutor should fill out the sentence.

[flashl]

10. Georgia pardon executed black woman after 60 years

A black maid, Lena Baker, who was executed in 1945 for killing the white man she claimed had held her in slavery and threatened her life received a pardon from the state of Georgia.

[lost-in-nj]

13. yes DNA is your friend

wait

just wait
until someone YOU LOVE
is killed
raped
kidnapped

etc

oh

I HAVE A RIGHT TO THIS
i was violated
and I was 10



don't want to go public....
DO NOT, NEVER, TELL ME SOME PEOPLE DON"T DESERVE TO DIE....

they do.......



lost

[alarimer]

22. Over 100 people have been released from death row after being exonerated

Because we can never be 100% certain we have the right person there, we cannot allow the death penalty to exist.

I am sorry for what happened to you but you can hardly be objective on this issue.

[rasputin1952]

29. People who commit crimes need to be dealt with...

but the DP will change nothing as far as the results of the crime.

For those that believe the DP is the only way to mete out a sentence for a heinous crime, they should be willing to take the life of the perpetrator with their own hands after said sentence is proclaimed.

When we permit the state to execute people behind closed doors, in a "sanctioned" way, there is level we fail to adhere to...it is a distant process.

If the survivors were permitted to mete out the sentence, I might agree that the DP could have merit.
But then again, doesn't that make the individual that metes out said sentence a murder as well?

I empathize with those that have suffered great loss, there is no excuse for heinous crimes, and I wish they would never happen, sadly though, they do. I know families that have lost people, and I weep with them, the pain is indeed deep.

But the thought that an innocent may be put to death, and the criminal is still roaming the streets and capable of committing other crimes, is a powerful example of just how frail the system is.

[Genanderson]

68. I have so many problems with this...

"People who commit crimes need to be dealt with...but the DP will change nothing as far as the results of the crime"


Given that this comes from one who has stated in later posts that "Justice is blind", this is an irrelevant point. We should not base sentencing on some perceived effect it might have on future crime rates because it has nothing to do with justice.


"If the survivors were permitted to mete out the sentence, I might agree that the DP could have merit.
But then again, doesn't that make the individual that metes out said sentence a murder as well?"


Is a woman who kills a man as he attempts to rape her a murderer? Is a construction worker who accidentally drops a stone block that falls 10 stories and kills someone, a murderer? Were the American soldiers in WWII all murderers? Clearly the taking of human life is not a moral absolute--context does matter. Yet though there are some on this earth that do indeed deserve to die by any objective reasoning, that fact is irrelevant to you because the taking of human life is all equally wrong?



"But the thought that an innocent may be put to death, and the criminal is still roaming the streets and capable of committing other crimes, is a powerful example of just how frail the system is."


So...let's do nothing about the horrible justice system and instead cut back on the punishment? What about all the criminals who break out of prison or otherwise get out of prison without their full terms being served (like Huckabee who let out a rapist who went on to commit other rapes). Does that give me a valid argument to say that all criminals should be executed on the spot? Of course not. But nor does it give you a valid argument here.

[Phillycat]

41. I agree with you.

And I'm so sorry.

[LanternWaste]

42. But I've never met anyone with the wisdom to make that determination.

"DO NOT, NEVER, TELL ME SOME PEOPLE DON"T DESERVE TO DIE......."

I'm sure there are people who deserve to die. But I've never, ever met anyone with the wisdom to make that determination-- as a matter of fact, I don't think anyone that wise exists.

[Djinn]

62. don't be so presumptious

you are assuming people who oppose the DP have never been victims of crimes themselves. You're dead wrong there and not that it matters but I was younger than 10.

[NYC Liberal]

67. Just because some people might deserve to die

does not mean that we have any right to kill them. What people deserve and what we, as a civilized society, have the right to do to those people are two entirely different things.

[Genanderson]

24. I disagree

"The DP has never been a deterrant to crime. After all, if it was, why would people still murder?"

True enough, but keep in mind neither is life in jail a deterrant to crime.

"DNA has cleared some people of crimes they never committed, and were prosecuted under some odd circumstances; thereby leaving the criminal out on the streets to commit more crimes while an inocent is staring death in the face."


I most often hear this argument against the DP. Innocents sometimes die. But that is a problem with the justice system, not the form of punishment. Having innocents spend their lives in prison without parole is hardly a good outcome either. Indeed, according to many anti-DP'ers, it is a worse punishment than death. Some are exonerated, but others are not. So again, this is a problem with the justice system which should not be allowing innocents to go to jail in the first place.

Any arguments against the DP on the basis of "innocents sometimes die" is as bad an argument as saying "criminals sometimes break free and/or get out despite being sentenced to no parole, so all criminals should be sentenced to death." Both are equally horrible arguments, but it only the former that people actually support.

Look it, i'm no big fan of the death penalty myself, but I don't believe the punishment for crimes should be based on some perceived effect it might or might not have on preventing crime, nor on whether or not innocents might have to suffer it. I believe the justice system should carry out precisely what it's named for: justice.

Is it just for a multiple count murderer and child rapist without any chance of rehabilitation continue to suck up tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money for no apparent reason other than some fear that we'll look bad as a society if we kill the scum? Is that justice? Is life in prison so horrible a punishment that it meets the justice requirement better than death ever could? On what basis do you say that? The idea that the men and women in jail treat the child molesterers the worst? On what basis is that idea predicated on? I have not seen any statistics to support it, but i've often heard it used. How the hell do the inmates even know so-and-so is a child molesterer?

Justice is always what counts when punishment for crimes is doled out. So long as our interpretation of justice is good, and yes, there are crimes so repulsive and horrible that it is not the death of that person which reflects a bad society. It's their continued breathing.

Flame away.

[LostinVA]

26. Justice vs. vengeance

For me, the DP is vengeance -- which the State has no right to -- and life without parole is justice. Justice should be blind to emotions.

[rasputin1952]

28. The DP is not Justice, it is vengeance.

"Innocents sometimes die."

What if you were that innocent person? At least you would have some semblance of a chance to prove your innocence if you are alive.

Once the perpetrator is out of the public sphere, the public is safer. "Justice" need not be state sanctioned death.

To be honest, there is no real argument for the DP, all that has been said in support of it is that it "deters criminal behavior", it doesn't. As for the other spurious arguments, i.e., the protection of society, closure for the victim's family, et al, don't cut it. Society is protected from the perpetrator when he/she is incarcerated, I have spoken to a few family members of victims after the DP has been instituted, they don't have closure, in all but one case I know of personally, they have remorse. They feel the void that has been left, and they question why another void was created.

In my humble opinion, people should not kill, rape, kidnap or perform any other heinous crime, but they do happen. The DP is not, at least IMO, the best way to deal with the situation. The term "justice" is tossed around quite a bit, but true Justice is blind, and those of lesser means in society would not be the only ones that face the DP, but the wealthy and the well connected would face it as well if they murdered someone. By being able to afford good attorneys, those that have the means get off easier than those who don't. Why should one person receive the DP, and another get 5-10, 20-30 or life? A murder was committed, should not one receive that same as another as far as penalties go?

The disparity in sentences alone is enough to get rid of the DP, Justice is not served, only an inherent desire to "get even".

To use what many use in favor of the DP, "an eye for an eye,..."; one should understand that those are limits, not demands.

edited: had to do a couple of things spell-check didn't pick up on...my Eng instructor would have been appalled...:)

[Genanderson]

Response:

"What if you were that innocent person? At least you would have some semblance of a chance to prove your innocence if you are alive."

In your next post you state that it takes longer to die from the Death Penalty than it does from a sentence of life in prison. I also state in my response to you that it can indeed take quite a bit of time to be executed. So given all this, does that not qualify to you as "some semblance of a chance?" I'd say it does.


"I have spoken to a few family members of victims after the DP has been instituted, they don't have closure, in all but one case I know of personally, they have remorse. They feel the void that has been left, and they question why another void was created."

Let me get this straight: the death of a serial killer not only creates a void by which the world is lesser for, but the complete removal of that killer from society via a lifetime in prison sentencing is somehow NOT creating a void? Let me know if I have what passes for logic here wrong, but i'm pretty sure thats what you're saying here.



"The term "justice" is tossed around quite a bit, but true Justice is blind, and those of lesser means in society would not be the only ones that face the DP, but the wealthy and the well connected would face it as well if they murdered someone. By being able to afford good attorneys, those that have the means get off easier than those who don't. Why should one person receive the DP, and another get 5-10, 20-30 or life? A murder was committed, should not one receive that same as another as far as penalties go?"

Absolutely agree here. As I stated in my original post, the fact that innocent people sometimes die, or in this case are able to get off without the DP while others are due to race, class, money, etc, is NOT a problem with the DP itself, but rather a problem with the JUSTICE SYSTEM which should not be allowing innocent people to be sentenced in the first place, nor sentence differently based on social standing! You just don't see it, for which i'm compeletely baffled by.

BTW, an "eye for an eye" argument is completely bogus. If it had any foothold on reality, we would be seeing convicts getting repeatedly raped, stabbed, tortured, mutilated, and probably even cannibalized by now. That is after all what they do to their victims. You cannot equate repeatedly raping a child to death with the largely if not completely painless death by injection, and therefore cannot espouse some "eye for an eye" revenge argument. It's absurd.


EDIT: Oh! and I almost forgot. Do you know where we DO see repeated beatings, rapings, and all other manner of suchlike behavior that would qualify as "eye for an eye" It's in prison! How ironic.

[rasputin1952]

44. I have to ask...

"Is it just for a multiple count murderer and child rapist without any chance of rehabilitation continue to suck up tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money for no apparent reason other than some fear that we'll look bad as a society if we kill the scum?

Why is money/cost an issue?

For one thing, it costs more in time and money to bring about a "valid" DP execution, than life in prison. But that should not be an issue...where do you put a dollar sign on a life, particularly if that life may be innocent?

If you are looking to save money in the prison system, perhaps some states should stop prosecuting juveniles as if they were adults; or perhaps we could allow some of those who have non-violent "crimes" that have huge sentences. I know of one individual in TX that is serving life w/o parole because he had a "roach" in his ashtray...even after his brother admitted in ope court that he was the one who smoked the pot and left the "roach", the guy still got life...is that any form of justice?

But I digress, I find it somewhat deplorable that money/cost becomes an issue in this situation. The object of Justice is to mete out "punishment" that in is line with the crime. Justice, in this nation can go from the DP, to exoneration, and everything in between. My point is, that it need not go to the extreme...nothing in Law says it must be the maximum. Sentences are meted out by examining all of the circumstances involved ia particular case. Some of those circumstances may be mitigating.

I do not defend those who have committed heinous crimes...but I do not condone the taking of another life either. To me, murder is murder, and an alternative exists, life in prison, away from society, unable to harm others.

[Genanderson]

60. Response:

"Why is money/cost an issue?"

For the same reason that money/cost is an "issue" in regards to Iraq. It can be better spent elsewhere than on people who don't deserve to breathe, can it not?


"For one thing, it costs more in time and money to bring about a "valid" DP execution, than life in prison. But that should not be an issue...where do you put a dollar sign on a life, particularly if that life may be innocent?"


Really? It takes more time for someone to be executed than it does to wait for them to die of old age? No one is saying it's a speedy process--indeed, it can take years for someone to be executed.

I find it interesting that you glom onto one negative aspect of one sentence among many, and try to spin it as if money/cost was all I was getting at. I also find it interesting that you neglect to even answer the question, honestly or otherwise. No one is saying they deserve to die or should die because they cost too much money. I'm saying that if it is just that they do die, then there is no reason not to execute them, ESPECIALLY given that they are a continued drain on resources that could be better spent elsewhere.



"Justice, in this nation can go from the DP, to exoneration, and everything in between. My point is, that it need not go to the extreme...nothing in Law says it must be the maximum. Sentences are meted out by examining all of the circumstances involved ia particular case. Some of those circumstances may be mitigating.

I do not defend those who have committed heinous crimes...but I do not condone the taking of another life either. To me, murder is murder, and an alternative exists, life in prison, away from society, unable to harm others"

Amazing. At the same time you acknowledge that justice may indeed include the DP, depending on context and circumstance, you do a 180 and say the DP cannot be justified. If the DP can be equated with life in prison in terms of justice, then how the hell can you say that one is worse than the other?




"I do not defend those who have committed heinous crimes...but I do not condone the taking of another life either. To me, murder is murder, and an alternative exists, life in prison, away from society, unable to harm others"

And apparently, murder is defined as ANY taking of a life regardless of intent, lack of intent, context or anything else for that matter. To you, there is no significant difference between a man taking a 13 year old girl, repeatedly raping and stabbing her to death, and the government sentencing that man to die. Not in a moral sense. They are both immoral acts. It seems murder is always wrong and taking a life is always murder, therefore all taking of life is murder and equally wrong.

This tendency towards moral absolutism I am noticing in you is downright scary.

[Hosnon]

46. A deterrent does not necessarily have to completely stop a practice.

A deterrent can simply discourage a practice. And the death penalty most likely discourages, to whatever degree, crimes that involve a rational actor (i.e., not crimes of passion).

But, as I indicated, the degree to which the death penalty discourages certain crimes is questionable and, in my opinion, small.

[Worst Username Ever]

5. Just like being pro-choice doesn't make someone pro-abortion.

I can be against abortion but not think it should be illegal, just like I can be against the death penatly and not be pro-rapist/killer. Just more examples of rethuglican spin doctoring.

[LostinVA]

8. Yup, I always correct people when they call me "pro abortion"

I'm pro choice, pro free birth control, and pro sex and self image education.

[rasputin1952]

11. No one is "pro-abortion", most of us are pro-choice...

just as "partial birth abortion" became a knee-jerk phrase, so has "pro-abortion". What really galls me is that hose who are anti-choice, don't even know the history behind the illegalization and legalization of abortion. I am sure that many would jump right out of their skins if they knew abortion was accepted by the Puritans, and they have no thought that abortion has been an accepted part, if not overtly, in every civilization except this one, throughout history.

I have always found it very strange that those who claim, "the sanctity of life", are the first ones calling for a war or the DP.

[LostinVA]

27. Your last sentence is right on target

[Djinn]

63. I am

I am pro abortion for any woman anywhere that wants to have one for whatever reason. Personally I don't care if womb police want to call me pro-abortion. I don't view it as shameful, distasteful or anything I need to be "anti".

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Of course

but for some people, the only way they can express disapproval of crime is to advocate the most heinous punishment.

If you don't want rapists raped in jail, you're soft on rapists. If you don't want murderers murdered, you're soft on murder. It gets very old.

[Buzz Clik]

7. I'm surprised that has to be explained. Some folks see things only one way, I guess.

[slackmaster]

9. R

and K.

[varkam]

12. Huzzah!

Well put. One can simultaneously be anti-DP and pro-victim IMO.

[aikoaiko]

14. what do say to victims who want the dp?

[jberryhill]

21. The same thing you say to victims who don't want the death penalty.

"It's not up to you."

Murder Victim's Families For Reconciliation:

http://www.mvfr.org/

MVFR members have lost family members to murder or execution and oppose the death penalty. Friends of MVFR support these members and help bring their stories to the public, the press and policy makers.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. More importantly "It's not about you"

Justice isn't about murder victim's families. Justice is about protecting all of society.

[Cybergata]

40. Vengeance doesn't make the pain go away, ever - Forgiveness does

I had a student whose father was killed while trying to help someone who hit his car. He didn't realize that they had just robbed a convenience store and they hit him in the process of trying to get away. It was a senseless murder of a good man.

We were debating the death penalty in class, and she stayed silent, until the end. She stood up and told her story. Her family had testified at the sentencing, and had asked that her father's killers were not given the death sentence.

What she told my class about forgiveness setting one free, and helping them heal will always be one of my treasured moment in my long teaching career. Every once in a while, I find that one of my students has become a hero to me, and this young woman became one for me that day. The peace her family found through forgiveness is an example of how vengeance doesn't help in the end.

[aikoaiko]

43. I'm not as sure as you are that forgiveness is the only freedom for victims/victims families.

I would agree that revenge is not for everyone, but neither is forgiveness. Plus I don't see why someone couldn't forgive a person before or after they were executed.

[Tyler Durden]

48. You want revenge? You take it.

Not on MY Karma, friend.

You do not have the right to ask ME through the state to take your revenge for you. Execution is REVENGE, and if you want it, go buy a gun and wait until your "victim" (and a victim of revenge IS a victim) gives you a clear shot, then kill them.

THEN YOU take the consequences.

Forgiveness has nothing to do with this. CLOSURE has nothing to do with this. REVENGE has everything to do with this, and REVENGE IS NOT JUSTICE.

[aikoaiko]

56. tell me the difference between revenge and justice.

Here are the everyday definitions -- they are more similar than different.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2490067&mesg_id=2491619

[Tyler Durden]

57. The fact that you see so little difference between the two tells much about you.

And it's not very positive.

Try reading your own definitions again, especially #1 from both of them.

[aikoaiko]

58. so its the emotions you don't like.

There's nothing wrong with being angry with someone who has harmed you or being happy that the wrong doer is punished. Maybe in durden-world it is wrong.

There is an element of revenge in all justice whether you like it or not.

I'm glad the DP is still an option in most states in the US.

[Tyler Durden]

73. There's no point talking to you.

Blood for blood.

May the powers that be never demand yours, for your eye for an eye policy leaves them no option.

[aikoaiko]

77. I see why you have a hard time talking to me -- you think I'm advocating for an eye for an eye

I'm not. You say an eye for an eye leaves no option and yet you advocate for reducing punishment options by not allowing DP. I know even someone like you can see the irony.

Adios Durden.

[Zynx]

65. I hate to put it this bluntly, but too bad.

The feelings of the victims cannot be the sole determinant of sentences.

[Tyler Durden]

74. Well put.

If we take the vengeance path, we might as well torture them to death; hell, a painless execution isn't much revenge, is it?

[Blue-Jay]

15. Yes. That is true.

[Catherine Vincent]

16. That's what idiot Freepers think. nt

[RB TexLa]

17. Pro-DP here but I agree with you. However there is no anti or pro victim positions

victims don't have a role in the justice system except as witnesses.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. That's correct

The so-called "victim's rights" movement may as well be called the "let's just get rid of an objective justice system" movement. The whole point of forming a justice system is to lessen the involvement of the victims in deciding the social consequences of crime. You may not agree with that, but that's what a rational, democratic justice system is. When somebody commits a crime, it is the STATE (which is to say, in a democratic society, ALL OF US) making the decisions, not the victims. And for damn good reasons.

[Djinn]

64. thank you

When somebody commits a crime, it is the STATE (which is to say, in a democratic society, ALL OF US) making the decisions, not the victims. And for damn good reasons.

:applause:

[Nevilledog]

32. That's not particularly true in Arizona.

We have a Victim's Bill of Rights in Arizona that allows victims to have all sorts of pretty powerful rights. The one that is most shocking to most people is an alleged victim's right to refuse to be interviewed. I know this thread is talking about the most heinous of crimes and particularly crimes where the victim was killed, but imagine being accused of a theft, or an assault or any other crime involving a victim where there are no other witnesses and your attorney is not even allowed to speak to that witness before you go to trial? This law is another example of a State trying to protect an alleged victim while ignoring a person's right to defend themselves. And for full disclosure, yes, I am a criminal defense attorney in Arizona and have been for 17 years. Luckily I've never had a client land on death row.

[LostinVA]

38. How is that legal???

[Nevilledog]

39. They made it part of the Arizona State Constitution.

http://www.azvictims.com/victimRights/default.asp

[LostinVA]

45. I would think that wouldn't stand up to a higher court challenge

Good God. It seems very anti due process.

[Nevilledog]

47. It's fine and dandy as far as the courts are concerned.

They get around any due process argument because you have the opportunity to confront the alleged victim AT TRIAL. It's not important to the courts that not being able to interview the alleged victim PRIOR to trial impacts on your ability to prepare a defense against that witness.

[LostinVA]

78. Have they changed the state laws on trial discovery?

They've had to... does that go against the state constitution?

[Nevilledog]

81. Consider what the Constitution doesn't say about discovery.

Where these laws restrict pre-trial discovery they get away with it because basically all the constitution requires is that you're allowed to confront your accusers.... and a defendant does get that right at trial. However, there's no constitutional right to have pre-trial discovery. In fact, although I do not practice in Federal court, it's my understanding that the government doesn't even have to allow interviews with any of their witnesses. I might be over-simplifying that, but my recollection is that they don't have to turn over anything to the defense.

[RB TexLa]

84. Well federal court you are dealing with US attorneys and they pretty much work under a law of their

own. (with a D or R in the White House)

[Tyler Durden]

49. And as Emotion Enhancers in punishment phases.

DP is REVENGE. Take your own revenge, or forgo it. I do not give you the moral right to include me in your revenge.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. I just started a thread about this, and I could not agree more

Out of curiosity why do you support the death penalty then?

[RB TexLa]

54. I feel there are crimes for which no amount of time incarcerated adequately

or justly punishes the perpetrator.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. I'm against the death penalty and against life w/o parole in almost all cases

Life w/o parole is an extremely OVERUSED sentence. We need less of it, not more.

[Riktor]

20. Don't confuse them with facts...

... they have their minds made up.

[HuffleClaw]

23. someone actually claimed that?

wow, what a loon.

[LostinVA]

25. It always happens in the DP threads

[Zynx]

66. I would name the name, but I believe that is in bad form.

I do know of a DUer.

[FredScuttle]

30. Well said, Lost

I want no part of a society that sanctions state-sponsored premeditated murder of its own citizens. We are no better than the criminals we prosecute.

[flvegan]

31. The Death Penalty is revenge, not punishment.

There's no other way to describe it.

[cboy4]

33. Yes, as always, very well said Rosemary.

Now cue Freepers to disagree and call me/us pro rape and sexual assault. :puke:

[LostinVA]

36. It's probably already happening, Damie

[porphyrian]

34. But hyperbole and binary thinking are the most popular brands today...

I'm also against the death penalty generally, but especially because of the demonstrable biases (against the poor and minorities) in how it's dealt out and the number of false convictions (a death penalty, once executed, cannot be taken back).

[Javaman]

35. Personally, I have always thought that life in prison was the

worst sentence anyone could get.

The loss of freedom in a society that is based on such is the ultimate punishment.

[blondeatlast]

37. Indeed. Thank you. nt

[Solly Mack]

50. True

[redqueen]

51. It's really sad that this has to be explained. (nt)

[Mike03]

55. Agreed

Actually, I began my writing career writing about horrific crimes from the point of view of victims and surviving family members. I remember traveling long distances to read DP trial transcripts and viewing the files in the city hall archives. I saw pictures I cannot even describe. They filled me with hatred towards the perpetrators.

Then in the early 90s a young woman I knew was raped and murdered. The two perps were arrested, and I wanted them to die too.

Even though I understood that the killers lacked important components in their brains, had been abused, raised in horrible environments, and were addicted to crack and alcohol, it didn't really make a difference to me. Brain damaged or not, all I could think about were the last excruciating hours of the victim, and the pain her death caused her parents, brother and sisters.

ON EDIT: Her parents, by the way, were against the death penalty. This amazed me, to be frank.

There's one killer on Death Row in California that I would like to see executed, in spite of my higher nature that knows killing him is just a pathetic fix for a pathetic man. He has been on Death Row for 27 years, and he has sued the prison system because they delivered him soggy cookies. He'll die of old age in prison, even though he was sentenced to be executed.

But over the past five years, I have come to see that the DP is one of the barriers that separates us from the developed world. No matter how much ire and disgust these crimes may generate within me personally, I know that I'm not objective enough to make the right choice, so I bestow that obligation upon my government, and I tell them to save me from myself by erradicating the death penalty.

It's also important to remember that the Innocence Project has found dozens of people falsely accused of rape and murder, thanks to DNA preservation and evidence.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

59. Someone I know was murdered recently

He was a nice guy, sweet, funny and never unpleasant to be around, the kind you enjoy being friends with. The man who murdered him also killed 5 other people. Two of the victims were young teenage girls and one was an 80-something-year old woman. I didn't know any of his other victims. He shot my friend in a bar with many witnesses around. A great deal of evidence including ballistics, his confession and items stolen from the residents of the others victims which was found in his procession, have formed a very strong case against him.

I saw today where they are seeking the death penalty against the man who committed the murders. I don't see it as "justice", he'll be dead and won't ever have to think of what he did again. I don't know, maybe my reasoning is way wrong on this, but I want him in prison regretting his actions. I want him somewhere where his mother can write to him and tell him how well his ex-girlfriend is doing with her new love and how the new family that moved into his old house decided to cut down the tree he and his brother planted when they were kids.

I want him to go on living and I want him to regret what he lost and what he's taken away from others every day he continues to live. What I don't want is for him to die too.

[Genanderson]

69. Interesting

I find it intriguing how so many anti-DPers accuse pro-DPers of "eye for an eye" revenge type of mentality. Not only is this an absurd argument, and one of my earlier posts explains why, but some anti-DPers are guilty of this very mentality. Your post demonstrates it. You want the criminal to suffer. Death is TOO GOOD for them. Maybe we'll get lucky and the rapists will get gangbanged by some other inmates?

What could be more vengeful than that?

Sheesh.

[Djinn]

70. agree

some anti-DP posts display a revenge mentality as well. Some of us however don't think revenge and frankly even punishment are the most important goals of a justice system.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

76. I want him punished, yes.

As to the rest of what you said...you can see it however you want. I honestly don't give a damn.

I know I sure as hell would never hope a rapist got "gangbanged" but if trying to make that stretch makes you happy, knock yourself out.

Sheesh.

[Djinn]

61. agree

and further NOT insisting on long jail terms for all offenses or being able to see that in many instances there are mitigating circumstances, also doesn't make one soft on crime.

Tho`considering the myriad of things that can result in a sexual assault charge in my neck of the woods I'd say life in prison without parole is hugely out of proportion.

[Prophet 451]

71. No shit, Captain Obvious?

I'm actually pro-DP under certain circumstances but this is self-evident, surely?

[Tyler Durden]

75. Read some of the other posts.

Not very obvious to them.

[Prophet 451]

83. Point taken n/t

[depakid]

72. Life without parole for various things is also draconian

Though obviously, most Americans don't think so- which is why they've created the worlds largest prison system- both in terms of raw numbers in prison, and citizens incracerated per capita. And the most teens and adolescents.

More than China. More than Russia or India.

Yep- the US is #1.

Something for Americans to be proud of, eh?

[DutchLiberal]

79. I also don't believe in life in prison without parole.

Unless those in prison are a threat to society.

I also don't believe in American prisons.

[krispos42]

80. Either way, the perp leaves the prison in a hearse

The issue for me is that a person that's executed will never ever ever do a lot of stuff. He will never:

• Fool a parole board
  
• Get out on appeal
  
• Get out due to a technicality
  
• Escape
  
• Torment the relatives of his victim(s) with letters, confessions, or phone calls
  
• Be a mentor, teacher, or inspiration to other prisoners

Domestic terrorist McVeigh is dead. And I'm quite happy he's dead.

It should be reserved for heinous crimes. Not for some borderline retarded guy that got angry and killed a man in a bar fight. But serial and mass murderers? Fuck'em.

[Uncle Joe]

82. What it makes me is against the possibility of the wrong person being executed by mistake.

I can't imagine the nightmare of what an innocent person and their family must go through when they're killed by the state by mistake. There is no going back after that point.

I also can't imagine being put in prison for life without the possibility of parole as being a reward or soft on crime. What that does tell me is that the state holds a higher regard for life in general than a murderer does and to me that's a comforting thought.