Death Penalty Poll

[RightIsWrong]

I was reading about a man that was freed from prison after 19 years for a rape that he didn't commit when I saw an organization that helped with his plight. I went to their site and found that you can search for others that they have helped exonerate and lo and behold, found a number of men that had death sentences.

I figured that I would find out if there are people amongst us that really don't care about innocent people possibly being murdered by the state in the names of protecting the rest of us by from the evil ones in society.

I know that my above statements are left leaning because I openly do not support the death penalty. I don't view capitol punishment as a black/white issue, just as I don't believe abortion is a black/white issue. Exceptions have to be made in each case.

That is why there is a middle answer which best fits my belief that sometimes, people like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and others like them are not rehabilitable.


Edit:I guess the site that prompted this could use a plug:

The Innocence Project

 

[zendari]

Absolutely, with due process of law.

 

[Genx87]

I dont particularily dislike the practice, but the method of getting to it is not reliable enough for me.

Thus I voted only if the guy admits it. Somebody like BTK I dont have a problem putting into the chair. But our system it not perfect enough for me to support the death penalty as a whole.

 

[broon]

I'm not a fan of it. Seems like life without parole would be a worse punishment. Death is all about revenge and revenge gets us nowhere.

I tend to have conservative views about things.

 

[RichardE]

Im for it, think it should encompass more things besides murder, including rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, DUI to name a few.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Im for it, think it should encompass more things besides murder, including rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, DUI to name a few.

So crimes that concern neither extreme personal violations or death of another human should constitute the loss of life on the offenders part?

I would see the merit with sexual abuse crimes, but the others don't seem to have validity based on the nature of the crimes.

 

[broon]

I'm leaning towards the death penalty = murder. I'm definately not for RichardE's school of thought.

 

[azazyel]

Not really for or against. I would like it if the family of the victim were the only ones that could ask for the death penalty and were made to carry it out. If they turned out to be innocent then the bloods on their hands not our governments.

 

[dullard]

I'm for the death penalty in certain cases. My personal criteria would be:
1) Must willingly cause the death of a person in more than one incident. Note: the separate incidents could be spaced just minutes/seconds apart.
2) Must unequivocally be the person who did the crime in at least one of the murders. For example, you are caught in the act with weapon in hand.

I believe in the death penalty in part since I've had two grandparents murdered, all evidence pointed towards a man who was in jail in another state for murder. He killed himself in jail before any questions could be asked about my grandparents.

The death penalty is about revenge. And revenge is great for some people. I don't buy that "I'm too moral or ethical for revenge crap". And that "life without parole is worse" crap is also nonsense. Why do most murderers fight the death penalty if life without parole is worse? And what do you do to someone on life without parole that later kills a prison guard? Pat him on the back and say "please don't do it again?". No. You put that multiple murder to death. And I say give him at most one hour to live. If my two criteria above were followed, there would be no reason for this costly 20 year appeal saga that we have now.

My politics really don't matter on this issue. But to answer your question, I'm very slightly left of center. I vote mostly democrat, but I have voted republican in the past if the republican was the better option.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: RichardE
Im for it, think it should encompass more things besides murder, including rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, DUI to name a few.

So crimes that concern neither extreme personal violations or death of another human should constitute the loss of life on the offenders part?

I would see the merit with sexual abuse crimes, but the others don't seem to have validity based on the nature of the crimes.

What are people such as that going to really contribute to society? You do not think being muged with a deadly weapon (just under attempted murder) or having a gun pointed in your face as you are robed would not be personal violations? I cannot really see what these people would add to society and honestly think that society would be better off without them

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: RichardE
Im for it, think it should encompass more things besides murder, including rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, DUI to name a few.

So crimes that concern neither extreme personal violations or death of another human should constitute the loss of life on the offenders part?

I would see the merit with sexual abuse crimes, but the others don't seem to have validity based on the nature of the crimes.

What are people such as that going to really contribute to society? You do not think being muged with a deadly weapon (just under attempted murder) or having a gun pointed in your face as you are robed would not be personal violations? I cannot really see what these people would add to society and honestly think that society would be better off without them

Hmm... So people on life support aren't going to contribute either. They should die? Just because someone makes a bad decision today doesn't mean they won't change.

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm only for the death penalty if the prisoner asks for it, otherwise no. I think that people should have the option to end their life vs. living the rest of their lives in a prison.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I'm only for the death penalty if the prisoner asks for it, otherwise no. I think that people should have the option to end their life vs. living the rest of their lives in a prison.

So you like the idea of throwing the rabbit into the briar patch?

 

[sandorski]

There's no reason for a modern society to have a Death Penalty.

 

[Zebo]

Only if the victim gets to kill em. State should'nt teach not to kill by killing - besides plenty of innocents been executed. If the victim was around he/she would be damn sure it was them before doing it.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Absolutely. If there are witnesses who also participated in the act, DNA, video, confession or some other unquestionable proof then I have no problem with it. Cases like Scott Peterson are questionable. Don't get me wrong, I won't shed a tear when they finally flush this POS. But there was no smoking gun in that case. There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but no smoking gun.

I'm also in favor of extending the option to sentence death in other crimes... Specifically violent sexual crimes against children and rape with special circumstances.

If you think about it, we're much more civilized about things today. If we applied the same standards for a death sentence today that we had 120 years ago you could die for stealing a car.

 

[Zebo]

Cases like Scott Peterson are questionable

Questionable? as in 100% circumstancial? OJ had more evidence against him in the first half hour of trial. Juries are finicky things any lawyer will tell you so. That's the main problem I have with system - broken. Fails to convict guilty - easily convicts poor with priors. They are presumerd gulity.

I'm also in favor of extending the option to sentence death in other crimes... Specifically violent sexual crimes against children and rape with special circumstances.

That's just dumb - so instead of a raped child you have a dead child since the criminal has nothing to lose by not leaving any witnesses.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Cases like Scott Peterson are questionable

Questionable? as in 100% circumstancial? OJ had more evidence against him in the first half hour of trial. Juries are finicky things any lawyer will tell you so. That's the main problem I have with system - broken. Fails to convict guilty - easily convicts poor with priors. They are presumerd gulity.

I'm also in favor of extending the option to sentence death in other crimes... Specifically violent sexual crimes against children and rape with special circumstances.

That's just dumb - so instead of a raped child you have a dead child since the criminal has nothing to lose by not leaving any witnesses.

Why not just use my whole quote? That way you wouldn't have to retype what I already said.

Yeah, I'm not 100% comfortable with giving the DP to Scott Peterson. (errr... mind out of the gutter people...) Like I said... no smiking gun, no DNA, no witnesses... just lots and lots and lots of circumstantial evidence.




As to part 2: So you are taking the position that the DP is not only NOT a deterrant but is now a contributing factor to murder?

 

[Zebo]

I've never believed DP was a deterrant. Life in prison is far worse than any DP. What I'm saying is to minimize the chances of getting caught for a new DP offense like Rape - the offenders would elimiate the witness since dead men tell no tales at the jury box. (or very little) It's the same penalty so why not minimize the risk of metting such a penalty.

 

[Todd33]

I would guess that most rapist are not murders and it has nothing to do with witnesses, they just don't have it in them.

In principle I'm for the death penalty, but it used in such a biased and racist manner I'm against it. Until is can be used with 100% assurance of guilt and across social economic lines fairly it is just a tool of oppression.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: RichardE
Im for it, think it should encompass more things besides murder, including rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, DUI to name a few.

So crimes that concern neither extreme personal violations or death of another human should constitute the loss of life on the offenders part?

I would see the merit with sexual abuse crimes, but the others don't seem to have validity based on the nature of the crimes.

What are people such as that going to really contribute to society? You do not think being muged with a deadly weapon (just under attempted murder) or having a gun pointed in your face as you are robed would not be personal violations? I cannot really see what these people would add to society and honestly think that society would be better off without them

That's because some criminals can actually be reformed, and be turned into a productive citizen. I'm not advocating people to commit crimes, but lesser crimes *cough DUI cough* does not make their daily contributions to society any less valid if they do something stupid one day.

Try this, Little Johnny moves to a new school. Johnny wants to make some new friends, and ends up hanging out with a new crowd. It just so happens two of these people steal car radios for fun. The two kids pressure Johnny to help them steal some radios at night. One of the kids gives Johnny a gun to pull on anyone who tries to stop them from boosting a car one night. The owner comes out to stop the kids, and Johnny pulls the weapon on him. The owner of the car recognizes Johnny and calls the cops. Johnny is then picked up, (and in your world...) then he is executed.

Was Johnny a dumbass? Yes.
Could Johnny have grown a pair? Yes.
Does Johnny deserve to die for a momentary lapse in judgement? No.

Executions should be reserved soley for those tried by their peers, and judged to be an absolute danger to society with no chance of ever coming in contact with the general public. Prisons are a punishment, yet they are also designed to deter and rehabilitate criminals. By your example, anyone in prison should be executed due to the fact they are just a drain on society. I know we can't all be perfect little angels like you, but sometimes people make mistakes.

You might think about what you could do for them, to become a useful citizen once again.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I would guess that most rapist are not murders and it has nothing to do with witnesses, they just don't have it in them.

In principle I'm for the death penalty, but it used in such a biased and racist manner I'm against it. Until is can be used with 100% assurance of guilt and across social economic lines fairly it is just a tool of oppression.

The kind of sicko's we are talkling about executing do, easy. Were not talking date rapists here.

 

[nageov3t]

No unequivocally.

I don't trust any state with the power of murder in cold blood.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
Absolutely, with due process of law.

Naturally, you have confidence that "due process" as applied to capital cases really means consistently high-quality defenses and consistently high-quality prosecutions, this in an environment where almost all states effectively pay public defenders in capital cases less than the minimum wage.

Naturally, the murderers envisioned by most death-penalty advocates are those straight out of Hollywood: A 99.999th percentile, bloodthirsty, non-human villain with no redeeming qualities; the gratuitious and cruel murder of multiple innocents; and slam-dunk, gilt-edged evidence. I'm sure this is the criminal YOU imagine when you say you're for the death penalty. It must be wonderful that there's so little ambiguity in the world.

My own view is that if every person on trial for his or her life were guaranteed a million-dollar defense, I'd still be opposed to the death penalty (on moral grounds), but at least I'd have confidence that guilty verdicts actually meant something. Is a human life worth any less?

As it stands, however, our criminal justice system is far too unreliable to impose a penalty that can't be undone. Why isn't life without parole sufficient? Is the taste of blood that heady?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: RichardE
Im for it, think it should encompass more things besides murder, including rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, DUI to name a few.

So crimes that concern neither extreme personal violations or death of another human should constitute the loss of life on the offenders part?

I would see the merit with sexual abuse crimes, but the others don't seem to have validity based on the nature of the crimes.

What are people such as that going to really contribute to society? You do not think being muged with a deadly weapon (just under attempted murder) or having a gun pointed in your face as you are robed would not be personal violations? I cannot really see what these people would add to society and honestly think that society would be better off without them

That's because some criminals can actually be reformed, and be turned into a productive citizen. I'm not advocating people to commit crimes, but lesser crimes *cough DUI cough* does not make their daily contributions to society any less valid if they do something stupid one day.

Try this, Little Johnny moves to a new school. Johnny wants to make some new friends, and ends up hanging out with a new crowd. It just so happens two of these people steal car radios for fun. The two kids pressure Johnny to help them steal some radios at night. One of the kids gives Johnny a gun to pull on anyone who tries to stop them from boosting a car one night. The owner comes out to stop the kids, and Johnny pulls the weapon on him. The owner of the car recognizes Johnny and calls the cops. Johnny is then picked up, (and in your world...) then he is executed.

Was Johnny a dumbass? Yes.
Could Johnny have grown a pair? Yes.
Does Johnny deserve to die for a momentary lapse in judgement? No.

Executions should be reserved soley for those tried by their peers, and judged to be an absolute danger to society with no chance of ever coming in contact with the general public. Prisons are a punishment, yet they are also designed to deter and rehabilitate criminals. By your example, anyone in prison should be executed due to the fact they are just a drain on society. I know we can't all be perfect little angels like you, but sometimes people make mistakes.

You might think about what you could do for them, to become a useful citizen once again.

What about lil johnny the gangbanger who has dedicated his life to crime and making the dollar and represnting what he sees as a "gangsta".

Of course there will be exceptions, and these exceptions will be taken into account by the jury, I really don't see a jury convivting your lil Johnny to death, whereas the gangbanger who might have beat the crap out of the storeclerk before robbing him might get the chair.