Death Penalty Poll

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 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?

I guess the taste for blood is.

There are screwups. I don't know why they would bother you more than the typical abortion does.

 

[ntdz]

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.

DUI??? Armed Robbery??? Are you insane?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ntdz

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.

DUI??? Armed Robbery??? Are you insane?

Watch how many DUI's we get or how many stored get held up when we start excuting the first 100 or so offenders.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ntdz

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.

DUI??? Armed Robbery??? Are you insane?

Watch how many DUI's we get or how many stored get held up when we start excuting the first 100 or so offenders.

Punishment isn't a strong deterrent. Most of those are impulse crimes where people don't think about the consequences.

As to the OP:

Left, against.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ntdz

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.

DUI??? Armed Robbery??? Are you insane?

Watch how many DUI's we get or how many stored get held up when we start excuting the first 100 or so offenders.

Punishment isn't a strong deterrent. Most of those are impulse crimes where people don't think about the consequences.

As to the OP:

Left, against.

Armed robery and DUI are impulse?


"Oooo look a store, lets go rob it and beat the crap out of the owner"

 

[judasmachine]

I wouldn't say unequivocally, but I am against it. It'd be a rare instance, but I'm sure I could see a situation where I would support the execution of a prisoner.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Punishment isn't a strong deterrent. Most of those are impulse crimes where people don't think about the consequences.

Armed robery and DUI are impulse?

"Oooo look a store, lets go rob it and beat the crap out of the owner"

Maybe not you, but there are certainly people out there that think like that.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrongI 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 can't vote for any of the options. I am not gung-ho for the death penalty nor am I against it. It is just and it is not murder; but in American society I do not think it does significantly more good than harm. In other societies and in history the situation would be different. But I can't vote for your "moderate" option because it is ridiculous: it would kill only the very few ones who are honest, perhaps only the ones who are contrite.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Punishment isn't a strong deterrent. Most of those are impulse crimes where people don't think about the consequences.

Armed robery and DUI are impulse?

"Oooo look a store, lets go rob it and beat the crap out of the owner"

Maybe not you, but there are certainly people out there that think like that.

Than it be best if they were gone anyway would it not?

 

[wirelessenabled]

If you are not against the death penalty on moral grounds then you certainly should be against it on fiscal ones.

It costs many times more money to execute somebody than to imprison them for life. Even so hundreds of errors in conviction have been made over the last couple of decades.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ntdz

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.

DUI??? Armed Robbery??? Are you insane?

Watch how many DUI's we get or how many stored get held up when we start excuting the first 100 or so offenders.

I'm too lazy to look up a study at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that it's been shown that the death penalty provides little-to-no deterrence.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, for muder, rape, overly dangerous assault (a bar fight isn't death penalty material, but shooting someone is), arson on a person's living quarters, and armed robbery. Libertarian.

 

[biostud]

nope, lifetime will do fine.

 

[Martin]

anybody that supports the death penalty also supports the murder of innocent poeple. The system isn't perfect and innocent people DO get convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

 

[shoegazer]

i agree with what martin says above. executions don't protect the american public, so why risk the life of innocent people and carry on with capital punishment?

i once met a man who was on death row for 22 years. he was exonerated based on DNA evidence. i can't imagine waiting to die 22 years for a crime i didn't commit. noone should have to go through that and the only way to prevent it is to abolish the death penalty.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
If you are not against the death penalty on moral grounds then you certainly should be against it on fiscal ones.

It costs many times more money to execute somebody than to imprison them for life. Even so hundreds of errors in conviction have been made over the last couple of decades.

I agree, but that should also be a clue to us that there are some serious problems that need to be fixed. The simple logic that it cost more money to kill someone than to feed, cloth, AND house them till they die is just ridiculous. I understand the reasoning behind it with appeals and the such, but still.

Just as a side, what are the ground for filing an appeal? Do you have to have some form of actual evidence that would prove your innocence, or can you simply appeal because you didn't like the outcome?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Martin
anybody that supports the death penalty also supports the murder of innocent poeple. The system isn't perfect and innocent people DO get convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

If you support railroads do you also support the murder of innocent people in crashes? One should use the word murder more accurately.

 

[Tom]

I guess I don't see much good comes out of the death penalty, and a lot of bad can and probably does. So on balance I'm against it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
If you are not against the death penalty on moral grounds then you certainly should be against it on fiscal ones.

It costs many times more money to execute somebody than to imprison them for life. Even so hundreds of errors in conviction have been made over the last couple of decades.

I agree, but that should also be a clue to us that there are some serious problems that need to be fixed. The simple logic that it cost more money to kill someone than to feed, cloth, AND house them till they die is just ridiculous. I understand the reasoning behind it with appeals and the such, but still.

Just as a side, what are the ground for filing an appeal? Do you have to have some form of actual evidence that would prove your innocence, or can you simply appeal because you didn't like the outcome?

With DNA evidence now people should be execute once they are convicted. Court --> execution room.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
If you are not against the death penalty on moral grounds then you certainly should be against it on fiscal ones.

It costs many times more money to execute somebody than to imprison them for life. Even so hundreds of errors in conviction have been made over the last couple of decades.

I agree, but that should also be a clue to us that there are some serious problems that need to be fixed. The simple logic that it cost more money to kill someone than to feed, cloth, AND house them till they die is just ridiculous. I understand the reasoning behind it with appeals and the such, but still.

Just as a side, what are the ground for filing an appeal? Do you have to have some form of actual evidence that would prove your innocence, or can you simply appeal because you didn't like the outcome?

With DNA evidence now people should be execute once they are convicted. Court --> execution room.

Just because their DNA is at the scene does not make them guilty. Take rape for instance. Can you prove with DNA that it was rape? No, all you can prove is that intercourse happened between the two people. Plus, how do you know that the person who did the DNA testing isn't being paid off?

The fact is, people lie, and no amount of DNA or eyewitnesses are ever going to prove with 100% certainty that someone is guilty. The only real proof is if they admit to it, and even then they could be lying. Trust me, there are crimes out there that people commit that I think are justifiable by some serious punishments. But until we are capable of proving with 100% certainty that someone is guilty, we can not justifiable inflict 100% punishment.

Just my opinion though.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 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?

I guess the taste for blood is.

There are screwups. I don't know why they would bother you more than the typical abortion does.

You didn't answer the question.

Given that the system is inherently unreliable, why do you insist on death rather than life without parole? Why do you so blithely accept "screw-ups" that can't be undone, when life without parole will serve the same societal purpose and CAN be undone if a screw-up comes to light?

 

[imported_Condor]

Nothing wrong with the death penalty. Lots of problems with lawyers, judges, and AG's. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would prevent this. Circumstantial evidence that was made up just before the court date produces this. The produce a guilty verdict instead of punish the guilty.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Condor
Nothing wrong with the death penalty. Lots of problems with lawyers, judges, and AG's. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would prevent this. Circumstantial evidence that was made up just before the court date produces this. The produce a guilty verdict instead of punish the guilty.

Huh? If there are "lots of problems with lawyers, judges, and AGs", then ipso facto, there is a LOT wrong with any death penalty that is the product of the actions of those problematic lawyers, judges, and AGs (and, you forgot to mention, police departments).

You argument is totally circular. You state, "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would prevent this,", yet it's the completely flawed system - flawed by virtue of those "problems" - that's determining proof beyond reasonable doubt. How do you magicallly get a reliable determination of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" from an unreliable system? It's like saying that it's not a problem to use an unreliable repair shop for your car if your car is reliable.

 

[konakona]

I am against the death penalty, but there are moments where I am in doubt.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess the taste for blood is.

There are screwups. I don't know why they would bother you more than the typical abortion does.

You didn't answer the question.

Given that the system is inherently unreliable, why do you insist on death rather than life without parole? Why do you so blithely accept "screw-ups" that can't be undone, when life without parole will serve the same societal purpose and CAN be undone if a screw-up comes to light?

Because, if I knew the victim, I would want the criminal dead. Life is not punishment enough.