General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI think there are acts that PERMANENTLY disqualify a person from participation in human society.
That said, I'm saddened by the fact that in the last two days there have been hundreds of posts decrying the execution of Dennis McGuire, and how badly the state of Ohio botched it, and the total absence in those threads of the horror he inflicted on Joy Stewart.
I believe there are instances where the death penalty is warranted. So does the Democratic Party, which I am legally bound to due to my signature on a piece of paper I signed called the California Voter Registration Form.
I would quote the 2012 Democratic Party Platform here: "We believe that the death penalty must not be arbitrary. DNA testing should be used in all appropriate circumstances, defendants should have effective assistance of counsel, and the administration of justice should be fair and impartial." (Poor Dennis' semen was found in Joy Stewart's rectum...)
In the absence of language that says the Democratic Party opposes the Death Penalty under all circumstances, I'm inclined to believe my party believes there are circumstances under which the Death Penalty is warranted.
I defy any fellow Democrat to prove to me wrong on that point.
Dennis McGuire sodomized Joy Stewart on the day he met her. He sodomized her because she refused to have "normal" sex with him. I had a post hidden last night for describing his act in more streetwise terms. He sodomized her because he thought "normal" rape would be too difficult due to the fact she was 30 weeks ("too"
pregnant. She was little more than half his size, so he sodomized her after she refused him "normal" sex. THAT was after she refused him ORAL sex.
So, after poor Dennis sodomizes her, what does he do? He thinks about it a moment, then realizes his mistake... sodomizing a living person who could send him to prison. What's next? Yeah, you guessed it. Kiiiiiillll herrrrrr! Dufus Dennis tries to stab her. His knife hits her in the collarbone. What does he do next? He slashes her throat from ear to ear with a 4 1/2" deep gash that completely severs BOTH her carotid artery AND her jugular vein. Way to go Dennis!
So now she's dead... Dead people tell no tales, right? Dennis is off scot free. That is, until her dead, sodomized body is found. What does poor Dennis do when it's found? He fingers his BROTHER IN LAW. Nice Guy, right? He'd sooner see SOMEONE ELSE die for the crime HE committed than do the stand up thing and admit his wrong.
Joy Stewart was 30 weeks pregnant. Argue all day about whether or not Poor Dennis was guilty of TWO MURDERS because she was carrying a FETUS and not a BABY. Joy was preparing her house for the arrival of a ... wait for it ... um ... fuck off. Dennis murdered TWO PEOPLE based on Joy's belief that what was in HER womb was A BABY. What was in HER WOMB was HER DEFINITION, not YOURS.
I have yet to see ANYWHERE any mention of the fact that her HUSBAND, Kenny Stewart was so grief-stricken over the loss of his Wife and Unborn Baby that he committed suicide before the trial even began. Dennis McGuire was responsible for the deaths of THREE PEOPLE, and destroyed the lives of countless others. All for a nut (orgasm to you and me). Excuse me for not feeling sorry for him.
Are you, my friends, Democrats? If you are... you belong to a party whose platform DOES NOT explicitly oppose the death penalty. I wholeheartedly agree with you!
As for me, I propose the Death Penalty as such: A cell containing numerous ways of taking the convicted murder's own life. -- when you're tired of being there, sorry for what you did, or going out of your mind... of course rigged so that you COULD NOT use any of those weapons on your caretakers.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)There are certainly times that the death penalty is necessary and appropriate. This is one of those times. I think we should offer death penalty inmates the following execution choices:
1. Whichever method they used to kill their victim
2. Firing squad
3. Hanging
4. Electric chair
5. Guillotine
6. Lethal injection
7. Gas chamber
And we shouldn't put up with lengthy death row stays, either. But that's another thread.
K&R
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Many, many "guilty" people have later been proven innocent (through DNA, etc.). How would you feel if one of your close family members was falsely accused and put on death row?
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)of hard labor until death by natural causes.
It gives the guilty a productive but long and miserable death, and the falsely accused a chance to be proven innocent and some hearty exercise.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)In this case, I think we can all agree... Poor poor Dennis was guilty as fuck.
He sodomized Joy Stewart, then slit her throat so deeply he cut BOTH her carotid artery AND jugular vein.
He was responsible for the death of her unborn child.
His act was directly responsible for the suicide of Joy's Husband.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)In this case the perpetrator is clearly guilty and has been proven so by indisputable evidence. I suggest not that we eliminate the death penalty, but that we refine the system for it's use. The death penalty should be unavailable except in cases where evidence of guilt is overwhelming, such as cases with DNA or video evidence, or a corroborated confession.
But by raising the standard to use the DP, we should also hasten the process. Someone convicted and sentenced to death should be executed swiftly.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The Party platform is wrong. Death penalty is never acceptable under any circumstance.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)the time and manner of death...
You get a cell with a box... in the box is your means of checking out. Use it when you're ready.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I have no problem with death penalty for heinous crimes.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)The death penalty will inevitably lead to the killing of innocent people. False convictions happen: fact.
Nothing more to it.
You're free to ignore it if you like.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Makes one wonder about that whole 'I support the Pope' routine. Got to say, opposition to the death penalty is one of the things I highly respect about the current RCC. In the past they executed thousands, up though the 1800s. But not anymore.
So what I see here is that when it is about the death penalty, I stand with Francis while you oppose us, but when it is about choice or equality for LGBT people, you suddenly find yourself supporting Francis while he and I part ways.
Very interesting stuff.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I will never agree for the need for the death penalty. State-sanctioned vengeance is wrong.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Doesn't make anyone's opinion less, its just different views about things
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)I think the DP is acceptable if there is ZERO doubt about the killer and he CHOOSES the DP over life without parole
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)after this horrible post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024344500#post28
please stop
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)decide the time of his own demise.
I can understand that.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)The jury system worked that time.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Two of the jurors used the EXACT SAME responses, right down to the spelling, wording, and hyphens. Strange? Maybe. Coincidental? Certainly. Coordinated? You decide.
I filed it under "things that make you go hmmmm..."
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)
The content of that post was the reason it was hidden.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The idea of locking the convicted killer up with a box containing a pill allowing him to decide the time of his own demise (or not)?
The description of what he did to Joy Stewart before he cut her throat so deeply in one swipe he completely severed BOTH her carotid artery AND her jugular vein?
The fact I stated I felt no sympathy for him whatsoever?
That I mentioned he told his family he'd see them in Heaven?
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Even an innocent person would swallow that pill, after years of torture.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Quite frankly one of the most disturbing posts I've ever seen on this site.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts)
Haven't been here long, have ya?
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)you haven't been here long I guess
RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)If you get a disgusting post removed just wait and re post the same garbage later.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)that no person is ever falsely convicted and sentenced to the death penalty?
And, an even bigger question to me, how do you keep the prosecution from using the fear of the death penalty to get innocent defendants to agree to a plea bargain?
The overwhelming number of cases (more than 95%) get settled without a trial. This isn't because our police and prosecutors are so brilliant in doing their jobs. It's because they use the FEAR to get their targets -- even innocent people -- to accept a plea bargain.
How many people, faced with all the resources of a state prosecuting them for a capital crime, would take a chance on the death penalty? Would be able to afford the lawyers and experts capable of going up against the state and its huge resources? And even if they could, wouldn't be scared shitless that they could be convicted anyway -- AND SENTENCED TO DEATH. So every year, innocent people accept plea bargains because the alternative is worse.
I personally know someone this happened to. As in many of these cases, there was an accidental death with no witnesses, no DNA, etc., but a grandstanding prosecutor who stood to gain politically. The husband was accused, though there was no motive, no history of violence, and no real evidence. Even the wife's parents, and all the wife's close friends, joined the long list of witnesses who supported the husband.
For months, the prosecution tried to make the man cop a plea, hanging the threat of the death penalty over his head, but he wouldn't relent. Fortunately, he owned a business and had assets that he could sell so he could afford the millions he needed to pay for his defense.
After two hung juries (the first 11 to 1 for not guilty, but they did it again anyway), the prosecution finally acknowledged that they didn't have the evidence to prove the case!
But what if this man lacked the assets to hire good attorneys and pay for experts to counter the state's experts? He would have had to join all the defendants every year who give up and plead guilty because the possibility of the death penalty was too awful to contemplate. (Or the others who plead guilty for a sentence of 10 years instead of life.)
You tell me: in states where there is a death penalty, how can we prevent prosecutors from using this threat to coerce innocent -- but frightened -- people into signing plea agreements?
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)to force plea agreements on defendants, whether they are guilty or innocent.
Few people are brave enough to go through a trial, if the possibility of the death penalty is on the table. And if they don't have millions for a defense, what chance of winning do they reasonably have?
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)If you can't guarantee absolute positive guilt, then you shouldn't be executing people.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Revenge would be nice, but revenge isn't justice. That's why we have a judicial system.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)
flvegan
(64,407 posts)Punishment is not delivered by the death penalty. That's a release, an easy way out...revenge.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
JI7
(89,247 posts)did was horrible. and there is no defense for it.
but we don't make laws based on the standards of criminals like him.
i personally don't feel bad about what was done to him because of what he did. but that does not mean it was ok and that we should support that as a society.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)And I struggle with this. But I have come to the decision that I cannot support the death penalty. Not because of any sympathy for monsters like this. What happened to Joy Stewart was horrific, and my heart breaks what she and her loved ones suffered. Nothing can make it right. This killer should have been removed from society for the rest of his life.
That said, when the state takes a life, they do it in all of our names. I oppose the death penalty, torture, cruel and unusual punishment, not for the sake of the murderer/terrorist/criminal, but because of what I think it does to all of us when we accept these acts. I think it diminishes all of us.
I know good people can disagree on these very difficult issues. This is my take, for whatever it's worth.
CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)Very well said.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)You can be a Democrat without agreeing with every single line in the platform.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Also, signing a voter registration card is not a loyalty oath.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Oh wait. Legalizing drugs is working out really well for them. Huh.
And not executing prisoners hasn't destroyed multiple western societies after all. Huh.
Well shit.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I don't know why anyone would commit such heinous acts - but I do know that every murderer, every rapist, every pedophile, every serial killer - every committer of every heinous acts was once a newborn baby, was once a toddler was once a 10 year-old-child, a pre-adolescent, a teenager. Something went terribly wrong. Why does the spontaneous emotional reaction to such terrible things have to be hate, revenge and bloodlust? Shouldn't the appropriate spontaneous emotional reaction be sadness?
pacalo
(24,721 posts)I rely on my own judgment. I personally feel that the death penalty by the state is barbaric; murder is murder, no matter who is doing it. As far as DNA testing, our party's "DNA testing should be used in all appropriate circumstances" platform is unfortunately not the law. John Grisham's non-fiction book, The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town, sold me on how corruption happens in the system & how difficult the PTB can make it for an innocent, indigent prisoner on death row to get a DNA test.
Life imprisonment at hard labor with no chance for parole seems an adequate punishment to me -- it would be a hell-on-earth existence -- & it should be a federal law that DNA testing be mandatory for murder convictions.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Even those who do not enjoy Grisham's fiction should read it.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)You sound as bloodthirsty as the man you would kill. That saddens me.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Nor to ask the state to do it on my behalf.
Sorry. I won't follow you down that road. I will not kill for revenge. Because let's face it, no justice was served by that execution. It was revenge. I can kill in self-defense or defense of others, but not for 'justice' (revenge).
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
You kill them, you just might murder an innocent person. Not in my name. No thank you. I would extend Blackstone's Formula to 1000:1, I don't give a shit. You kill someone, you cannot restore them. And you cannot possibly pretend our justice system is engineered to never wrongly convict people.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But we are better than him. Life without parole achieves the goal of removing him from society without us becoming what he is.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No, seriously, what the fuck? Do you actually understand what party registration on your voter card means? is this what you really think it is? Holy fuckballs that's baffling and frightening.
Now here's the fucking truth for you.
KILLING SOMEONE DOES NOT BRING OTHER PEOPLE BACK TO LIFE. I don't give a flying fuck what one political party or the other says, nor do I GIVE a rolling SHIT about the WORDS you CAPITALIZE in order to STRESS the emotional IMPACT you want to deliver WITH them. This basic fact is unavoidable. Killing a person for killing another person doesn't fucking solve anything.
It's not justice. It's revenge, and your entire post makes it pretty fucking clear that you are unable to tell the difference. What's more it displays a weird and disturbing reasoning that you must hold this position because of a partisan affiliation. Jesus fucking christ that's frightening.
colorado_ufo
(5,733 posts)Would you like to share a cell with him? I mean, if you yourself are incarcerated for say, robbing a liquor store in a weak and ill-thought moment of decision, would you like to be this guy's cellmate? If you said or did something that he took the wrong way, would you ever sleep at night? If you were a guard at the prison, and had to move this loser from his cell to the exercise yard or the clinic or whatever, would you not be taking a huge risk to your safety?
We can make academic and philosophic decisions regarding such matters as the death penalty, and no sane person would want an innocent person to suffer an end to his or her life. But if there is proof beyond any shadow of doubt, and the perpetrator in question is of such a savage and unrepentent nature that he or she will pose a continued threat to all other humans in contact with him or her for years to come, then the death penalty should be an option that remains for very select circumstances.
We don't remove a threat to society by placing the offender behind bars; we simply move the offender from one society to another, so that we can feel safe. Yet there are human beings in that other society, many of whom can be rehabilitated and join the outside world, but not if a fellow inmate decides to slit their throat, knowing that he or she is immune to further punishment.
We can't just send someone to prison and think, "Well, that's THAT!" Life goes on, not just for us, not just for the offender, but for all those in contact with that offender for the rest of his or her life. This is a reality that should not be ignored.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,307 posts)so you wouldn't expect a prisoner who is vulnerable to him to share a cell with him. If he remains violent enough to be a threat to other prisoners you put him in solitary. And the guards are not taking a huge risk in dealing with him - he is unarmed, they are equipped to deal with prisoners, have numbers where appropriate, and so on.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and no death penalty. I guess what you are saying is that we are too stupid to do this. You could be right.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There are times when I have to grit my teeth to uphold a POV that I (pretty much--like I said, I'm not perfect in this regard) am anti-DP.
I will say that I saw that someone hid your post in that "other" thread, and I thought that wasn't appropriate. You simply stated your blunt view of the situation, and you didn't insult any DUers. The topic wasn't basket weaving, it was the execution of that guy. I did think they botched it, though. As I said elsewhere, he'd have been better off being beheaded.
BlueEye
(449 posts)I agree it is a regressive policy. I agree it has been unjustly skewed against minorities. But every once and a while, I read about crimes so disgusting and heinous, like what this bastard did to that poor woman... I fail to see how justice was not served in some way or another here. Did the State killing him totally negate any justice from occurring? I don't see that.
Furthermore, many (even most) of the Democrats in my state, Ohio, still support the death penalty, weakly to even strongly. Our gubernatorial candidate, Ed Fitzgerald, supports it. It's just a regional thing I suppose. It has lots of populist support.
If it was abolished tomorrow, I'd be just as content. But I have zero problem with supporting Democrats who still agree with Capital Punishment. It's just not a major issue for me.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)government to abolish the death penalty and they did it in 1846.
cali
(114,904 posts)with my opposition to the death penalty.
I oppose it no matter what because I don't believe in investing the state with that power, because there is no doubt that people are sent to their deaths who did NOT commit the crime they've been convicted of.
It goes without saying that I find Dennis McGuire's crime heinous.
The DP, as YOU demonstrate, barbaric as it is, has people like you- good people- supporting it.
That horrifies me.
cali
(114,904 posts)I can't stay away from a thread advocating the dp
I take it you think that the nations of Europe are corrupt, murderer loving entities.
Do you grasp that most countries in the world have abolished the DP?
Advocating it is sick shit.
And that the dem party is so craven on the issue is NOTHING to brag about.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Normally I am opposed to the death penalty due to financial reasons and the fact that death row inmates gain noteriety and a cult like following while LWOP inmates become forgotten to the outside world with time and die in obscurity.. A fitting punishment.
However in this case in think his punishment was just, and in a way karmatic. No tears from me.
Sad thing is for a couple of bills he could have gotten what he wanted on the street from a sex worker without destroying lives and killing 3 people.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Do you have thoughts of your own on the subject? Your registration doesn't mean you signed away the right to your own opinions.
I'm not even saying I don't see the point you are making in the OP, but your deference to authority strikes me as out of place in this discussion.
The vibe I get from your post is "anyone who disagrees isn't a Democrat".
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)You can pile up the fallacious arguments until they block the sun. You can appeal to irrational emotionalism until you've whipped up 99% approval ratings. You can recount the horrors that the victims suffered until everyone listening becomes violently ill.
You're still wrong. Always and forever.
JI7
(89,247 posts)the only legal issues that would matter is if there is a primary and only people registered to that party can vote.
otherwise it doesn't have to mean anything.you can vote for all republicans if you want, you can send money to all republicans. you never have to vote for any democrat.
politicman
(710 posts)I for the life of me cannot work out why there are people that support the death penalty.
Sure I have heard of horrific cases where I instinctively think that the convicted should be put tortured and then put to death, but that is just the anger and emotion making me think that way.
The state should be the voice of reason, it should be the entity that has laws that are not affected by rollercoaster emotions that we humans go through.
For those that advocate death as a punishment, would you also advocate torturing the convicted for the crimes he committed?
What crimes are appropriate for the death penalty in your eyes?
Would a pedophile qualify for the death penalty? If someone touches a kid without being extremely violent, are they worthy of the death penalty?
The problem is that a jury decides which crimes are worthy of the death penalty. You can have 2 juries in 2 horrific cases, yet one jury might be staffed with emotional people who react to the details of the case and grant the death penalty, while the other might be a little more emotionally composed and refuse the death penalty.
So in the end you can have 2 horrific crimes, yet only one convicted person gets death by state.
Put them in prison for life, or even in solitary confinement, that's a better punishment than giving the convicted a way out by taking his life.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)They've spent many decades writing a very long list of rationales, excuses, and mind-bendingly absurd scenarios to excuse up their blood lust, but in the end, that's all they got.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)and that is why your post was hidden, I suspect. I don't find it surprising that a post advocating torture would be hidden
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024344500#post28
cali
(114,904 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I suspect a strong level of emotionality involved. But that doesn't justify the complete and total endorsement of a horror movie like torture sequence. It was and is sick. And this OP is born of the same sort of insane rationalization.
cali
(114,904 posts)I agree about this op. what really distresses me is that I respect and like the author.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)even if it makes us feel good.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... and I would not have lost a moment's sleep pulling the switch on this maggot he is no more a human being than a hydroencephalatic dog is Fido.
And I don't give two shits about his "abused" past, millions of people are abused in every way and they do not turn into murdering scum.
My only regret is this waste of humanity got to live 25 years longer, that is the tragedy here.
cali
(114,904 posts)and yes, of course he's human. all too human. Denying that FACT, is just absurd. I understand why people do that, but it doesn't make the assertion "he/she isn't human", any truer.
Look, not a single country in Europe has the DP, yet murder rates are far higher here. Vengeance is a a very poor and intellectually feeble basis for justice.
This isn't rocket science.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)What an odd mind you have.
cali
(114,904 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)disturbing.
infoviro
(59 posts)Makes me think we might be seeing headlines in the news about this cherokeeprogressive. Such depravity.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts)Particularly against a member in good standing of over 8 years?
It is his opinion. You might not like it, but that's all it is. It always amazes me how some people are so quick to assume the entirety of someones character based on a single opinion.
"Discretion is the better part of valor"
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I do not have a strong opinion as to whether or not there are people so evil that imprisoning them for life is not an adequate punishment, and killing them is more appropriate.
I think that many of people calling the OP names for holding the latter view probably have less empathy for the victims of appalling crimes than they believe they do, and haven't really thought about how angry they *should* be at people who do things like this.
But I *do* feel very strongly indeed that executing even one innocent person is not a price worth paying to execute any number of people who could otherwise be imprisoned for life *unless* it turns out later that they'd been wrongfully convicted.
In a society without a sufficient number of reliable prisons, I'd support the death penalty as necessary, and be willing to run the risk of the occasional execution of an innocent as a price worth paying to avoid having to release people like McGuire. But while we have prisons where we can punish people in such a way that we can correct mistakes, the death penalty is unconscionable, I think.
avebury
(10,952 posts)anti death penalty is the basic fact that, if a mistake is made, there is no unringing that bell. There have been too many defendants who have ended up on death row (some even executed) who were later proven to be innocent. I do not trust the legal system to conduct proper investigations. I also consider the death penalty to be barbaric and a matter of how we conduct ourselves as a society. I don't defend the numerous bad people who actually do commit the crimes that put them on death row because they are not nice people. I just would like to have better expectations of society in general.
===========
I would recommend Mark Fuhrman's book Death and Justice. I read it because I had moved to Oklahoma and the book talks a lot about legendary DA Bob Macy and the infamous police chemist Joyce Gilchrist. What he reports on Gilchrist is unbelievable. Fuhrman's viewpoint on the death penalty changed by the time he finished researching several Oklahoma County death penalty cases.
from amazon.com:
Book Description
Publication Date: November 30, 2010
Controversy rages about capital punishment as innocent men and women are being released from death rows all over the country. Are innocent people being executed? Is capital punishment justice or is it revenge?
Into the debate steps Mark Fuhrman, America's most famous detective, and no stranger to controversy himself.
Fuhrman seeks to answer these questions by investigating the death penalty in Oklahoma, where a "hang 'em high" attitude of cowboy justice resulted in twenty–one executions in 2001, more than any other state. Most of these cases came from one jurisdiction, Oklahoma County, where legendary DA Bob Macy bragged of sending more people to death row than any other prosecutor, and police chemist Joyce Gilchrist was eventually fired for mismanaging the crime lab. Examining police records, trial transcripts, appellate decisions and conducting hundreds of interviews, Fuhrman focuses his considerable investigative skills on more than a dozen of the most controversial Oklahoma death penalty cases.
===========
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1991827,00.html
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set off a firestorm last summer when he wrote a dissent — joined by Justice Clarence Thomas — that the highest court in the land is not necessarily concerned with whether a person facing execution had actually committed the crime. The court "has never held," Justice Scalia wrote, "that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a ... court that he is 'actually innocent.'" Scalia was taking issue with the court's ruling that a lower court give Georgia death-row inmate Troy Davis a new hearing.
This idea that the Constitution allows innocent people to be put to death should be abhorrent to anyone who cares about justice. As Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz pointed out, Justice Scalia seemed to be saying that if a man was convicted of murdering his wife and then showed up in court with the wife, who was still alive, seeking a new trial, it should not matter. As long as the man's conviction was procedurally proper, Justice Scalia apparently believes, he should still be executed.
Read more: Supreme Court Tackles Death Penalty in Hank Skinner Case - TIME http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1991827,00.html#ixzz2qkXXdkp4
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)But I have decided I am against it. I agree what the guy did was brutal. But I also think innocent people can be convicted and sentenced to death. Once someone has been executed they are gone. I have no problem with him being locked up the rest of his life without the possibility of parole. He will be put in a supermax prison with very few privileges and locked down 23 hours a day. Every single day he has to wake up knowing that he will never get out. That alone should be enough.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)1). I don't want, as part of the State, to take people's lives.
2). The criminal justice system is fallible and, on occasion, innocent people will be convicted.
surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)I do not want to be one of them. I do not want the state to do horrible things in my name.
Also, registering as a member of a political party does not legally bind you to all of the positions in the party platform. This is true of office holders as well as voters.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)In practice, I often oppose the enacting of the death penalty. I think that, since we have no way of restoring someone to life, the death penalty should only be used when we have absolute proof of guilt. That's not an impossible burden anymore. I'm talking the kind of mountain of proof used to convict, say, Richard Rameirez. Then we can execute with certainty.
That said, if we are going to execute people, we have to do with due solemnity for what we're doing. It's a terrible thing to take a life and if we have to do so on occasion, it should be a terrible necessity, not a chance to celebrate. And we should do so as humanely as possible because we are better than them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I am against it in all cases. No matter what the evidence looks like, you never know, and the DP is irreversible. Lock him up for life and he's out of society.
Plus the idea that it should be a humane death is not to let him off the hook in any way - it's so we do not have spectacles of suffering. There's a reason there is no drawing and quartering now. Putting suffering into the death as a means of punishment is bad for society and has nothing to do with the murderer.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)I object to the death penalty in practice but not principle. I feel some people deserve to die but human courts are incapable of making the decision.
I don't really mind that this guy died ugly. I mind that we keep putting innocents on death row. No amount of torture can bring the victim back but we can at least prevent people like this from killing again.
Response to cherokeeprogressive (Original post)
Ilsa This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)It's cheaper to incarcerate someone for life without parole then to go thru the procedures required to execute him or her. I also believe that in the past, innocent people have been put to death and that can happen again. Then there are some who while technically deemed competent to stand trail, are so lacking in intelligence that they are borderline incompetent.
There is no doubt that Dennis committed the crime he was convicted of. He was a person of average intelligence. He was a monster. I care not that he was sentenced to death and that he gasped for 30 minutes or so before he was pronounced dead.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)I'm not hand wringing over this guy's execution.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)My first thought in those threads about the death of the guy was to find out what he had done and bring that up.
But I was afraid of having a crowd calling for my death.
But people here don't have to support the death penalty just because the Democratic Party doesn't explicitly oppose it.
There ought, however, to be more tolerance towards American citizens who have opposing viewpoints, not just on the death penalty but on all issues.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)We'll never know will we?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)NEVER NEVER NEVER
If killing is wrong - It is wrong.
A society that kills breeds killers.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)I still cannot support the death penalty. However, I'm all for people like him being dumped off on a remote island, far far away from the rest of us, never to be seen or heard from again.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,366 posts)Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)Now that I think about it, they seem to be doing ok.
markpkessinger
(8,394 posts)I am 100% opposed to capital punishment. Do I lose a great deal of sleep when a cretin like the guy in Ohio is executed? Honestly, no. But it is relatively easy, in a case such as this one where there is virtually no doubt about the guilt of the person, and his acts were so utterly horrific. There are also many executions carried out in this country in which the guilt is not so certain. An emotional argument in favor of a particular execution, based on the grief of loved ones or the horror of the specific crime, that is used extends to support for the death penalty as a general practice, but which fails to address the built-in moral problem of of the human fallibility of our system of justice that sometimes results in executions that are unjust by any standard, is a fundamentally dishonest argument. So long as our system of justice depends upon the fallible judgment of human beings -- human beings whose judgments are sometimes affected by things such as prejudice or that sometimes fall under the sway of corrupting influences -- and so long as district attorneys and judges remain political, elected positions throughout much of the country, causing some prosecutors to over-prosecute and some judges to mete out unduly harsh sentences. And there has never been a system of justice yet devised that is free of such fallibility, thus there will never be any way to ensure that capital punishment is only used in those cases where it is arguably "deserved."
You say that you haven't seen a single mention of the pain of the victim's wife in this case. But I could equally say that nowhere in your argument is there any mention of the incalculable grief suffered by the families of the wrongfully executed. Look nobody here is minimizing the grief of the victim's loved ones, or the horror of the underlying crime, in this or any other case, and I suggest it is unfair of you to suggest or imply that. But state-sanctioned killing of the person who murdered their loved one will neither mitigate their loss nor ameliorate their grief. It might satisfy other emotions -- such as anger or a desire for vengeance, but it is not the business of the state to encourage or satisfy those impulses, humanly understandable though they certainly are.
Support for or opposition to the death penalty should never be based upon the emotions attendant to a particular case, or to 'easy' cases in isolation from the cases of wrongful execution. Emotions alone are often a very poor guide to good ethics.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)grief suffered by the families of the wrongfully executed."
Exactly.
And of the grief suffered by innocent people, and their families, when the innocent person is too frightened of the possibility of the death penalty to demand a trial, and/or lacks the financial resources to fight the state.
We know someone this happened to. Thankfully, he owned a business and could sell assets to fund a defense. But what a nightmare. And the state held the death penalty over his head for six months, while he insisted on a trial. Imagine the courage for a an average, everyday, non-violent person to suddenly be thrust into that world -- and to be brave enough to take a chance on being convicted and facing the death penalty. How many innocent people plead guilty because the alternative is too awful to imagine?
markpkessinger
(8,394 posts). . . Beautifully and eloquently put!