Another Death Penalty Poll - if you could be sure of guilt or innocence would you support the DP?

[el_bryanto]

If the system worked perfectly (I know it's impossible) so that anybody found guilty was definitely guilty, would you support the death penalty?

Bryant

32 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	In that case I totally would.
	6 (19%)
	In that case, I probably would.
	2 (6%)
	In that case, I might.
	0 (0%)
	In that case, I probably still wouldn't.
	0 (0%)
	In that case, I definitely still wouldn't.
	23 (72%)
	I already support the Death Penalty
	1 (3%)
	If you posted a non-Bullshit poll I would vote in it.
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[RGinNJ]

1. Not for any reason, I find the death penalty to be barbaric.

[pipi_k]

2. I honestly

Don't know

It would probably depend on how heinous the crime was

[mokawanis]

3. Never understood what the death penalty is supposed to accomplish

If it's revenge people want, a life sentence should satisfy them. Being incarcerated for years and years is a slow death.

[oldhippie]

6. It's to remove someone from society, permanently .......

.... and not incur the expense of keeping them alive for however long they might live.

It's pretty simple, really.

[Logical]

9. LOL, you know death penatly cases cost more than lifetime....

In prison because of legal fees?

Do you research anything?

[oldhippie]

11. Yes, I know that ....

But that is a self-imposed problem that can be easily remedied.

[Logical]

12. But you fucking said "it's pretty simple really" when you were flat out.....

Lying! Get it?

Easily remedied means remove the appeal process which might lead to mistakes?

You sure you are on the right forum??

[oldhippie]

14. What is pretty simple was .....

... the reason for the death penalty, which was the question I responded to, Ace.

The appeal process doesn't have to be removed to be made less costly. Removal was your thought as to easily remedied.

Yes, I am sure. I am a Democrat. Is there some other criteria that is necessary to post here? Does one area of disagreement prohibit posting? Is there a point system of which I am unaware?

Logical?

[Major Nikon]

15. Your reason doesn't make much sense and the your remedy makes even less sense

Segregation from society need not include the termination of life. It can make sense in a society that lacks the means to permanently segregate someone from society, but we certainly don't live in one of those. As such you are still left with several ethical dilemmas that you can't resolve, or at least haven't even tried.

Your remedy simply insures that more innocent people will be put to death, as if one isn't already too many.

[oldhippie]

17. I'm sure it doesn't make sense to many ....

... who are of the opposite opinion.

Segregation from society need not include the termination of life.

No, it need not. But it can.

It can make sense in a society that lacks the means to permanently segregate someone from society, but we certainly don't live in one of those.

Actually, some of us do live in one of those societies. I live in Texas. It is not always about lacking the means to permanently segregate someone, it can be about whose means are being used.

Your remedy simply insures that more innocent people will be put to death, as if one isn't already too many.

If you will look back at my posts, you will see that I never proposed a remedy. That was Mr. Logical that did that. I merely stated that there were ways to reduce cost. I never said what they were (and don't care to.)

[Major Nikon]

22. "I'm sure it doesn't make sense to many who are of the opposite opinion. "

Reason does not require consent.

No, it need not. But it can.

Any punishment imposed by society should be ethically justifiable or else there is no system of justice based on reason. Simply stating it can doesn't justify anything.

Actually, some of us do live in one of those societies. I live in Texas.

No you don't. The death penalty is more costly than the alternative of life without the possibility of parole. This is a fact which proves that you live in a society that has the means to fund the alternative, as if more proof were needed.

It is not always about lacking the means to permanently segregate someone, it can be about whose means are being used.

Although your comment here is grammatically correct, I can derive no meaning from it.

If you will look back at my posts, you will see that I never proposed a remedy. That was Mr. Logical that did that. I merely stated that there were ways to reduce cost. I never said what they were (and don't care to.)

This is correct, but I'm not sure how it helps your argument. You certainly implied that you believe a remedy exists to make the appeals process less costly, so you either refuse to state what that is or you simply don't know yet still believe. Regardless our system of justice is imperfect and will never be perfect. As such the more the death penalty is used, the greater the chances innocent people will be put to death and the evidence this has already happened is overwhelming. So somehow we are to believe there is some mysterious way this flawed process can be made cheaper which virtually insures even more flaws, and even if the reverse were somehow true the very best you can say about it is we'd be putting lipstick on a pig.

[oldhippie]

27. I sense that we will not come to any agreement ....

... on even what the issue is. And I don't care to expend any more effort. I really don't care that much. If you will remember, I entered this thread merely to state what I thought was an answer to the question of what is the purpose of the death penalty. I gave an answer. Others read something into that. I don't really care what others think about it. I am not trying to change any minds, because I know it won't.

Being that I wasn't really trying to make an argument, you may have the last word.

[Logical]

44. The reason you stated was 100% wrong! It would save no money.....

Appeal process less costly how?

You have not thought about this for 10 minutes!

Innocent people have been released from death row! But you had no idea!

Yes, logical compared to you!

[oldhippie]

45. I think I understand where you are coming from ......

You do not support the death penalty.

Pursuing the death penalty currently costs more than incarceration for life.

Innocent people have been executed by mistake.

You have thought about this extensively.



I agree with all of the above.

Is there anything else?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. Easily remedied how?

Please proceed, Governor.

[oldhippie]

30. Legislation and court decisions, ......

.... hypothetically. Being that the whole premise of this OP is hypothetical, why not throw in some hypothetical easy remedies? Realistic? No, but that would be another OP.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. Again, I don't want to strawman you, so....

...what type of legislation and court decisions do you wish to see?

[oldhippie]

35. Well, thanks at least for that .....

.... everyone else seems to want to strawman me.

I don't wish to see any legislation or court decisions. Where did you get the idea that I did?

That's an example of one of the whacky aspects about this place. One cannot answer a question or give an opinion on any subject without someone trying to say that you are advocating for something or have an argument to make.

I am not advocating for or against the death penalty. But I understand it's purpose, something that either eludes many people, or they can't accept. So I accept it. I don't try to persuade others to do so. I'm not going to try to change any minds.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. You don't make it easy for yourself, do you?

I'm sure you do have an opinion, but for whatever reason you choose to remain clandestine about it, after throwing out bits of red meat that seems to hint at what you believe.

I can only surmise that you either:

a) wish to limit the right of a defendant's appeal in a death penalty case so as to ensure the execution takes place within a relatively brief time after imposition (say one, two years)

or

b) are okay with the fact that in its current state, the death penalty is cost-inefficient (when compared to life incarceration) and typically takes years upon years to carry out.

Is that anywhere close on where you stand? Bark once for yes, twice for no. I don't get it--are you ashamed of your own opinion?

And what exactly do you believe the purpose of the death penalty to be?

[oldhippie]

43. (sigh) If you really must know ....

And what exactly do you believe the purpose of the death penalty to be?

I thought I had been pretty clear about that, several times:

It's to remove someone from society, permanently .... and not incur the expense of keeping them alive for however long they might live.

And if I have to choose a) or b), I'll go with a.

I support the death penalty. In clear cut cases of guilt. (I'll decide what clear cut is on a case to case basis.) Some people should be removed from society and society should not have to pick up the cost burden of keeping them fed, housed, clothed, and alive as long as possible. Some people just need killing.

Appeals go on too long because lawyers want it to and someone else is picking up the tab. If there were a statutory two year limit it would get done in two years. Some would say that's not long enough. Tough.

In my perfect world, I would prefer exile to a penal island somewhere with no chance of escape. But that's not possible. So I'll go to the next best thing and remove the evil ones permanently with the least expense. Don't ask me how much a human life is worth to me, you won't like the answer.

Disagree all you want. Advocate ending the DP all you want. Tell me all the reasons why. I don't care. Call me an inhumane, immoral monster. Call me anything you want. I am not going to change my mind. I'm not even going to try to change yours.

Is that clear enough for you? Or is your insatiable curiosity still wondering?

[Bandit]

26. Spoken like a true hippie

Peace Love dove

[oldhippie]

28. "old" hippie .....

I grew up in the 60's. Forty some years with the military and observing the world changed some of my views from that time.

Some call it wisdom. Others call it something else.

Was there something untrue about my answer to the question, "... what the death penalty is supposed to accomplish ..."?

It's to remove someone from society, permanently .... and not incur the expense of keeping them alive for however long they might live.

Seems people want to read a lot more into that than what I said.

[Bandit]

29. I was not referring to anything you said as being untrue, it was the mindset i was commenting

upon. Hippies almost by definition were opposed to killing. Killing at any time for any reason but especially as a lesson from our government on how bad people should be dealt with. When you teach people to hit (spanking) or kill (death penalty) you create a very violent society. One that wants to hit and kill because that is what they have been taught.. America is most definitely a very violent nation. But not becaue of Hippies...

[oldhippie]

32. Can't argue with anything you've said ......

I will merely note that my experience with the world has shown me that there are evil people that need to be killed. Even our President agrees with that. I don't expect all to agree.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. The death penalty provides no disincentive to commit serious crime. It's useless...

It amounts to two things. It is good PR for the prosecutor's office, already chiefly populated by motherfuckers and bastards, and lets victims families fall into the deluded belief that deadly vengeance is a pathway to inner peace.

[Major Nikon]

20. It's even less than useless. It's counterproductive to society.

The death penalty would be bad enough if it were simply useless. It's far worse than that.

The extra expenses involved in putting someone to death means less resources for other things. Flaws in our justice system guarantee that eventually innocent people will be put to death. Disparate application of the death penalty among certain classes insures unethical discrimination. The emotional impact to victims drug through the process is greater than the alternative. Innocent family members of convicts lose a loved one.

[TroglodyteScholar]

5. Murder is murder...

I don't care how much paperwork comes with it.

[JJChambers]

24. The DP isn't murder

Homicide and murder are not the same thing. One is always a crime, the other may or may not be a crime, depending on circumstances.

[TroglodyteScholar]

40. Semantics are semantics

People killing people is ugly whatever you choose to call it.

If one word makes it something that you are OK with while the other doesn't, that seems inconsistent at best, dishonest at worst.

[JJChambers]

41. It's not semantics

Homicide is any killing of a person by another person; murder is specifically unlawful killing. We wouldn't say that a justified police shooting is murder, but it is homicide. We wouldn't say that soldiers killing other soldiers on the battlefields of world war 2 was murder, but it was homicide. We wouldn't say that a rape victim who defends herself by killing her attacker has committed murder, but the manner of death is still homicide.

A legal state execution is not murder.

Words have specific meaning for a reason.

[TroglodyteScholar]

48. You understand my position, I think.

Who approves of the murder is immaterial. Laws that justify a state killing its citizenry are destructive, wrong-headed, and invalid in my view.

Thought I made that pretty clear, but there you go.

[stevenleser]

7. What you ask us to exclude is such an intrinsic part of the death penalty issue.

I understand what you are trying to get at, but it seems as dubious a question as "Would be OK to prohibit abortion if a woman's choice was never at issue."

The death penalty is incompatible with any Democratic system as long as it has the potential to put an innocent person to death. And a death penalty will always have that potential.

It's really not necessary to think about the death penalty issue much more than that.

Would I support the DP outside of that? Being a flawed person, I might not object as much in certain circumstances, but I would never be in favor of the DP.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. Nope.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. Life imprisonment without parole has the same result of removing the offender from society. And it's not just "found guilty"; it's the inequality (racial and socioeconomic) of sentencing and application of the death penalty. Capital punishment and solitary confinement are both shining examples of the fundamental backwardness of the American criminal justice system.

[BlueSpot]

10. Of course not

You admit yourself that the premise is false. What's the point of even asking a question after that? I think you are maybe trying to ask if the death penalty is moral. If that's the case, I would also say no.

The death penalty isn't justice. It's just vengeance. Vengeance is already the cause of way too many problems in the world today. It doesn't fix anything. It just drags things out longer and causes more problems.

[Iggo]

13. Absolutely not.

Except with my taxes, of course.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I once spoke to the Republican then Attorney General of California on a call in show

Dan Lungren was on a local NPR program and I called in with a question. I said that I opposed the death penalty under any circumstances but I didn't understand how anyone who supported it could live with the possibility of the state executing an innocent person. I asked him if he would support changing California law so that the means test for imposing the death penalty was changed from guilt beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt to one where it was found to be inconceivable that the person being sentenced was not guilty as charged of taking another persons life. I had mixed feelings about even asking because a change like that could remove some opposition to the death penalty on one hand, but on the other hand prevent an innocent person from being killed by the state.

I didn't have to worry. Lungren said he had never heard of anything like that and then went on to totally not answer the question, resorting back to his pre-planned talking points.

[MineralMan]

18. No, because there is no way to be sure of guilt,

with the rare exception of being present at the time.

[el_bryanto]

36. I understand that there isn't in reality - this is more of a thought experiment

If you could be sure, would that change your mind.

Bryant

[MineralMan]

37. I deal in realities only. Thought experiments do not

take reality into accounts, so I don't engage in them when lives are at stake.

I am unalterably opposed to capital punishment.

[el_bryanto]

39. Thought experiments though can let you place exactly where your opposition to the death

penalty is though.

Is it immoral for the state to take a life in cold blood, regardless of guilt or innocence?

or

Is it immoral for the state to take a life because they might get it wrong and execute and innocent person?

I tend towards the latter position. But others are presumably more in the first position.

Bryant

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. I would, but with a caveat.

That caveat would be that the system not only be certain to get the determination of guild right, but also exclude any prejudice about race, religion, etc. in the determination of who is brought to trial.

Of course, these conditions aren't likely to be met, at least not in all cases...so I'll continue to oppose the death penalty. That opposition, however, is based on inequities and errors in the system, not in basic opposition to the practice.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. No.

It's not within the state's power to kill someone who isn't an imminent danger to other people.

Why are we taught by the state (and everyone generally) killing, other than in legitimate self-defense, is wrong, and then the state goes ahead and does just that?

[treestar]

25. No, there are still mental health issues

and the indignity of killing someone on behalf of the state.

And I've gotten old enough to think living with having done it is worse for the perpetrator than death anyway.

[gwheezie]

33. No, not in any circumstance

I used to support the dp in rare instances when there is no doubt of guilt, and I also worked on a forensic unit which housed not guilty by reason of insanity and some of those folks put other inmates and staff at risk and they could not be "fixed"to be safe without seclusion rooms and/or restraints, so while I was there I could see the pros of the dp, incarcerating someone does not mean they will never kill again. And some of the conditions to house inmates safely are almost as inhumane as death. I'm not a pacifist, I'm not against killing someone if you are saving your own life or someone else's, not some bullshit syg situation but really no other choice but I don't think the state should do it.

[get the red out]

34. I totally would!!!!!!!

Without the racism element and if sure of guilt or innocence.

[H2O Man]

38. No.

While there are individual situations where I really do understand why people favor the death penalty, I do not think the government should be in the business of killing people. I absolutely respect other people's opinions on this matter, though.

[cali]

46. for me it's not chiefly about guilt- though the horror of an innocent person

being killed is a big deal.

[Bettie]

47. Two wrongs don't make anything right

Killing someone for killing is vengeance. Our system shouldn't be built on revenge.