Do you support the death penalty?

[goobergunch]

[JohnKleeb]

1. of course not

[goobergunch]

2. No (n/t)

[cherryperry]

3. No n/t

[Dookus]

4. nope...

it's only justification is revenge, which should have no part in a civilized criminal justice system.

[4_Legs_Good]

5. Just listened to a wonderful MLK speech...

"You can murder a murderer, but you can't murder murder."

david

Kucinich 2004

[JanMichael]

6. I am opposed to the Death Penalty.

Not because I think that some monsters don't deserve death, many certainly do, but the fact is that our courts will never be infallible and people will die for crimes that they did not commit.

That is inexcusable to me.

So no, I'm not "Happy" that the lunatic in Florida just died.

He should have rotted in Prison.

[zonmoy]

17. another good reason to oppose the death penalty

the nutjob in florida is now a martyr to the christian nutjobs.

[Democrats unite]

7. Yes for reasons I am not willing to discuss here.

eom.

[cherryperry]

60. and it's already happening...

many websites up about avenging his death...

:crazy: :shrug:

:yourock:

[TheDonkey]

8. I'm a pro-death Democrat...

Well I was. Then I realized that is not our right to kill those who may be innocent, most likely are guilty and let them be "sorted in the afterlife". We have the responsibilty of protecting everyones freedom and life here on earth not elsewhere, and the death penalty violates that.

It also makes us no better than the criminal if we take that route.

[toddzilla]

9. for all the obvious reasons.. no

plus it's just too damn expensive...

[nuxvomica]

10. Certainly not

It's the practice of a weak, scared and vindictive society. It has no place in my country.

[diamondsoul]

18. Hi! Don't recall meeting you before.

Is Gephart anti-DP?

For that matter are any of the Democratic candidates besides Dean pro-DP in certain circumstances? Honest question, I haven't looked each of them up.

[nuxvomica]

56. Gephardt doesn't oppose the death penalty

But he supports improving the criminal justice system to ensure defendants are given adequate counsel and to require DNA testing for all federal capital crimes.
Of the candidates, I believe only Kucinich and Sharpton have come out against the death penalty. All I could find on Brown was that she proposed a moratorium on it for Illinois in 1984.

[MaverickX]

11. yes of course...

It can be an appropriate punishment.

[DrWeird]

12. Well, sure.

Assuming that it's applied fairly.

Which it ain't.

And why do people consider cop killers worse than cab driver killers?

[LSdemocrat]

13. In theory, I support the death penalty, not our implementation

I think we should require a higher burden of proof for the death penalty and even then reserve it for only the most heinous crimes.

[markbark]

14. Depends.....

If you want to execute someone, put up or shut up.

Are you SURE this guy is guilty?

REALLY sure??

Fine then, sign here. It says that if exculpatory evidence is found exonerating the executed, you, the jury will be guilty of accessory murder.

The sentencing judge is guilty of second degree murder.

The prosecutor is guilty of first degree murder. If it's found that the prosecutor actually SUPPRESSED exculpatory evidence, that's "malice aforethought" I believe, and makes it a capital crime.

Any takers?


I thought not.


Capital punishment has no place in a civilized society.

</rant>

--MAB

[progressivejazz]

16. What a great idea!

I'm going to use this. Thanks.

[incontrovertible]

42. ok, but

do death penalty opponents get to continue to beef, and work to abolish the death penalty, and commute sentences to life, when people go ahead and sign?

There's a common misconception amongst the anti-death-penalty faithful that most death penalty cases are shaky, flimsy, racially motivated, riddled with doubt and basically fraudulent. They aren't. A huge percentage of them - I'd wager most - are proven not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt. Like, the perpetrator admits it. In detail. Leads the cops to the bodies. Or videotaped it. Or took pictures. Or wrote letters to the victim's family describing how delicious their four-year-old daughter's brain tasted. Really.

I take issue with the death penalty being applied in cases where guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is established, but guilt beyond any doubt is not.

For the absolutely guilty, beyond any doubt, I have no issue with its application whatsoever, nor does the "insanity" defense play with me. Did the perpetrator try to get away with it? Did s/he try not to get caught? If so, then s/he knew their murder was wrong, and is therefore not insane. The nature of one's particular sexual perversion holds no currency - just because one gets off on fresh corpses, this does not make them "insane." Sick, absolutely - but not insane.

I also have some suspicion that one's assessment of the death penalty has a lot to do with whether one believes in the existence of Evil, or is motivated primarily by the idea of "Who am I to judge what's Evil and what isn't?" A noble enough perspective, one I share to a fair degree, but I think there are limits.

[wuushew]

53. But the death penalty was seriously broken...at least in Illinois

unless you believe it was political expediency

[incontrovertible]

66. eleven (?) fraudulent cases

do not render fraudulent the hundreds of valid death penalty cases prosecuted throughout the nation, much as the death penalty opponents wish, and proclaim, that they would.

Yes, a number of people in Illinois were railroaded onto death row, albeit not executed - I cannot recall in my lifetime the last time the death penalty was carried out in Illinois. That doesn't negate the fact that Kenneth McDuff enjoyed burning the clitorises off of his abductees before raping them for hours, beating them near death, then burying them alive, or, when he felt charitable, gutting them to death first. Nor does it negate the case against him, nor does it make immoral his eventual and thoroughly well-deserved execution - had the death penalty not been ruled unconstitutional in the seventies, at least a half-dozen people would still be alive, as this led to the commutation of McDuff's previous death sentence, and, whowouldathunkit, he got out on parole. Nice.

I say again: Every high school senior in the United States should be required to take a year-long True Crime course, with uncensored photos, in order to graduate. After about ten years of that curriculim, let us have a reasoned national discourse on the appropriateness of the death penalty. Any objections?

[diamondsoul]

20. You GO, MAB!

That is exactly how I feel about it!

[incontrovertible]

33. I'd sign

For Kenneth McDuff - raped and mutilated several women, then buried them alive.

For Charles Ng - tossed infants into firepits while their mothers screamed, then raped and tortured the mothers to death for weeks.

For Wesley Dodd - raped a three-year-old boy for a week, then hanged him, cut him down, revived him, hanged him again, about a dozen times, while jerking off.

The list goes on. There are people in this society that should literally be burned at the stake, and I wouldn't so much as heave a sigh for them.

Polite society just doesn't like thinking about them.

I think every student in the United States should be required to take a year-long course on True Crime, with uncensored photos, their senior year in high school.

[markbark]

44. Even for truly guilty scum

like those mentioned, the death penalty is NOT the answer.

It's like telling a child that "hitting your little sister is WRONG" and then spanking him when he does it anyway.

Do we really want the government in the position of saying "Killing's OK as long as WE'RE the ones doing it. Go into business for yourself and we'll pump you full of lethal chemicals (if you make it to trial that is)"??

For Dodd, Dahmer, Ng, McDuff, et al: Those folks have forfeited their right to live in human society. Therefore we remove them from it but NOT by killing them. Some of those guys would probably call death blessed relief from whatever demons haunt them (a perfect example would be Paul Hill, that nutcase they just offed in Florida, going to meet his 72 virgins in Christian Right-Wing paradise.... American Taliban Martyr!)

My punishment for these "special" folks would be to completely isolate them from human contact for the rest of their lives. 10 X 10 room, no windows, no TV, no letters, no newspapers, magazines or books. Not even mirrors.... As far as this guy is concerned, he is the only human in the universe. Nutritionally complete, but bland food would appear twice daily. Sunday would be just that. The one day a week that sunlight would be allowed into the cell (2 hrs only).

There's probably a psychology thesis somewhere in there.


--MAB

[incontrovertible]

54. never happen, though.

My punishment for these "special" folks would be to completely isolate them from human contact for the rest of their lives. 10 X 10 room, no windows, no TV, no letters, no newspapers, magazines or books. Not even mirrors.... As far as this guy is concerned, he is the only human in the universe. Nutritionally complete, but bland food would appear twice daily. Sunday would be just that. The one day a week that sunlight would be allowed into the cell (2 hrs only).

That won't happen, though. Pelican Bay isn't even a tenth as severe as you describe, and it's being challenged as "Cruel and Unusual Punishment," for its perpetual isolation of the inmate, lack of social interaction, lack of ability to go outside, total lockdown, etc. Isolation like you prescribe, which would be more severe than Pelican Bay, also has the tendency to cause total mental breakdown, and after a year or so, would likely drive 95% of the prisoners in those conditions utterly insane - like, the cot is talking and named Phillip, there are radios in your teeth broadcasting propaganda, gnomes steal your thoughts at night, and so on. So while I'm happy to say, "sure, that'd be fine by me - better, even," unfortunately, the death penalty would be considered far less cruel by any court, and such conditions would not be allowed to stand.

The unfortunate and blunt fact is that the prisons don't care what the perpetrators did, and don't care whether they're guilty. Not their job. Their job is to make sure the inmates don't kill each other, nor rape each other in front of a guard; feed them; not torture them; handle their medical issues and so forth.

So ultimately, unless the inmates decide to mete out their own penalties, life in prison, once long-enough lived, pretty much becomes a cakewalk. Obey the rules, and you'll eat well, go outside every day, get books to read whenever you like, get to talk to family, develop friendships, and in a huge majority of cases, eventually get out. There's a lot of people rotting in the ground right now who would be happy to exchange their state with any living prisoner.

Finally, I think in some circumstances (Ng), the only appropriate penalty is to subject the perpetrator to some fractional measure of the terror and hopelessness to which they subjected their victims. As we don't burn people at the stake anymore, the closest we the people come is reducing them to a state in which they can glance at the calendar and know that on that particular day, they won't be seeing a sunrise, eating food, talking to friends, or anything else. If that makes me barbaric, well, so be it, but I'm not barbaric in all aspects of my life, not by a longshot. I just figure that I've lived long enough, and behaved well enough, and learned enough, to where... yeah, I think I could be considered One To Judge, or at least one capable of judging the worth of proven sport-killers.

Pleasure discussing with you,

[Clark Can WIN]

51. Fabulous Mark! Fabulous!

will be stealing this from you :yourock:

[diamond14]

15. why kill people,to teach people NOT to kill....it makes no sense, nt

;

[ButterflyBlood]

19. no

[CarlBallard]

21. I voted

"Only for cop-killers, child-killers and terrorists" although I don't support the death pennelty for any of them. I support it in limited cases (compromised national intelegence where someone dies as a result, and war crimes/ crimes against humanity) and think it is over used. So that was the closest to my opinion.

[goobergunch]

22. kick for more responses

:kick:

[redwitch]

23. totally opposed

it is wrong always.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

24. Hard to answer

For many, many years I was against the death penalty. I don't believe in an eye for an eye, the entire process involved in putting someone to death is expensive (I've heard more expensive than life without parole, but don't know how accurate that is), and the chance someone is innocently being put to death is not worth anything. Also, the time disparity between the crime and the punishment is large that the threat of the death penalty doesn't really sway people from doing the crime.

Then Timothy McVeigh happened. For the first time ever I wasn't upset at all, not one iota, about a criminal being put to death. I still feel that way.

Do I think the death penalty is a good social practice? Nope. But there are extreme cases that I would support this type of punishment. Extreme, as in one criminal being put to death per year would mean we weren't looking at the most extreme cases. McVeigh was extreme. The snipers were extreme.

Do I think the government could fairly enforce such regulations as to ensure only these extreme cases were possible death penalty cases? Nope.

[Yupster]

25. Yes, for a limited number of people

A person serving life who murders someone in prison.

Truly horrible crimes like the Carr brothers in Wichita.

Yes, sometimes I support it.

[TaxAway]

43. the correct answer

sometimes, nothing else works

[Dob Bole]

26. No, but I'm in favor of Castration...

People aren't afraid to die, but if they thought they would be castrated when convicted of murder, the violent crime rate would drop dramatically.

Dob Bole

[ObaMania]

27. Yes, but...

.. only if there is irrefuteable proof that the killer is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And I also believe in immediate execution, not several years on death row... but ONLY for someone proved to be the murderer.

ex. Scott Peterson at this point would probably not meet my criteria. The gal in the news today who drowned her son would be eligible in my view. I think it is a crime in itself that she was sentenced to 50 years.

[mlawson]

30. I agree with you.

---- When there is absolutely NO doubt;
---- When the murder is premeditated, and the victim did absolutely nothing to provoke it;
---- Especially if abduction was a factor;
---- If the crime was for money;
---- If it was a hate crime, or an act of terrorism.

Examples: McVeigh, Richard Alan Davis (who killed Polly Klass, and mocked her father in court); ex-nazis, KKK, etc.

[incontrovertible]

40. not just premeditation

I have no issue with executing people who gun down the convenience store clerk, on a whim, solely for their own amusement, after they've successfully completed a robbery.

If they don't deserve the death penalty, then why did the clerk?

[uptohere]

39. excellent points

justice should always be swift and sure. We suck at the swift part and thats what diminishes the deterrent effect.

[Terwilliger]

28. Nowhere near enough choices

I would be YES and "with extreme limitations of scope"

[Walt Starr]

29. I usually don't answer this question

My answer is, "Yes". I'm not vocal in advocating the death penalty, but I do support it. I believe that there are some crimes so heinous, that putting a person to death is the only proper way to deal with them.

That said, I would be a vocal advocate of the death penalty and may actually allow it to become a campaign issue, if the American Justice system actually worked in such a way as rich murderers had the same chance of being put to death as poor people convicted of murder. This would also require that there was no racial inequality in the application of the death penalty.

So yes, I supoport the death penalty. In theory it is absolutely necessary and just. Unfortunately, it does not work in practice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. The Death Penalty And Abortion

are two of the thorniest issues I have ever grappled with...

Sometimes I wish I could embrace the position of the Catholic Church and oppose both* but my liberterian leanings prevent me from restricting another person's choice; even one I believe is awful.

As a personal matter I oppose abortion. I would counsel a woman who sought my advice to have the baby and put it up for adoption but ultimately it's her choice and I or the government should not interfere.

I am ambivalent on the death penalty but as one who had a good friend murdered by a serial killer, Gerald Stano, I can understand the desire for vengeance by some...


* I realize the Catholic Church's position is a bit more nuanced.

[bitchkitty]

32. Not in ANY circumstance.

If the ridiculous War on Some Drugs was stopped, we would have more than enough room in our prisons for dangerous criminals. The death penalty is barbaric, and does not have a place in a civilized nation.

[ObaMania]

38. Yeah, but cold-blooded murder is barbaric and..

.. has no place in our society. Especially the taking of an innocent life.

I hate to sound insensitive, but the thought of putting a killer up in prison for the rest of his (her) life to work out, play ping-pong, or watch FAUX News is an utterly repulsive IMO. Think of what it costs to house and feed them 'til they die. Oh, and the medical benefits they get. Some murderers have a better health plan in prison than hard working, non-murdering, law-abiding citizens.

... did I mention that they sometimes escape, or are freed to murder again?

[stevedeshazer]

45. It is cheaper to house them than execute them

All you 'hang 'em high' club members might want to check the facts before you jump on the law and order bandwagon.

Death Penalty Facts

COST
The Death Penalty is Expensive.
Capital punishment is a far more expensive system than one whose maximum penalty is
life in prison.

A New York study estimated the cost of an execution at three times that of life
imprisonment.
In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life
imprisonment.
Studies in California, Kansas, Maryland, and North Carolina all have concluded that capital
punishment is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.

The greatest costs of the death penalty are incurred prior to and during trial, not in
post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings were abolished, the
death penalty system would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

Under a death penalty system, trials have two separate phases (conviction and sentencing);
they are typically preceded by special motions and extra jury selection questioning.
More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the
prosecution.
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, the taxpayer
first incurs all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay
either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often
leads to a life sentence).

The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending
money on the death penalty system means:

Taking it away from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as
prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child
Reducing the resources states put into crime prevention, education and rehabilitation,
investigative resources, and drug treatment programs.


"Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens
of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of
millions of dollars on a statewide basis." --Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California
Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999



source: http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

[bitchkitty]

46. Thanks -

I was going to post the same URL. But the fact is, that even if it were cheaper, I'd still be against it. It's wrong. Period.

Not only that, why give them the peace of death? I don't think it's all ping pong and color TV, in fact I know it's not. Life in prison without the possibility of parole would be, at least for me, a far worse punishment than death.

[supernova]

34. No - there is no reason

for the death penalty. It is a holdover from the days when people believed in vengance and revenge. It's just state-sanctioned murder. I can't support it.

[Starpass]

35. Definitely yes---but I think there's laws against trying a sitting

president.

[cherryperry]

61. Let's set a

precedent...LOL!

:pals:

[dudeness]

36. oh man..

i do not know...the last person to suffer capital punishment in australia was ronald ryan hung in melbourne goal in 1965..I was 5 at the time..this debate is raised everytime a horrible incident happens and I put myself in the victims families place, and ,yes ,I would want revenge..

[cherryperry]

62. Yes, but

have you spoken directly to any family members of the victim recently?

Revenge is sweet, but then you wake up one day and realize your loved one is still gone and the death of the murderer is really of no consequence anymore. Nothing will take away your pain.

I'm not at all unsympathethic to the pain of the survivors, but I stil have a problem with state-sanctioned murder, whether it's eventually applied with equality in the U.S.A. or not.

:shrug: :cry:

[Mz Pip]

37. No, but....

I didn't feel bad when that guy who killed the Dr. and his body guard bit it today in Florida.

I voted against it when it was on the ballot in CA years ago and would vote against it again, but sometimes, I just don't give a rat's ass if some of these guys get the death penalty.

MzPip
:dem:

[Clark Can WIN]

41. A govornment should never have the power to

levy death as a punishment. Not for the murder of anyone, babies, cops or even the President. Not for high treason. Not for any reason. Most that deserve death find it soon enough anyway.

[maveric]

47. John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, David Westerfield, Paul Hill, Gary Gilmore,

Timothy McViegh, David Alton Harris, Jeffery Dahmer, Child Killers, Cop Killers, Admitted murderers that show no remorse.
Yes I do beleive in the DP for things like these.

[redeye]

48. No...

...only if there's no other way to catch the criminal, i.e. if he runs from the police and he can't be caught without killing him.

[Devlzown]

49. If you want to kill people, join the army.

[Rooktoven]

50. Sorry, I'm into vengeance

I'll opt for it for Child Molesters and murderers, especially those involving rape (I tend to favor it in some rape cases-- maybe I'm extreme)

I know, fewer innocents will die, but I have a feeling fewer innocents would be victimized. I believe all of _my_ top tier dems support it too

Am I wrong, but don't Edwards, Dean, Kerry and Graham all back it?

[Kazak]

58. It's probably even more vengeful...

to let child molesters and rapist go to prison...a little bit of mingling with the inmates and believe me, they'll get theirs.

[MaverickX]

65. I disagree with you..

I support the death penalty, however I still want sex offendors protected from the general population.

[REP]

52. Hell Yes

What is done with a vicious mad dog? The only humane thing - have it put down.

The justice system, however, is badly flawed. I am in favor of a moratorium.

[Zero Gravitas]

55. No

Capital punishment has no place in a civilized society.

[reachout]

59. No

I consider the premeditated killing by a government of any of its citizens to have no more place in modern civilization than torture or slavery.

Even if you don't have a moral objection to the practice, consider that between 1973 and 2003 110 death row inmates in 25 states were found to be innocent and released from death row. More than half of these exonerations occurred in the last 10 years (due in part to the advent of DNA testing). How many may be awaiting execution right now that are not guilty of the crime with which they are charged?

I don't believe in absolute certainty. It is tragic when an error is made in the justice system and an innocent person is imprisoned...but at the very least that injustice can be corrected.

[Kazak]

57. No...

What did you expect?

[buddhamama]

63. No ! n/t

[Quahog]

64. "You shall not kill"

That's an unequivocal statement.

[FlashHarry]

68. Er, actually, it says, 'Thou shall do no murder.'

But, if you want to quote the Bible, go with Matthew's account of the Sermon on the Mount. It pretty much refutes the whole 'eye-for-an-eye' excuse. As the bumper-sticker says, 'Jesus was a liberal.'

[incontrovertible]

70. gimme a break

ever actually read the Old Testament? The death penalty was prescribed, in thorough detail, for such trivialities as disrespecting one's parents - well past the original handing down of the Ten Commandments.

Besides, do you really want to bring Biblical proscription into political considerations in the 21st century? The DU collective tends to shy away from that...

[FlashHarry]

67. For the last time, NO.

Christ! I swear this question/poll appears every week, here at DU!

[David Zephyr]

69. This Question Comes Up From Time to Time Here. My Answer is No.

I am somewhat taken in seeing the high number of "Yes" votes.