I don't get why death penalty for terrorists is more fair.

[uconnyc]

Once again it looks like Kerry is whoring himself as to protect himself in the general election.

First of all how is the death penalty system more "fair" when applied to terrorists? Aren't black, Arab, poor and male terrorists still more likely to get the death penalty than lets say a blond Scandanavian terrorist (the ones that hangout at Ikea)?

Second if we look at the September 11th terrorists or the suicide bombers in Israel - they are willing to give-up their lives for their causes, they become Martyrs after their death. How does the death penalty deter them from acting out their objectives?

Lastly, if you are against the death penalty because of religion or you think it is barbaric, how is it less barbaric or what are the loopholes in the Bible that make it different for terrorists?

I'm against the Death Penalty and I don't agree with Edwards stance on it, but he isn't pimping the issue like Kerry.

Kerry has no scruples, he is simply trying to shield himself from "should Osama get the death penalty" question in the general election.

[David Dunham]

1. Dean and Edwards Are Pro-Death Penalty; Kerry Generally Against

Dean and Edwards are very pro-death penalty, as were Clinton and Gore. Kerry is against in in every case except terrorists. That's the best position a liberal could take to have a chance to get elected with bin Laden still free.

[HFishbine]

5. You've

clearly misrepresented Dean's position.

[Nicholas_J]

13. Dean has a problem

with his ideas on the death penalty. Supporting them for Killing children and police and sometimes other circumstances, only when a fair trial has been assured. But as Governor, Dean significantly cut money for public defenders, stated that he thought that the state should not pay to defend people conviced to crimes. Dean said that 95 percent of them were guilty anyway, and his damage control people tried to pass that off as a joke, but Dean still requested steep cuts for the public defenders office while requesting large increase to the budgets of the poice and prosecutors. When his defender general found grants and other funds to enable him to make up for the cuts Dean enacted, Dean had even more differnces with the defender general, and would not let the state of Vermont accept a grant from the Justice Department that the defender arranged for the state to defend mentally ill defendants. The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the Governor did not have the authority under the state constitution to prevent the defenders office from accepting grants to replace funds he cut. Dean lost that fight, but decided that to prevent such finds from being sought again, to not reappoint defender general, and replace him with someone who would be less active in trying to raise the funds to run the department adequately. Dean was criticied by the editors of the local newpapers for creating an imbalanced system of justice, and the supreme court ruled that his cuts violated the bill of rights amendment requiring right to fair trial.

So Dean's attitute was to support the death penalty, but not provide adequate funding for the defense of those accused of serious crimes, denying access to good enough attorneys to handle their cases,
His denial and refusal of fund to assist the mentally ill who were accused of murder was overwhelmingly inhumane, in my opinion, and his entire record of cutting funds for to provide the poor and mentally ill with proper legal support totally makes his argument for the death penalty if a person is assured of a fair trial somewhat suspect.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

2. i think the death penalty

in terrorist cases beats the hell out of using taxpayer money to feed the miserable pieces of shit for the rest of their life. So, if you see it strictly in economic terms it's a no-brainer - send them to Allah and their awaiting virgins after the trial (that's humane - because that's what the terrorist ultimately wants AND we get to save money).

[Armand]

3. Death penalty should apply to terrorists...

and it's fair. If you were a family member of one of the people who got killed on 9/11...wouldn't you want justice on the terrorists? I certainely would. I think any terrorist who attacks this country and kills a member of one of our families should be put to death.

[sangh0]

4. Are this for real?

Aren't black, Arab, poor and male terrorists still more likely to get the death penalty than lets say a blond Scandanavian terrorist (the ones that hangout at Ikea)?

You're worried that white terrorists are going to get off easy?

If you need to stretch that much to complain, I can see there's little use in discussing this with you

[JI7]

6. timothy mcveigh

and remember john walker lindh ? and i don't think it was even proven he was involved in any specific attacks on americans. though there was a bunch of anti american hate written from him. when he joined the taliban, it was the same time bush had given them money so they were not the enemy at the time.

[sangh0]

14. Exactly

McVeigh was executed, wasn't he? Lindh got LWOP? They're both white so why would anyone expect that white terrorists ar going to get off easy?

[uconnyc]

8. My point being why are terrorists different than other criminals?

Aren't most murderers terrorists? The DC snipers terrorized that whole region for weeks. Why should they not be given the death penalty?

I think the death penalty is barbaric and goes against my religious beliefs. I also feel it is not a fair system. That is why I don't support it in any cases.

[Gulf Coast J]

12. Same reason hate crimes are treated worse than 'regular' crimes

The effects of terrorism ripple through an entire society, just like with hate crimes.

[uconnyc]

10. YES!

Like the American Taliban (John Walker what's his face) and those who bomb abortion clinics

[prodigal_green]

7. I agree with Kerry

But make sure that people who kill abortion doctors are included in the category "terrorist."

[JI7]

9. they will be seen as martyrs

the anti choice nut cases will see these people as martyrs.

11. maybe it is analogous to the difference between murder and manslaughter

I think that's the type of argument that would be made. Something to do with the impersonal nature of the killing and the political nature of it. Of course all killing depersonalizes.

Personally, I'm against the death penalty period, but I'm guessing that this would be the type of argument made regarding terrorists.

There is also the problem with defining terrorist.

I think that generally politicians in favor of the death penalty for terrorists and not for other murders are coming pretty close to pandering. Maybe I should give them credit for having a more subtle reason for it, but I'm sceptical about that.

[GreenArrow]

15. it isn't.

It pandering bullshit. The death penalty is like, so 14th century, man. And Edwards' position is not any less foul.

[Mattforclark]

16. Senator Kerry is a compassionate, caring person

Terra'ists should get the death penalty because if they do, they will get to go to paradise with all the virgins. That is much preferable to spending the rest of your life in a maximum security prison.