I'm pro-DP, but against its application.

[nomb]

I have no philosophical qualms about the state executing those who are found guilty of what we consider our most heinous crimes.

But since I'm from Illinois I know we cannot do it with the level of perfection incumbent on any that would take another life through civil means.

Until its application can be done without risk of harming the innocent and with a Texas or Florida like consistency ( cute analogy, right? I mean here that everyone gets treated the same...not the Texas or Florida kill 'em all part) I have to lean towards opposing its application.

We are likely too imperfect as beings to be entrusted with this power when so broadly applied.

Perhaps another reworking of the death machine and a narrowing of its application is in order? Or just chuck it. I'd be fine either way.

Sorry if that muddies the dividing line of what many see as a binary debate - but I think most people stand somewhere here in the foggy middle.

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. That will not be popular here.

I agree with the DP in about 1/2 of 1% of cases. The unrepentant hate-crime braggart in Texas, Ted Bundy, McVeigh - there are plenty of examples of the morality vs accuracy question, but bottom line is If In Doubt - DONT. Thats where this country fucked up. They refocused a penalty on those who have repeatedly stated that they would commit their crimes all over again given the chance to include anyone for any reason someone didn't like.

In our system of justice, someone can admit their guilt yet get off on a legal techicality. In Troy Davis' case, it worked the opposite. He maintained his innocence and a legal technicality (no evidence) was swept under the rug under the name of 'justice'.

[GumboYaYa]

2. I strongly disagree......

The state has no right to take another human being's life. You are just flat-out wrong in your beliefs.

[Bake]

3. I'm against the DP BECAUSE of the application.

There's no way flawed humans and flawed systems should have the power of life and death over anyone.

Bake

[PA Democrat]

14. +1000

[MineralMan]

4. That's an argument that is often used, however

it does not stand up to scrutiny. There is no system that can guarantee that an innocent person will not be convicted of a capital crime. Such a system is simply impossible. The only justifiable homicide connected to a crime occurs when the victim acts in self-defense or someone kills an assailant in the act of a capital offense. Anything other than that must depend on a criminal justice system capable of rendering an incorrect verdict.

The only way to stop the execution of innocent people is to stop all executions. No other measure can be effective. Therefor, I am unalterably opposed to any use of the death penalty by the state.

[nomb]

5. What of McVeigh, or the Conn. Murders? Or those executed for Holocaust crimes?

Civil executions have a philosophical place.

[trumad]

6. What about the innocent who have been executed.

What about them?

[nomb]

11. I allow for that, hence my opposition to it's application.

[MineralMan]

7. No, I don't believe they do. Innocent people have also been

executed. There is no way to prevent that from occurring. Therefore, all executions must be stopped. Incarceration also takes people off the street. Finally, states that have banned the death penalty show no increase in capital crimes, so the purported excuse that the death penalty is a deterrent is disproved.

[trumad]

9. Yeah---but you see...

that argument doesn't hold up with the Pro-DP people because...

As noted above---they'll say...what about Hitler---or Tim McVeigh?...etc

They like to pick and choose and in my mind...you can't do that.

[MineralMan]

10. Frankly, I don't care that much about pro-DP arguments.

All of them are false. For me it is a simple moral question. I do not believe that the state should execute people. Period. I think it is immoral. On the other hand, I believe that a father or mother or a police officer witnessing the murder of his or her child is perfectly justified, or at least forgivable, in immediately killing the person who did it. There are other similar instances, including self defense or defense of others, where immediate reaction is justified. Where that is not the case, however, as in every death penalty trial, the decision is not made by an actual witness and action take at the time.

The state's power should not extend to taking the lives of its citizens.

[nomb]

12. It was not a binary option "Pro-DP" position

[NYC Liberal]

8. I'm against it not just because of the possibility of killing an innocent person.

Killing people who have been removed from society and pose no threat to it is wrong.

I am against the death penalty because of what it does to us as civilized people. Blood lust and revenge killings have no place in a modern, progressive society.

[exelwood]

13. Oh, death penalty...

Well, shows you where my mind spends most of it's time. :D

[Atman]

16. Hehe...my mind was right there in the gutter with you!

:hi:

.

[Whiskeytide]

15. I agree with George Carlin...

...We should reinstate public executions, execute some bankers and politicians, allow people to wager on them, make the real doozies pay-per-view, and balance the budget with the proceeds.

In truth, I do think most people are in the fog you describe. I oppose the DP because we can never implement a system that is incapable of getting it wrong sometimes, and I just can't stomach that reality. If we can't be perfect, we shouldn't be in the death business. But when I consider how I actually feel about some killers - McVeigh, Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, Whitman, Cho and others, I realize I am not opposed to the DP because of the sanctity of those individual's lives. I don't lose any sleep over their deaths, whether it was done by the state or whether they were killed by themselves or another in the moment. I suppose that makes me heartless, but I just can't fabricate a sense of empathy for those guys.

And, I will say this - though it will be unpopular here. If McVeigh were still alive, he would likely be a very dangerous person - imprisoned or not. And he would be very influential to like-minded individuals, and I doubt in a positive way. You may not like it, but i think we sleep a little easier because he's not on the planet anymore.

[nomb]

18. Hopefully people will read your well reasoned 2nd & 3rd para's after the Carlin reference

Not that there is anything wrong with referencing Carlin.... :)

[udbcrzy2]

17. The Prosecutor is the one who decides that they will seek it

The Judge is the one who decides it's an acceptable punishment. I have heard of many crimes where the individual committed crimes that are extremely brutal and shockingly evil, but then the prosecution charges with 2nd degree murder or 1st degree murder without the dp.

It's really not the most heinous crimes that get the death penalty. Many times it's when the offender has murdered a police officer or court official or a child. In some states that's all that is required to meet aggravating factors. Then, the prosecutor will decide on whether to charge or not.

[immoderate]

19. Killing people is never a good idea. Even with your objections met, consider the impressionable.

Killing is the best thing we do. :(


--imm

[Politicalboi]

20. I would be for

DNA evidence, and a history of violent crimes, and or a confession (but not necessary) of their own doing. I see no use for scum who would repeat their crimes again if they could. They have appeal after appeal and the family has to keep seeing and hearing this scum for years to come. If the victims family doesn't want the DP then I would have no problem with that. The crime did happen to them after all.

I always think back to the Samantha Runnion case here in Ca. She was 6 years old, and some scum who had a record, kidnapped her, raped her, and killed her, and posed her. His DNA was there, her tears in his car, tire tracks, his skin under her nails. I would have no problem seeing that scum put to death without having any doubt. And of course he pleaded not guilty.