Get rid of the Death Penalty.

I asked this question of friend who is of that mindset once. He said he is anti death penalty because it isn't exactly a great deterrent, and it's expensive. Morally he has no objections to it.

Frankly, I can understand that.

 

I'm in favor of both, so as to your study, 0% of people polled are Anti-Death penalty and pro-choice.

 

This is proof positive that the "War on Drugs" is a sham that has no possibility of success.

We can't even curtail drug use by people that we have friggin locked up. Treatment and education would go a long way to reducing all crime, including the most violent crime.

It wouldn't have an effect on the mass murderers previously mentioned, as they are just plain sick individuals.

 

This can be flipped the other way.

My guess would be the majority of people who are pro-life, support the death penalty.

 

I can't.

The opponents of the death penalty are the ones who make it so expensive, so using that as a reason is almost like paying blackmail.

In general I think the liberal opponents of the death penalty exaggerate the flaws in the system, and how many innocent people are executed. (as this case so nicely points out)

I, on the other hand oppose the death penalty for the same reason I oppose abortion on demand.

It is immoral to intentionally end a human life if it can be avoided.

I also realize that that is only my opinion, and I feel as a society we should allow open debate on both topics and allow our elected representatives to restrict both practices as they see fit, that is why I have trouble with both Roe v Wade and Brennan and Marshall's opinions in Furman v. Georgia.

 

As I said, I do respect people that take the positions you have taken, but these two statements stand out.

If by "opponents" you are referring to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then I agree.

As to the second statement, I would expect that someone who has stated a belief that it is immoral to end a life when it can be prevented must be absolutely outraged if a single person is ever executed when they, in fact, were not responsible for the crime.

It's kind of hard to put that toothpaste back in the tube.

 

By opponents I mean the anti death penalty legal crowed that uses every trick in their legal book to prevent every execution. Even those where there is clearly no question of guilt.

To be honest, I don't know if I would be much more outraged by an innocent person being executed, then I would be by a murderer getting off on a "technicality", and then gowing out to kill another innocent person.

I understand our legal system is not perfect, and every once in a while we will get it wrong.

 

1) appeals often have little to do with "guilt" but often present other issues that should mitigate a death sentence.

2) why must you compare these two? Just to feel better about executing innocents? If someone gets off on a "technicality" -- let's say a violation of his or her fourth amendment rights -- they won't be sentenced to anything. As long as you bring it up, however, you don't see a fundamental difference between the government -- your government -- my government affirmatively destroying a healthy, living breathing innocent person and the actions of an individual criminal?

3) A pretty flipant answer when the result of getting it wrong is the death of an innocent person. This post leads me to take your earlier statement that you are against the death penalty with a grain of salt.

 

I can't disagree with this point.

I'm in favor of the death penalty, and I've read a decent amount of information from dozens of sources that detail how expensive it is to execute someone. I fully believe that most these figures are probably correct; it just isn't enough to change my mind.

 

Dude, you're creeping me out with your obsession. Chill, or see a therapist.

 

I think the death penalty is great I just want some of the rules changed.

He said she said evidence shouldn't lead to the death penalty, there needs to be no doubt that the person did the crime if there is the life should be the sentance.

 

Go away, or I'll taunt you a second time.

 

And that is why I don't really want to associate myself with a large part of the anti-death penalty crowed. Much of that crowed is basically the anti-establishment, anti-prosecutor crowd. They bring up all the same "injustices" in the criminal justice system, that basically apply to all crimes.

They are entitled to those positions, but I often think they are extreme, and they take that extremism to new levels when it comes to the death penalty.

Because I think it is a tragedy when any innocent person is killed as a result of government negligence.

What are you talking about, I don't "feel good" about executing the guilty, let alone the innocent.

First off, I don't think anybody thinks the government should knowingly execute someone they absolutely know to be innocent.

So actually we are talking about negligently killing someone who some argued was innocent.

As far as the actions of the criminal. Yes he is responsible for his behavior, but if the government knowingly releases from custody a person who they know is likely to kill an innocent person then I also see a problem.

I understand that is a problem that exists because we know of no way to prevent it and still have the best criminal justice system.

So Like I said, I accept that our justice system is not perfect, and never can be perfect.

Well couldn't I argue it is "pretty flipant" of the defense lawyer who gets a known murderer off, when he knows the result might be that he goes out an kills an innocent person?

You can take my statements however you want. I oppose the death penalty, but I also believe it should be abolished through our reprentives in the legislature because it is flat out wrong. I don't think we should blackmail those who disagree with me by hijacking the courts and making them cry uncle.