Why are you opposed to the death penalty? (with poll)

DarkSyde's interesting diary about atheism and some of the commentary there have made me think about the death penalty.  Some suggest that the Democrats ought to go with the high moral position in opposing the death penalty. (I'm using moral in a secular, not necessarily religious, sense.  As an atheist, I consider myself reasonably moral and principled.)  Some have suggested that opposition is a moral position - we are the party of life.  But I don't think that's a winner in the voting booth.  What I do think is that it is possible to convince people to be against the death penalty for practical reasons, even if they believe some people deserve to die.  For example, I oppose the death penalty, but not because I believe in the sanctity of life.  If an armed bank robber kills a bystander during the robbery, then while making a getaway manages to drive into a telephone pole and die, that's fine by me.  Some people deserve to be dead.  But it doesn't follow that society should kill that person.

I was once in favor of the death penalty as a deterrent.  As I gradually learned that it's not an effective deterrent, that data shows that African Americans are more likely to be executed than whites, that DNA evidence has proved retroactively that some people have been wrongly convicted, I changed my mind.  My younger sister was a prosecuting attorney for over a decade.  She took some time off and then became a public defender.  Interestingly, she changed her mind about the death penalty - as a prosecutor she favored it.  Now she opposes it.  

I am interested to hear what other people have to say on this topic - regardless of whether you are for or against.  And your reasons.  The poll has reasons I could think of, but there are surely more.

•  my 2 cents

  I'm not against the death penalty in theory, meaning that I don't have a moral objection to it in certain cases. But I am 100% against it as a matter of policy because any justice system anywhere in the world, no matter how perfect it is, can only be as perfect as the humans who run it. There will always be a chance that an innocent person will be put to death and that I am morally opposed to.  That's why I oppose the death penalty.    

  by Terps Fan on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:01:56 AM PDT

  •  To me

    ...it's part of an overall primitive justice system that we retain that just doesn't work.

    (Plus, it's soooo third world...)

    by InsultComicDog on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:29:50 AM PDT

    •  Not even "so third world"

      There are very few countries that have institutionalized the death penalty - most are Muslim countries. Almost all third world countries with stable government have rejected it.

      by Kudos on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:43:51 AM PDT

  •  This is the best argument against the death

    penalty.

    As a police officer, I can tell you that every trial exposes the weaknesses we have as human beings.  There are people who are willing to lie to convict the person who they believe is responsible for a murder.  On the other hand, there are people who are willing to lie, defame the police, and fabricate evidence to keep someone from being executed.  And I'm not just talking about the attorneys.

    However, despite all of the potential for error that exists, I cannot think of a single example of a person who was executed in the United States who did not commit the murder or treason that s/he was accused of.

    Furthermore, having the death penalty "on the table" as an option against a person who is facing a murder charge gives prosecutors something to use as a bargaining chip.  Many, many actual murderers plead guilty to murder every year because the death penalty is available as an option to prosecutors.  This option saves taxpayers millions of dollars per year by reducing the number of trials for murder.

    If we were to take away this option, we would be handcuffing prosecutors.

    Finally, let's just accept the fact that about 60%-70% of the American public supports the death penalty.  Any time we run a candidate who is flat out against the death penalty, even if he hedges his position by saying that he might support it in the case of terrorists, we are starting out in a bad position.

    Republicans are using the death penalty (and abortion) as a way for them to connect with middle class voters who get sold out by their economic policies.

    by raymundo on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:30:13 AM PDT

    •  I hadn't considered

      its value in pushing plea bargains and confessions.  I suppose that could also be used in a bad way - to coerce an innocent person who nevertheless sees that the evidence is against him to plead for a lesser sentence.  

      by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:54:54 AM PDT

      •  Yes

        It's bullshit to think the death penalty streamlines prosecutions.

        It's extortion and immoral.

        A plea bargain is effectively a contract between the state and the accused. Making a plea to avoid death is not different than signing a contract under duress. We all know such a contract is not legal, so why is the plea?

        by Kudos on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:39:03 AM PDT

    •  Re: Best Argument

      However, despite all of the potential for error that exists, I cannot think of a single example of a person who was executed in the United States who did not commit the murder or treason that s/he was accused of.

      The fact that many people convicted of murder have had their convictions overturned based on DNA evidence that was not available at the time of their trials leads me to conclude with certainty that there have been executions of innocents convicted of murder. A trial is only as valid as the evidence available and if exculpatory evidence has been excluded, then innocents can die.

      Many, many actual murderers plead guilty to murder every year because the death penalty is available as an option to prosecutors.

      Having the death penalty on the table can also coerce an innocent person to pleading guilty to a crime, or more likely, a defendant to plead guilty to a more serious crime than s/he would otherwise be convicted of. For example, someone driving the getaway car of a bank robbery gone violently bad shouldn't face capital murder charges and plead guilty to murder as opposed to possibility of jury hearing evidence that may lead to reduced charges.

      If we were to take away this option, we would be handcuffing prosecutors

      Prosecutors threatening defendants with charges greater than that of the crime committed is abuse of the system.

      Finally, let's just accept the fact that about 60%-70% of the American public supports the death penalty...

      Support for the denalty is actually declining in America.  It's no longer the wedge issue that it once was in many states.

      by Grand Poobah on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:00:42 AM PDT

    •  How do you know that?

      However, despite all of the potential for error that exists, I cannot think of a single example of a person who was executed in the United States who did not commit the murder or treason that s/he was accused of.

      And I´m asking seriously, trying to understand.
      I mean I remember criminal cases here in Europe with people sentenced to life later released because they were innocent. Sometimes after very long prison periods.

      IIRC here in Germany everything connected with the criminal case will stay in storage even after the court sentence. Meaning that if new testing methods are developed, the evidence will still be there to be tested. For example some people were proven innocent after DNA analysis was developed.

      Is it the same in the USA?
      Do you store the evidence and test them - if in doubt later - even after someone was already executed?
      If yes, then I can understand your certainty.
      If no, then I´m having doubts.
      

      by Detlef on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:08:23 AM PDT

    •  How would we know?

      I cannot think of a single example of a person who was executed in the United States who did not commit the murder or treason that s/he was accused of.

      You wholly acknowledge that errors and fabrications occur. People on death row have been exonerated.

      There are two factors that must be met in sequence for a death row inmate to be set free:
      

      • New evidence or testimony has been revealed or discovered that proves they were wrongly convicted
        
      • The inmate hasn't yet been executed

      Yet, if you change the sequence of events, the same truth is revealed, but the prisoner is dead. But since dead people don't appeal their sentences, the chain of events would unlikely proceed to a post-mortem exoneration.

      Your statement is flawed, and dangerously so for a police officer who knows that the system is flawed. Sure, most of the time you would be right but you would never know when you were wrong because in the act of execution, you silence any motivation to uncover the truth and you destroy the evidence.
      

      by Kudos on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:31:07 AM PDT

    •  Here

      However, despite all of the potential for error that exists, I cannot think of a single example of a person who was executed in the United States who did not commit the murder or treason that s/he was accused of.

      Please allow me to introduce you to Larry Griffin, well on his way to becoming the first confirmed wrongful execution in the history of the United States.  (This is not to say that there has never been another; but this time, pretty much everyone agrees.)  While Mr. Griffin's life history proves that he was definitely a bad apple, he was not sentenced to die or actually executed for being a bad apple, something which still presently does not violate any known law all by itself, let alone support the special circumstances all by itself to support a lawful capital sentence.  Mr. Griffin was, instead, executed for a murder that it now appears increasingly certain (to everyone but the prosecutor who will end up with Mr. Griffin's blood on his hands and conscience), that Larry Griffin did not in fact commit.  Of course, the "investigation is still ongoing" but frankly, there's not much left to investigate since both Mr. Griffin and the primary eyewitness used to convict him are both dead; except of course, an investigation into how the State of Missouri can actually insulate itself from both the legal liability and the utter undermining of its capital punishment system if it admits that, yes, it executed an innocent man.  

      However, if the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 continues towards passage at the rate it is racing through both the House and Senate, Mr. Griffin will eventually become just another another statistic of the "mistakes" of the (in)justice system where capital punishment is concerned.  Given how little hell has been raised by progressives over the Griffin case, it seems that this type of collective "shrug" in response to the possibility of wrongful execution is where the country is heading.

      by shanikka on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 11:39:54 AM PDT

•  many reasons

  
  in no particular order...

  1.  the state should never have the right to take away an individual's life.  the closest, justifiable case for the state putting an individual's life at risk is in the defense of the country (e.g., war, espionage).

  2.  it's absolutely imperfect -- AND ALWAYS WILL BE.  this not only means that people are executed who are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused, but there is no way to even out the system.  someone will get a death sentence for a less severe crime, while someone who's crime is more serious will get life or the possibility of parole.  with something so final and so terrible, an imperfect system is a betrayal of human rights and democracy.

  3.  it's morally unjust.

  4.  it is cruel and torturous.

  5.  it's efficacy in reducing crime is questionable.

  cheers --

   

  by njgoldfinch on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:02:00 AM PDT

•  I was just

  thinking about this last night. My personal evolution on the issue has been this:

  I used to not care much about the issue at all. I was young, it seemed like murderers deserved execution on some level, I didn't pay much attention to it. Though since I knew how it wasn't a deterrent at all, it didn't save money on prosecution (two arguements used in its favor in that era), I thought the entire issue was more trouble than it was worth and opposed it.

  I eventually learned how it was applied in a racist and classist fashion, and became convinced that such biases could never be eliminated from the system. This really turned me against it. And the idea of the state executing someone, anyone, became less and less palatable to me on moral grounds. Although I admit I didn't shed a tear or have any moral qualms when they executed McVeigh.

  But in the last few years I've become more and more aware of how the same culture that accepts the state execution of prisoners - murders, rapists, terrorists - can metastisize into something even more sinister and dangerous. And I have become opposed to it on moral grounds in addition to the above reasons.

  by thirdparty on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:02:08 AM PDT

  •  addenda

    a) I meant the money supposedly saved on imprisonment, not prosecution. (It costs more to prosecute a death penalty case with its related appeals than to keep someone in prison for life, which is probably the only thing I learned in high school economics class, preparing for a debate on the topic.)

    b) Mario Cuomo was my favorite politician growing up, his views on the death penalty affected me greatly as well.

    by thirdparty on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:07:54 AM PDT

  •  That was part of my evolution

    in thinking:  But in the last few years I've become more and more aware of how the same culture that accepts the state execution of prisoners - murders, rapists, terrorists - can metastisize into something even more sinister and dangerous.

    by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:52:13 AM PDT

•  I'm not totally against it

  I'm against it in most circumstances, but I'm zealously enthusiatic about the death penalty when it comes to Theocratic Terrorists and Corporate Criminals as well as fascist criminals(Tom Delay).

  I would support the death penalty for

  Pat Robertson/Osama bin Laden (theocratic terrorists)

  Ken Lay etc (Corporate Criminals)

  Tom Delay/entire W administration/Scalia/Thomas (fascist criminals)

  by IhateBush on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:03:18 AM PDT

•  yep

  Im not opposed to the death penalty.  I feel there are SOME crimes which demand taking someone's DNA out of the collective loop. Im not sure about its efficacy as a deterrent, and I feel it may be sought more often than is necessary, but it should not be off the table.

  by Perdurabo on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:05:45 AM PDT

  •  here's the big problem

    at least for me.

    Prosecutors get to decide who potentially lives or dies. They decide whether to seek the death penalty for any number of reasons, none of which have to be explained to anyone.

    by thirdparty on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:17:57 AM PDT

  •  The problem is

    how to be absolutely sure to execute the right person. Can you guarantee that?

    And if the death penalty was such an efficient deterrent how come European countries without the death penalty have much lower murder rates?

    And as an aside...
    Does that mean that Texas under then Governor Bush had a very low murder rate? I seem to remember that he was very enthusiastic about confirming executions....

    by Detlef on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:15:23 AM PDT

•  I've always seen the death penalty

  as a sort of the fulfillment of a wish for revenge by society than a form of punishment.  A sort of diabolical need to be like "how do you like that buster!" to the person.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:08:56 AM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    The death penalty says a lot about who we are as a civilization.

    When we get hit, we hit back.

    But notice who is usually on the receiving end of the blows: why, it's the lower class!

    For this reason, I have trouble being a flag-waving, bandwagon-joining death penalty fanatic.

    Yet I still support the death penalty as a tool toward taming the darker impulses within us.

    And because it convinces many actual murderers to accept a plea bargain arrangement for life in prison rather than force the taxpayers to endure a lengthy trial and bear the risk of an acquital based on an irrelevant technicality (like whether a cop every used the "n" word, etc.).

    by raymundo on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:36:26 AM PDT

•  My two cents . . .

  I oppose the death penaly from what I suppose could be considered a "moralistic" point of view: I don't believe the state should kill people.  I don't believe the state should entrusted with the power to dispense the ultimate punishment.  Given that view, I am constrained to argue in favor of life in prison, which is invariably met with this response - "How can you justify the same punishment for someone who murders and someone who commits what might be a lesser offense but is still punishable by life in prison?"  Certainly another moralistic response.  And I have to admit, it makes some sense.  In our society we believe that the punishment should fit the crime, more severe crimes should receive more severe punishment.  Here is how I justify my position.

  We have to accept the fact that capital punishment is prone to error.  That is to say, if we execute people, there is a chance an innocent person will be exectuted.  Given that fact, it is impossible to justify captial punishment on any moral footing.  You cannot claim to support the death penalty from a moral position and accept the fact that the death penalty may lead to a most immoral result - the execution of the innocent.

  That plus two bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

  by andrew s choir on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:09:14 AM PDT

  •  Unfairness in sentencing

    Actually I don't have a problem with giving the same penalty (life imprisonment) for crimes of different degrees.  That's like if I'm speeding down the freeway, and so is everyone else around me, and the highway patrol stops ME.  Hey, why me?  Why am I being punished if no one else is?  (People actually think like this.  I've heard many a friend complain upon getting a speeding ticket.)  But I figure that's my bad luck.  Sure, it's not necessarily fair that I'm paying a fine and those other people aren't, but I can't deny that I defied the law, so I might as well not complain.

    Devil's advocate time.  You said: You cannot claim to support the death penalty from a moral position and accept the fact that the death penalty may lead to a most immoral result - the execution of the innocent.  But what if the death penalty truly does deter some people from killing?  That would be like balancing the death of one (or a few) innocents against the deaths of many innocents.  Just asking.  Personally I'm still for life in prison over the death penalty.

    by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:19:09 AM PDT

•  multiple reasons

  In no particular order:

  The consequences of error are horrific (execution of persons who are factually innocent) and can not be undone.

  It is arguably cruel, even in it's "humane" forms.

  Public safety is equally protected by life sentences w/o possibility of parole: the criminal is prevented from doing further harm.

  It represents an "eye for an eye" mentality; the whole idea of vengeance is barbaric and has no place in a civilized society.  

  by G2geek on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:10:34 AM PDT

•  Because

  In Canada, in the last decade, as DNA testing has become available, there have been quite a few high profile cases of people serving life sentences for rape and murder, most notably David Milgaard, who have had their sentences overturned.  They were wrongfully convicted and, if this were the U.S., could have been executed.  The end of the death sentence in Canada has not led to a crime spree and, on the contrary, has made it possible to overturn wrongful convictions.

  The other thing that convinced me was the sociological data on who gets executed and who gets a lesser sentence for the same crime.  The colour of your skin does make a significant difference.

  by Night Runner on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:10:35 AM PDT

•  For me

  I believe all life is sacred. That's why I'm a Democrat who would prefer that women avoid abortion if possible.

  I've never understood how Repubs can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. It's hypocritical.

  And I'm not religious, but the Ten Commandments couldn't make it any clearer -- thou shalt not kill.

  The bible doesn't have a footnote that says, "unless killing them makes you feel better."

  Not valuing life has led humanity into the mess that it's in. Fixing the world starts with valuing life.

  Besides, life in prison is worse than the death penalty. Especially in today's prisons.

  by Naturegal on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:13:32 AM PDT

  •  Hold On A Sec...

    I was thrown by your first comment re abortion.  Just think about how you framed that... you said you'd like women to avoid abortion whenever possible.  Fair enough - but that sounds like you're saying there are women out there for whom this is their preferred form of birth control and I find that laughable.

    Seriously - imagine the following scenario...

    A woman's getting hot & heavy with her hubby and at one point she thinks "hey maybe we should stop long enough for him to get out a rubber... but naaaaaaaaah - I'll just go through a major, expensive and degrading medical procedure in a month".

    Not likely.  Given a choice the vast majority of women try like hell to avoid getting to the point where abortion's even an issue.  To frame it as something they willy-nilly choose is just wrong.

    Now - having said that I'll say that I oppose the death penalty on several levels.  

    It's not applied fairly.  It's used on folks who have appointed attorneys who fall asleep at trials.  
    It's morally wrong - how is it ok for the state to kill someone but it's not ok for the rest of us?  
    It's inhumane.  
    It's more expensive than if we kept the accused locked up for the rest of their natural life.  

    by Alegre on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:54:58 AM PDT

    •  As a woman

      I know there are some of us who do not practice safe sex, who do not always use birth control, and who do not view abortion as a mortal sin.

      As moral norms have loosened -- especially among the younger population -- abortion is always there as an "out."

      Because abortion exists, it is a way to avoid the responsibility of sometimes careless actions.

      If it's a rape or there is a severe birth defect and the parents think the child will have a severely compromised life, then a difficult choice has to be made. But it bothers me when abortion is seen as an acceptable end for an average pregnancy.

      by Naturegal on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 11:43:24 AM PDT

  •  Safe, legal and rare

    As Clinton said, let's keep abortion safe, legal and rare.  I want to be practical.  Clinton supports the right to choice, Bush doesn't, yet under Bush abortions have gone waaaaay up.

    Same thing with death penalty.  Studies show it is not a deterrent, therefore why take the chance of killing an innocent person?

    Those who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty are indeed hypocritical.  

    by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:23:37 AM PDT

•  Perhaps I'm a bit simplistic about it

  but I oppose the death penalty because it victimizes poor people.

  Steve Earle's "Billy Austin" says it quite eloquently:

  There's twenty seven men here
  Most are black, brown and poor
  And most of us are guilty
  But who are you to say for sure

  by ziggleberries on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:13:52 AM PDT

•  I am against the death penalty

  on moral grounds....and yes, morality and religion are two separate things.  Morally I'm opposed to the taking of life...I'm also offended that ours is the only "civilized" country within the western culture that permits such a thing.  I'm also morally offended because the vast majority of those put to death are minorities and/or the poor....its a terribly inequitable means of punishment.  I also think it brings out the worst in our citizenry...while the need for "justice" is understandable, what I hear more is the call for revenge.  I just don't believe that a system that endorses revenge is a healthy one in the long run.

  by tjb22 on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:13:56 AM PDT

•  should have added "All of the above"

  by gmoney on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:14:01 AM PDT

  •  I considered that

    Yet "I support the death penalty" is at odds with the rest of the options.  That's why "top reason" is in the poll question.  I guess I could have put the "all of the above" just above the "I support" option.  20/20 hindsight!  

    by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:23:21 AM PDT

•  Two main objections

  First, the finality of the death penalty eliminates any chance that an innocent person could clear their own name.  Granted, it's just as unfair for a person who is innocent to be sentanced to life in prison, but at least a life sentance allows for the wrongly accused to work to clear their name.  I don't think that any judicial system is so perfect that it will not at times make mistakes.  

  Second, there is no way that this sort of punishment could ever be applied in an even-handed way.  This isn't to say that other sorts of punishment are applied correctly either.  White collar crime and white drug offenders certainly get less harsh treatment.  Again, the finality of the death penalty troubles me.

  This brings up an interesting observation about politics.  I find that people on the left are more likely to understand that there is the possibility that they are wrong.  Conservatives are so convinced that they are right about everything that they never leave room for an 'out.'  This is why Conservatives will never support a withdrawl from Iraq.  It would mean admitting they were wrong.  This would bring their whole system into question.  

  The fundimental conservative mindset is to never self doubt.  If you have ZERO doubt, executing people is almost defendable.  The real world, of course, is full of doubt and renders conservatism useless, but we already knew that.

  by DCArchitect on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:14:51 AM PDT

  •  Very astute observation

    I find that people on the left are more likely to understand that there is the possibility that they are wrong.  Conservatives are so convinced that they are right about everything that they never leave room for an 'out.'

    That makes sense to me. It goes along with the notion that Democrats accept democracy as a messy process.  We don't want to shut down public debate, or debate in the Senate.  We bristle when BushCo tells us to watch what we say because it might be "unpatriotic."

    Plus which, your tag line is great.

    by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:28:42 AM PDT

•  My reasons for opposition

  are practical (in relation to the actual structures & purposes of law enforcement) & also based in a Buddhist spiritual perspective, which not only dictates the sanctity of life but a universal potential for enlightenment.

  by wilderness wench on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:21:01 AM PDT

  •  Ps:

    belief in the sanctity of life doesn't exclude an acceptance of death as fact; one simply doesn't get emotional satisfaction from it.

    by wilderness wench on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:25:40 AM PDT

•  No perfect society.

  I oppose the death penalty because a perfect society is the only guarantee of perfect application--an absolute requirement, since there is no room, moral or otherwise, for an "oops" on a death penalty decision.

  To my knowledge, every society on this planet is still coming up short on the perfection test. Until we get there, administering the death penalty is nothing less than a despicable act of human arrogance and must be off the table.

  by dicta on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:26:25 AM PDT

•  Ethel Rosenberg, race, and European views

  I support the death penalty for only the most egregious examples; most solemn. Maybe once in a generation. And not necessarily for violent crimes but for cold, calculating putting profit before life, poisoning the environment, food supply, etc.

  Why I am against the death penalty in general (and I feel deficient for not being totally against it):
  The hideous execution of Ethel Rosenberg (who was guilty of less "treason" than many of the current Administration's cabal)

  The execution of innocent victims of miscarriages of justice along with the racist misapplication of justice.

  The Europeans. More "Enlightened" and "Advanced" about these things. Ditto the Buddhists. Good role models on social justice issues.

  by LNK on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:29:06 AM PDT

•  I Support The Death Penalty...

  ...In certain cases, and when the process is "fair".

  I used to oppose the Death Penalty, but I can remember the case that changed my mind. There was a carjacking, in Missouri back in the 90's, where a young boy was in the back-seat of the car. The boy attempted to get out, but got caught in the door. When the carjacker attempted to get away, he drug the boy to his death while the Mother chased after the car screaming & pleading for the car to stop.

  Why should someone who would do something like that deserve to breathe the same air & see the same sunshine that the rest of us do? They should burn in hell, where they belong...

  by Rimjob on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:41:05 AM PDT

  •  Define "Fair"

    And how do you know mistakes weren't made - or things weren't fabricated?

    by Alegre on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:56:18 AM PDT

    •  A Rigorous Appeals Process...

      ...and procedures that attempt to make the trial process as fair as Humanly possible.

      You can never remove all doubt & fuck-ups from the system. That's the reason I put fair in quotes & italicised it...

      by Rimjob on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:01:51 AM PDT

      •  Probably everyone of us

        can remember a crime reported in the media so terrible that we thought that this guilty person should be executed.

        The problem is that once you say that the punishment for this, this and that crime "can be" the death penalty you wander from "one" case to the "general" crime. That´s how our justice system works.

        And then you´re probably in trouble because you then can´t rule out faulty death sentences.

        A trial process as fair as Humanly possible is still not perfect. You can´t rule out innocents executed.

        And that´s why I´m against the death penalty.
        Life without parole is a pretty severe sentence too. But the courts still have the possibility to correct themselves in case the sentence was wrong. The person might have lost years of his/her life but at least is still alive.

        I seriously doubt that any justice system in the world likes to admit errors. That´s human.
        But it´s easier to admit a judicial error if the person is still alive, I´d say. Who likes to admit  that an innocent person was executed?

        by Detlef on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:36:21 AM PDT

•  I think you should another option to the poll...

  Or I didn't see/misunderstood the answers. I'm presonally against capital punishment because of if we are to kill someone who presumably killed someone else or did something else extrodinarily bad, the government is no better then this murderer/criminal. Now since the government represents the people, therefore the people are no better then this murderer/criminal.

     - We do not inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from our children - Gandhi

  by Digitking on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:43:37 AM PDT

  •  I tried to cover that

    with this:  State-sanctioned killing is ugly, and supporting it makes us an ugly society

    I didn't state it as well as I could have.

    by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:56:58 AM PDT

    •  Sorry by bad,

      I just wasn't sure but now I know. It's just that I don't think ugly evokes the same kind of image of execution.

      by Digitking on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 02:54:12 PM PDT

      •  When I use the word "ugly"

        to describe the inner workings of the human soul/spirit/conscience/whatever, my intent is that it be a very strong word. Perhaps "hideous" or "depraved" would have been a better choice.

        by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 07:05:03 PM PDT

•  Mend it, don't end it ....

  I fully support the death penalty but only in rare cases.

  Imo there should be an increased burden of proof to fry someone.

  by redfish on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:44:34 AM PDT

•  On the perversity of captial punishment

  This is actually a letter I wrote some time back to a columnist in the UK who advocated for the death penatly for a man accused of killing two young twins. It pretty much sums up my feelings on capital punishment.

  (begin)

  I'm sorry but I cannot help feeling that when your entire argument is, as you put it, that "murder, deliberately carried out, is a heinous crime," you can hardly argue that somehow capital punishment is a solution. Can you honestly claim that individual murder is atrocious, but that the deliberate, premeditated murder of a murderer is a fine thing? That when "HE" does it (making his choices alone and without our consent) it's awful, but when "WE" do it (all together through the processes of our courts) it's justice?

  Killing is always a terrible thing. It must be avoided, not at all costs (sometimes it is necessary -- killing a madman to save the life of a child as an extreme -- and rather cinematic -- example) but rather only as a very last resort, when all other reasonable routes have been tried and found wanting. And then, when a killer has been found out, tried and convicted, and can be put away from society for a lifetime there is no reason to take the extra step of committing yet another murder. That it makes us (or more accurately, some of us) "feel better," that it is "symbolic" of something or other (though I can't imagine what -- it's a little like claiming rapists ought to be raped, or that thieves should be stolen from. What do you do to a peeping Tom, watch him when he's not looking?) is hardly an excuse to take a life. Though it is undeniably horrible when a young life is snuffed out -- and for that matter equally bad when an old life is taken -- it makes no sense to claim that state sponsored murder is some kind of solution.

  What if the twins you cite at the beginning of your article had died under a fallen tree? Would you burn the tree? Rip up its roots and make sure it would never grow again to possibly kill another? Wouldn't that be ridiculous? Would you not, instead, mourn the loss of life and move on? Any insistence that capital punishment is somehow different is merely sophistry. It provides only the illusion of compensation. Another death cannot bring back the lost life. It cannot make the loss of life "right" except in our imaginations.

  A killer does not "pay" for his crime through dying. After his death we cannot know what happens to him (our personal spiritual or religious beliefs not withstanding -- and to that point, when a suicide bomber blows himself up in a shopping mall he believes that he will go to heaven for his act. Is it any different that we kill under the religious belief that we are "sending" someone to hell through our actions?) What if we're wrong? What if death is death? No afterlife? I can hardly be said to have paid for something if the price does not come out of my pocket and I have nothing to show for the transaction (the more so if my knowledge of the transaction vanishes at the moment of its completion as would happen if, upon my death, all knowledge of my existence vanishes from my perspective). To say that some "payment" has been made is merely a thing we tell ourselves to make us feel righteous and revenged. To allow us to pretend we've done something positive in the face of something we cannot control and cannot change. To make us "feel" better.

  That the initial deaths make us feel bad is meaningless, in such a context, even if the death of the killer somehow makes us feel "good" (and how any deliberate killing can do anything but sicken a person's soul -- no matter it's rationale -- is beyond me).

  Thus, capital punishment is an even worse excuse for taking a life than a murderer's rationale. At least most killers have some reason for their crimes, if only to take a wallet. To kill someone only to make us "feel better" is a terrible excuse for a heinous act and in many ways far more evil and perverse than the original murder.

  by Captain Frogbert on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:49:21 AM PDT

  •  I would argue

    that the tree does not have a conscience.  The human murderer does.

    That said, I do believe capital punishment is usually if not always about revenge.  If our goal is to keep the streets safe from the murderer, then a life sentence will do that quite as well as the death penalty.

    by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:34:13 AM PDT

    •  Actually, I think neither has a conscience...

      But that's irrelevant.

      The point is not that capital punishment is about THEM, who they are, what they did; rather it's about US, what we do, how we react. We know they are bad people. It's our response to them that defines us -- makes us good or just as bad as they. Whether capital punishment is about revenge or making us feel good about "doing something" or for any other reason, it's about taking a human life.

      We did decide that was wrong, right?

      We can dress it up in any clown suit we want, but in the end killing to punish killing is perverse.

      To suggest that when I kill you of my own volition the act ought to be punishable by death, but that 12 people and a DA killing me is not an equivalent act deserving of the same fate because the latter represents "justice" is absurd.

      It's an atavistic ideological act deriving from the primitive belief that my tribe is always good and yours deserves death if we decide to kill you. That some people are human and some are not. And we get to decide who gets to be in the club. It's saying that what goes for you does not go for us. We're inherently better. That when we kill it's for all the right reasons, when you kill (us or people we like) you deserve to die. Civilised people don't think that way. Barbarians do.

      It's the same twisted ideology that got us into the quagmire of Iraq: we can have the big nasty toys because we're to be trusted, they can't because they're not. When they kill us it's murder, when we them kill it's justice. When they breathe they do it all wrong.

      If humankind is to survive, we have to decide that we are all in the people club and that there are certain things people don't do. Killing is one of them. Torture another. Arguing that we can do it for any reason at all is a tacit license to kill for anyone else.

      by Captain Frogbert on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 02:09:51 PM PDT

      •  I should have said that the tree doesn't do it

        by choice, whereas the human does.

        Certainly I take your point, and see that you mean how it reflects on us.  I am in agreement with you.  When I said it's about revenge, I meant that it's because WE want revenge on another human.  Same as your point - the focus is on US, not the murderer.  If we seek revenge, it makes us monstrous.

        In my poll I said that state-sanctioned execution is ugly and turns the society ugly, and by that I mean that sanctioning the death penalty makes US ugly.  My use of ugly here - to describe the conscience or soul or what-have-you - is meant as an extremely strong word.

        by Montague on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 07:01:57 PM PDT

        •  I think we do agree

          And I didn't mean to sound like I was being dismissive of your point or that my rather agressive response we directed at you personally. I get a bit passionate about this subject and have just heard so many nitwits advocate for the death penalty that I get carried away.

          by Captain Frogbert on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 01:44:47 PM PDT

          •  Passion can be useful

            Sometimes people are convinced by a person who argues his/her point with passion.  So that can be a very good thing.

            It is interesting to me to see the different reasons people give for being against the death penalty.  I figure whatever makes people come to the conclusion that it is wrong, the better.

            It's not an issue I vote on, but I do talk with people about it and try to convince them in my own way.  If more voters become anti, then more Democratic politicians will feel safe in being against it.

            by Montague on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 07:53:18 AM PDT

•  You need an "all of the above."

  A) It doesn't deter
  B) It's not cost-effective
  C) Innocent people are executed
  D) States shouldn't murder
  E) It's not for a jury of 12 to decide who lives and who dies

  I had trouble picking just one.

  The death penalty is wrong, period.  That said, I also believe that abortion is morally wrong (with exception of mother's life being endangered, in which case I believe it's morally wrong NOT to have an abortion).  The difference here is that there is no debating that an adult human is a human life and that a bunch of imperfect humans are conspiring to murder that human.  There are no good reasons to kill a person.  With abortion, there is a huge debate as to the status of the fetus, the fetus is also physically part of the mother vs. being an independent life and there are interests of the mother that can be debated, and there are medical reasons where the mother's life or health are at risk.  All those very complex issues are such that I am not comfortable legislating my views and I am not comfortable with anyone else legislating theirs.  I'm in the camp of I hate abortion but I'll fight to defend it because it's a privacy issue.

  Not that this was an abortion thing but with death penalty it always seems to be "How can you believe it's immoral to execute people while still fighting for the right to an abortion."

  -Fred

  by FredFred on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:49:35 AM PDT

•  During the 2000 presidential debates

  the only thing that Bush and Gore agreed on was that the death penalty should only be used if it is a deterrent to crime.

  According to the studies I've seen, it's not.

  by TerraByte on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:52:10 AM PDT

•  Besides being morally inconsistent..

  Think about it for a minute.  The logic of the death penalty is, "you murdered and that is wrong.  To punish you we will kill you."  Is it wrong to murder or not?  How is it OK to take a life in one case but not the other.

  But besides that I have a few links to put forward.  

  The fact that we have a thing called the Innocence Project which has exonerated 163 death row inmates.  Think about that.  163 times the system has condemned a person who was later proven to be innocent.  How easy is it to prove you are innocent?  Can you honestly believe that no innocent person has ever been executed?

  Finally, listen to this audio produced by my local NPR station WBEZ called This American Life.  This particularly show is called Backed Into a Corner.  

  
  Host Ira Glass interviews Joe Amrine, who was falsely accused of murder. But rather than avoid the death penalty Amrine said everything he could think of on the witness stand to get the jury to give him a death sentence. He figured that would be better than life in prison. Since he would need media attention and free legal help to appeal his case, he calculated the only way he could get it was to sit on death row, because nobody pays attention to lifers. He nearly was executed, and lived on death row for seventeen years before being released.
  

  by RAST on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:52:23 AM PDT

  •  Old Bumper Sticker

    Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

    by Alegre on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:58:13 AM PDT

•  All of the above except the last one

  Why is it that the strongest proponents of the death penalty are often those who claim the strongest faith?

  This leads me to;
  You left out the 4th commandment, but I guess that falls under "all life is sacred." There are some who would say, "I don't think we should kill because God told us not to do so."

  As an agnostic I don't know what metaphysical answer is correct, but I know for certain that the state is not morally empowered to end life.
  

  by mungley on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:09:48 AM PDT

•  My View

  
  I'm for the death penalty and here's why: If someone is convicted of a crime and given life in prison when they're 18-20, they'll spend about 50-60 years in jail if they live to the natural human lifespan. This is before you add in medical breakthroughs during their life time which will allow a human to live longer.

  That's 50-60 years of looking over their shoulder for other, more hostile inmates. That's 50-60 years of not having any intimacy with another human being.  That's 50-60 years just wasted.

  If you were being released from prison after serving 50-60 (meaning you went to jail in 1946-1955) years today, you would probably not have a lot of experience with computers, answering machines, music CD's, music tapes, VHS tapes, FM radio, cable TV or racially integrated restaurants/theaters. If you had any children, they're almost to a point to collect Social Security. Your Grandchildren are probably in college and some would have families of their own.  It was 50-60 years just wasted. Poured down the toilet.

  Humans were meant to be free. One of our founders Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death." I agree with that. If someone is found guilty of a crime and is facing the prospect of never getting out, I think the humane thing to do is to grant them a painless death.
  

  by Koldun on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:30:40 AM PDT

  •  I have trouble understanding your view.

    If I understand you correctly the death penalty is more humane than life without parole. Simply from the point of view of the convicted.

    Nice....

    Especially since you don´t even mention the possibility of someone innocent sentenced to death and executed. Someone serving a life sentence can still be proven innocent (with new testing methods like when DNA analysis was developed) and released. Someone executed is simply dead.

    So living with the possibility of executing "some" innocent persons seems to be part of your "humane society"?

    Not to mention that if you want to sentence someone to death because of committing a terrible crime (the ultimate penalty) why not sentence that person to life without parole?

    a) That person gets its punishment
    b) Family members of the victim get closure
    c) Society - in a way - gets revenge if it cares about that
    d) That person in case of an error can still be released.

    I think a humane society should avoid at the utmost taking the lives of innocents. Since no justice system is perfect and flawless that for me rules out the death penalty.

    by Detlef on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 11:00:17 AM PDT

•  Against it

  First and foremost, I don't believe the government has the right to murder its citizens, period.  Imprison them, yes, but not kill them.  That is just a personal belief, one I feel strongly about, but if I needed to argue against capital punishment, I would bring up the fact that we execute a hell of a lot of people, and you're kidding yourself if you believe they are all guilty.

  We jail a lot of innocent people too, but if they are finally proven innocent, we can just let them go.  If they're already dead, there's not much we can do.

  Plus, it's no more a deterrant than life in prison without possibility of parole.  And if we want to win on this electorally (where currently we are outnumbered 2 to 1), the best way to change minds would be to emphasize life in prison without possibility of parole as an alternative, because far too many people support the death penalty simply because they are worried the nastiest murderers will get out again.

  Then there's the racial and class disparities, but that applies to the whole justice system.  Not saying it isn't important, it is, but it's not an effective argument against capital punishment any more than it is against regular jail.

  by Skaje on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:51:23 AM PDT