capital punishment

[Dancing Fire]

capital punishment should be carry out within 60 days after he/she is found guilty.

IMHO yes and no.

Yes get it over with ASAP, but be suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure the person is guilty.
Appeals are to make suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

Because death is the ultimate punishment I think it is appropriate to have a process that makes guilt as suuuuuuuure as humanly possible.

how many of these here in Ca?? they should of been executed many years ago.

 

[E B]

It would be very much a circumstantial issue to me, and I would have to think long and hard about the pertinent issue while determining my opinion. Overall, without a case study in front of me, I am NOT for capital punishment, but I'm one of those "never say never" people.

I feel this way as well.

 

[phoenixgirl]

Morally, I am against capital punishment, but when I hear that a real creep has been sentenced to die, I don't shed any tears.

Here's why:

*Almost every first world nation has abolished it
*There is no evidence it deters crime
*It costs more than a life sentence
*Inmates sentenced to death row have later been exonerated
*Crimes punishable by death penalty vary so greatly between the states that allow it (for example, a juvenile in Texas who, say, murders a convenience store clerk in a robbery gone wrong is eligible); this is too arbitrary to be just
*Ultimately I think depriving an offender of quality of life is a greater punishment than depriving him or her of life

By that same token, I think it's more of a punishment to let somebody quietly fester for life in prison. When Elie Wiesel and Oprah visited Auschwitz, he showed her where political prisoners were executed, and she commented on how sad it was. He said something like, "Well, at least they had individual deaths." I think that giving the criminal all the attention of the protestors and the appeals is in a way rewarding him.

But I can think of stories of real scum bags whose death sentences I felt, you know, glad about, somehow. Intellectually I believe it's wrong, but when you hear that a horrible child rapist and murderer is going to die, you think, "Good riddance."

 

[kenny]

capital punishment should be carry out within 60 days after he/she is found guilty.

IMHO yes and no.

Yes get it over with ASAP, but be suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure the person is guilty.
Appeals are to make suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

Because death is the ultimate punishment I think it is appropriate to have a process that makes guilt as suuuuuuuure as humanly possible.

how many of these here in Ca?? they should of been executed many years ago.

I don't know the details but if we are as sure as humanly possible of their guilt and the legal system has run its course (important for preventing lynch mobs) then yes, carry out the sentence today without delay. Absolutely!

 

[Imdanny]

My opinion of it is NO, NO, NO, ask me 1,000 more times and my opinion will be NO. JUST NO.

 

[stepcutgirl]

I'm against it no matter what the crime. And it isn't because I find the life of someone who has dome something horrific worth anything. I just feel we have no right to sentence someone to death. When someone chooses to murder someone we all know it was wrong, even if the person murdered completely deserved it, yet we then turn around and say we find it appropriate to murder someone. I personally feel a life sentence in solitary confinement worse than the death penalty for the guilty party. And I personally think that if one innocent person in death row is spared from death and their innocence can be proven it's worth far more than one guilty man dying.

 

[risingsun]

In the case of sociopaths, I believe in capital punishment. Sociopaths cannot be rehabilitated. They have no conscience. A sociopath will keep on killing. I am in favor of the death penalty for heinous crimes committed by people who have no remorse or ability to change. In this case, the death penalty is a deterrent. This person will not commit murder again. There are crimes, which are so horrific, that we have to answer some difficult questions. How do we deal with a person who has lost their own humanity.

 

[kenny]

I personally feel a life sentence in solitary confinement worse than the death penalty for the guilty party.

So you must feel solitary confinement is appropriate for the worst criminals and the death penalty is appropriate for those convicted of lesser crimes?

 

[Dancing Fire]

bring back the guillotine!!

 

[kenny]

bring back the guillotine!!

DF, have you lost your head?

 

[Dancing Fire]

bring back the guillotine!!

DF, have you lost your head?

nope,still here...

 

[doodle]

Morally, I am against capital punishment, but when I hear that a real creep has been sentenced to die, I don't shed any tears.

Here's why:

*Almost every first world nation has abolished it
*There is no evidence it deters crime
*It costs more than a life sentence
*Inmates sentenced to death row have later been exonerated
*Crimes punishable by death penalty vary so greatly between the states that allow it (for example, a juvenile in Texas who, say, murders a convenience store clerk in a robbery gone wrong is eligible); this is too arbitrary to be just
*Ultimately I think depriving an offender of quality of life is a greater punishment than depriving him or her of life

By that same token, I think it's more of a punishment to let somebody quietly fester for life in prison. When Elie Wiesel and Oprah visited Auschwitz, he showed her where political prisoners were executed, and she commented on how sad it was. He said something like, "Well, at least they had individual deaths." I think that giving the criminal all the attention of the protestors and the appeals is in a way rewarding him.

But I can think of stories of real scum bags whose death sentences I felt, you know, glad about, somehow. Intellectually I believe it's wrong, but when you hear that a horrible child rapist and murderer is going to die, you think, "Good riddance."

My thoughts exactly, except put far more eloquently! Personally, I'm vindictive, and if someone did something truly heinous, the death penalty's just far too fast for me. I believe you can take away someone's life without killing that person.

 

[iheartscience]

Morally, I am against capital punishment, but when I hear that a real creep has been sentenced to die, I don't shed any tears.

Here's why:

*Almost every first world nation has abolished it
*There is no evidence it deters crime
*It costs more than a life sentence
*Inmates sentenced to death row have later been exonerated
*Crimes punishable by death penalty vary so greatly between the states that allow it (for example, a juvenile in Texas who, say, murders a convenience store clerk in a robbery gone wrong is eligible); this is too arbitrary to be just
*Ultimately I think depriving an offender of quality of life is a greater punishment than depriving him or her of life

By that same token, I think it's more of a punishment to let somebody quietly fester for life in prison. When Elie Wiesel and Oprah visited Auschwitz, he showed her where political prisoners were executed, and she commented on how sad it was. He said something like, "Well, at least they had individual deaths." I think that giving the criminal all the attention of the protestors and the appeals is in a way rewarding him.

But I can think of stories of real scum bags whose death sentences I felt, you know, glad about, somehow. Intellectually I believe it's wrong, but when you hear that a horrible child rapist and murderer is going to die, you think, "Good riddance."

My thoughts exactly, except put far more eloquently! Personally, I'm vindictive, and if someone did something truly heinous, the death penalty's just far too fast for me. I believe you can take away someone's life without killing that person.

Ditto and ditto. Killing someone for killing someone else is ridiculous.

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

Crasru, Monnie, I just wanted to say thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate it, and I feel like I know you guys pretty well too, and I'm very happy to be able to know you guys.

I'm also really glad that this thread has stayed so thoughtful and intelligent. I think that taking one's life, no matter who the person is or what they have done, is a huge decision, and the more we talk and think about it and the process, the better it is overall.

 

[Trekkie]

Death penalty for rape and murder, enforced within 30 days of conviction.

 

[diamondbuggy]

Death penalty for rape and murder, enforced within 30 days of conviction.

Ditto!

 

[Irishgrrrl]

I am against capital punishment for a number of reasons:

1. If the death penalty results in the execution of EVEN ONE innocent person, then it's not worth it. (And as others have mentioned, we know that innocent people have been executed in the past.)

2. What gives us the right to decide who lives and who dies? I believe that killing is wrong. It doesn't matter what the reason for the killing is . . . it's still wrong. (Except in the case of self-defense or defense of another, of course.)

3. I don't think death is an appropriate punishment for the worst offenders. It lets them off easy. Many prisoners who have been sentenced to life in prison will tell you that they would rather die. Should we give them what they want, or should they have to sit in prison day after day and think about what they did to get themselves there? (And if they should forget, don't worry . . . the other inmates will often remind them, and they're usually not very subtle.)

4. I think the death penalty is often handed out too frivolously. There are some people on death row who ARE guilty but, because of mitigating circumstances, they should not have received the death penalty. Due to my job (I'm a paralegal), I've spoken to one such person. It's a very sad situation.

 

[perry]

I have to be honest that I am bothered by the people who think that we should punish people by life in prision (that a quick death is too easy..).

I can't buy that - and I think that is nothing short of inflicting torture on people. What kind of person feels better by watching others (or animals) suffer? Sorry, I can't support vengeance.

Lets face it - life in jail with no parole is a death sentence. I believe it is inhumane to stretch out the sentence. I do not believe there is some moral purpose in keeping people confined until they die.

I am also in total agreement with those who worry about false conviction of the innocent - or for all the various things people are currently sentenced to life imprisonment or death for.

The number of crimes needs to be significantly reduced - and the evidence needs to be based on solid physical - or other evidence that is virtually foolproof. I.e the standard for life imprisiment/death should be not just beyond a reasonable doubt - but "virtually impossible that any one else did it" or "Virtually certainty that a specific person did it" (100% certainty/perfection is not achievable - in anything; yet life must go on).

I am horrified on the number of people convicted on circumstantial evidence (they could have a motive - they had the opportunity - and they can't prove they were elsewhere: If I am home at night sleeping - how do I prove I was there?).

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[stepcutgirl]

I personally feel a life sentence in solitary confinement worse than the death penalty for the guilty party.

So you must feel solitary confinement is appropriate for the worst criminals and the death penalty is appropriate for those convicted of lesser crimes?

Perhaps you missed the first sentence of my response Kenny???? Not sure what this is about?

 

[Nashville]

I personally feel a life sentence in solitary confinement worse than the death penalty for the guilty party.

So you must feel solitary confinement is appropriate for the worst criminals and the death penalty is appropriate for those convicted of lesser crimes?

I'm confused, could you clarify? I believe stepcut girl said she feels the death penalty is not an appropriate option in her opinion, no matter what the person was convicted of. "I'm against it no matter what the crime."

 

[Nashville]

I personally feel a life sentence in solitary confinement worse than the death penalty for the guilty party.

So you must feel solitary confinement is appropriate for the worst criminals and the death penalty is appropriate for those convicted of lesser crimes?

Perhaps you missed the first sentence of my response Kenny???? Not sure what this is about?

Whoops, missed your response, nevermind

 

[Irishgrrrl]

I have to be honest that I am bothered by the people who think that we should punish people by life in prision (that a quick death is too easy..).

I can't buy that - and I think that is nothing short of inflicting torture on people. What kind of person feels better by watching others (or animals) suffer? Sorry, I can't support vengeance.

Lets face it - life in jail with no parole is a death sentence. I believe it is inhumane to stretch out the sentence. I do not believe there is some moral purpose in keeping people confined until they die.

Perry, it's not about making us "feel better" . . . of course I don't feel good about people suffering. It's about appropriate consequences for the offender's actions. If someone rapes/murders another person, don't you think there should be serious consequences for that? And I just can't buy that life sentences are inhumane because they amount to a death sentence. Have you visited a prison lately? It's not exactly the Four Seasons, but it's not an inhumane environment either. And if the offender truly believes that he/she was wrongly convicted or sentenced too harshly, they have the opportunity to appeal their sentence (which they would not if they were sentenced to death and the sentence was quickly carried out).

ETA: There are prisoners who are serving a life sentence and are making a difference in the world while doing it. If they are religious, they can minister to other prisoners. If they are well educated, they can help other prisoners get their GED and/or help them with college-level courses. There are positive and meaningful things that one can do from inside prison walls, you know.

 

[perry]

There are two forms of appeals:

1) The trial process was not fair (a process issue). That is legitimate and I have no problem allowing an appeal on that basis.

2) The trial was not fair because it did not include the evidence that would show I did not do it. This gets to the problem of convictions based on circumstantial evidence - of which the current system is rife with abuse and false convictions (and why we keep finding innocent people in prison). If you have read my stated criteria these kinds of conviction would never qualify for life imprisonment or the death penalty at all. Only cases with absolutely solid physical and other evidence would warrant the most extreme sentence - and thus, would virtually eliminate this kind of appeal in this kind of case entirely.

As far as having the punishment fit the crime.... Ahh... in some cases I, and others, believe that the death penalty is the correct punishment that fits the crime. That may not be a lot of cases (and I would expect it to be limited to only a few situations). If a person is so sentenced for legitimate reasons - then it is incumbent upon us to do so as humanely as possible.

Now for those who claim that you cannot execute humanely. Yes you can - and it is the same considerations that have been considered in hunting and the slaughtering of various species for food (or other purposes). I do understand that there are people who do not believe you can kill any living thing humanely - which is one of the reasons cited by some of the vegetarians. I accept that we will have to differ.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[Irishgrrrl]

2) The trial was not fair because it did not include the evidence that would show I did not do it. This gets to the problem of convictions based on circumstantial evidence - of which the current system is rife with abuse and false convictions (and why we keep finding innocent people in prison). If you have read my stated criteria these kinds of conviction would never qualify for life imprisonment or the death penalty at all. Only cases with absolutely solid physical and other evidence would warrant the most extreme sentence - and thus, would virtually eliminate this kind of appeal in this kind of case entirely.

Ah, but Perry, what about situations in which the person was convicted based on direct evidence, but exculpatory evidence becomes available *after* sentencing? For example, the many wrongly convicted prisoners who have been exonerated by the Innocence Project due to the fact that DNA evidence (which was not available at the time of conviction) proves their innocence? The technology is constantly growing and improving. What if there's some as-yet-unheard-of technology that will come to light ten years from now that proves the innocence of some people who we've already executed?

 

[kenny]

I personally feel a life sentence in solitary confinement worse than the death penalty for the guilty party.

So you must feel solitary confinement is appropriate for the worst criminals and the death penalty is appropriate for those convicted of lesser crimes?

Perhaps you missed the first sentence of my response Kenny???? Not sure what this is about?

Just a silly attempt at humor.
Sorry, thought that was obvious.
Nothing personal.

 

[Amber St. Clare]

IrishGirl:

If

the death penalty results in the execution of EVEN ONE innocent person, then it's not worth it. (And as others have mentioned, we know that innocent people have been executed in the past.)

I would be interested in knowing WHO has been executed that has been proven innocent? I spend time on a justice board, and while most DP ers CLAIM to be innocent I cannot for the life of me name one who acutally WAS innocent. So I would like to read up on his history and discuss this person on my other board.

Thanks.

 

[Karl_K]

IrishGirl:

If

the death penalty results in the execution of EVEN ONE innocent person, then it's not worth it. (And as others have mentioned, we know that innocent people have been executed in the past.)

I would be interested in knowing WHO has been executed that has been proven innocent? I spend time on a justice board, and while most DP ers CLAIM to be innocent I cannot for the life of me name one who acutally WAS innocent. So I would like to read up on his history and discuss this person on my other board.

Thanks.

Arson case out of Texas, investigator testified that some marks could only be caused by an accelerant.
It has been proven that those marks are caused by flashover not an accelerant and it was the only thing that caused them.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all

 

[mousey]

I'm against it no matter what the crime. And it isn't because I find the life of someone who has dome something horrific worth anything. I just feel we have no right to sentence someone to death. When someone chooses to murder someone we all know it was wrong, even if the person murdered completely deserved it, yet we then turn around and say we find it appropriate to murder someone. I personally feel a life sentence in solitary confinement worse than the death penalty for the guilty party. And I personally think that if one innocent person in death row is spared from death and their innocence can be proven it's worth far more than one guilty man dying.

This!
I don t really understand how 'human rights' can exist at the same time as capital punishment. I don t believe rights can be traded (you have them until you do something to forfeit them). In my opinion if human rights mean anything at all they mean that the rights holder has them in virtue of being a person- not a good person. Of course this might mean that there aren't many rights at all, but bodily integrity is defo a right in my opinion. I also do not understand how a state can go to war in order to promote/protect human rights-- just does nt make sense to me!

 

[zoebartlett]

Capital punishment has it's place IMHO. But it's hard to define that place.

This is what I believe too.

 

[AGBF]

IrishGirl:

If

the death penalty results in the execution of EVEN ONE innocent person, then it's not worth it. (And as others have mentioned, we know that innocent people have been executed in the past.)

I would be interested in knowing WHO has been executed that has been proven innocent? I spend time on a justice board, and while most DP ers CLAIM to be innocent I cannot for the life of me name one who acutally WAS innocent. So I would like to read up on his history and discuss this person on my other board.

Thanks.

Arson case out of Texas, investigator testified that some marks could only be caused by an accelerant.
It has been proven that those marks are caused by flashover not an accelerant and it was the only thing that caused them.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all

Hi, Karl. You had no way of knowing it, but you quoted from an article that featured the husband of a dear friend whom I lost to cancer last month. Her name was Judy Kaye Lentini and her husband, John Lentini, works on the Innocence Project. As the article says, as an expert arson investigator whose testimony can be used to help to convict people of arson, he is now squeamish about the death penalty!

"John Lentini says of the Lime Street Fire, 'This was my epiphany. I almost sent a man to die based on theories that were a load of crap.' "

As I have stated before, I am against the death penalty for moral and religious reasons, not only because the wrong person might be executed (although that, in itself, is argument enough). Even if there were a way to guarantee that that the right person were always convicted, I would oppose it on religious and moral grounds. Perhaps that is the Quaker part of my background speaking.

Deb/AGBF