the death penalty for the guilty party.

I would never commit a cold blooded killing myself, and I don’t want to state doing it in my name

and even do wrong deliberately...

Justice is a word that I struggle with…….it equates to revenge, I fear. And I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty.

very fallible US Justice system is a mistake.

Innocent people have been murdered by the state; that is unconscionable.

It's this for me.

IF I thought the system were flawless in getting proper convictions AND in deciding who was eligible for the death penalty without bias AND who received it without bias AND I thought everyone got appropriate representation then maybe.

But none of that is remotely true so no.

Obviously your Hitlers and Stalins and cannibal serial killers are situations that make you stretch your convictions but they are exceptions not the rule.

..a workmate asked "What do you do with Ted Bundy?" and I didn't know. That was way before the now commonplace mass shootings.

There would have to be absolutely no shadow of a doubt that they were totally guilty, and the crime would have to be so heinous that the risk of that person ever escaping would be horrifying and unthinkable.

Only for the most UTTERLY heinous IRON CLAD cases.

I have NO problem with states doing away with it, altogether. I would rather see them ban it than make mistakes with it.

Former Gov. George Ryan of IL, for instance, made the right choice.

https://news.wttw.com/2020/09/24/former-illinois-gov-george-ryan-we-gotta-do-away-death-penalty

But there is zero doubt he did it. I just worry about innocent people getting trapped in an unfair system.

And every time a half dozen women/girls disappeared before he was recaptured. But then I decided they simply need to build more-secure jails. We know that innocent people have been killed by the state. It needs to be outlawed once and for all.

Pipkin and Garfield counties. I think there was even a song about him escaping. He was something of a folk hero for a while. Sick.

“Don’t kill or we’ll kill you.”

is still murder.

Nobody should have the ability to end another person's life on their own accord. Building a formal process to do that and dressing it up as a state action doesn't change anything.

NO

Yes

I get multiple responses saying how the inmate deserved it, more than those in opposition to the execution. I think a lot of people may not be answering this poll.

I don't remember exactly where I learned this from but it was that we will learn someday that people who commit heinous crimes have a brain imbalance. And some day, in the future, we will be enlightened. People are not inherently evil... It's a flaw in their brain.

What did that accomplish? Shameful.

inherently evil or, good. It's the state of the brain in either case and we have very little ultimate control over it. In fact, one can make a good argument that we have no real control over it at all i.e. we are a product of what we are born with and our subsequent environment and those two things only.

So no, definitely anti-death penalty and even more-so because of the numerous failabilities of the justice system(s).

and history bears me out.

MANY DUers are all for the DP, and I am including those who say, " I am anti DP EXCEPT..."

which people may feel should say something more than "I disagree with the death penalty". While those who are in favour of the death penalty are more likely to want to expand on their reasons in the other threads, to justify their stance.

There are definitely some MFers who don’t deserve to ever see the sun ever again, but we make too many mistakes when administering the DP.

I could support it only in cases where there is an admission of guilt or proof beyond a conceivable doubt (not just reasonable doubt).

If they were able to tighten up the system, you would be okay with it.

Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2023, 06:35 PM - Edit history (1)

But if it were true that in some reality we were guaranteed to be 100% correct with assessing the guilt of DP cases, yes, I would be ok with the DP in heinous cases of extreme cruelty, specific agency and intention, and a lack of mitigating circumstancs.

I know some find that galling, but some MFers don't deserve to exist, IMO.

I'm against it for a number of reasons. It's applied unevenly. Mistakes happen. State sanctioned death penalty is gross.

But the reality is that there are people who perform egregious crimes and I'm not sad at all when they die.

I deeply admire the woman Sister Helen Prejean. She finds humanity in the most deeply flawed human beings and fights for their dignity and life. She's a hero for it and I wish I could emulate her.

One mistake is too many.
And, we've got people involved in justice, & people make mistakes.

But there are some traitors that we all saw, and other rare instances of clear heinous crime, that I would favor it for.

The crime has to be heinous.

There must be no question of guilt.

In certain circumstances.

Instead of the death penalty, sentence them to life without ANY chance for parole. TBH, that might be the harsher punishment for them - I cannot imagine being locked up for the rest of my life.

If eventually a person is proven innocent (beyond the shadow of a doubt), they'd be set free again.

but think prisons often don't rehabilitate and it's just less cruel and more efficient to eliminate the problem.

Do I favor it? No.

Do I support it? Reluctantly.

any chance of demotion or remediation much crueler than death.

to not be wrongfully convicted, but rather your right is to a trial, etc not a just or reality-based verdict. The relationship between the outcome of the trial and the factual reality of the historical events in question can be zero -- and everyone can know it, and the state gets to kill you, they say.

So... Yeah... That's a helluva system to have, huh? Pretty cool and fine and normal.

And don't give me some exemption about terrible crimes and 100% sure of guilt. Because I will show you a case in that example where the person found guilty was innocent. Even a few who were executed.

Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2023, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)

And assisted suicide should be a voluntary option for every incarcerated person.

Some criminals want the death penalty for themselves.

Timothy McVeigh, Oklahoma bomber, wanted to be a 'martyr'. (His view)

Life without parole would have been far more punishment, to himself.

Than I would have expected based on how often I see posters calling for the death of one criminal or another.

There was a time I would have said yes, but I have evolved over the years

I stand against...

This documentary
https://vimeo.com/83750163

And Foucault's Discipline and Punishment had big influence on the idea. The bloodthirsty response of the Bush era DOJ guy at the end, let you know that the death penalty is not about deterrence if future crime or stopping some 'monster' from killing again it is about blood lust.

Life without parole removes the danger from society. I would argue parole eligibility after age 80 would do the same and be less of a burden on the prison system. But that is a different point.

Too many possibilities of error. Too much racial and class warfare in choosing whom to seek the death penalty and who to plead out.

no place in civilized society

These people going in and shooting up hundreds and are on camera, DNA evidence and crowing about it before and after. Mass murderers are not redeemable.

Serial killers when there is iron clad proof of guilt and DNA evidence.


I would never want someone who could have been defending themselves or accidentally shot into the air...
AWFUL but not as intentional as someone who goes out and does mass murder or kills over and over again.


I would never want someone to die simply for being black in the vicinity of a crime either, so it needs to be beyond a shadow of a doubt and with iron clad proof of guilt.

Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2023, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

ETA
Particularly because of racial, and income level disparities.And bc down the line person (what ever take or economic status) is found innocent.


I'd say for the most heinious crimes; locked up for life, no parole.

some want to die so life in prison is worse than a quick death for some of them. I know that if I were guilty as sin and had no chance of getting a life outside of prison I would pull a Jeffrey Epstein. I have no problem if they commit genocide, etc.

El Chapo...death penalty
Putin...death penalty
Kim...death penalty
Etc........

None of the Mexican citizen cartel members will be eligible

Putin deserves it, but he isn't behind bars.

After seeing the carnage at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City I concluded that there was an evil that should no longer have the right to live. I don’t know exactly what the line is in my mind but, there is a line and I saw it on April 21 when I got to Oklahoma City. The smell still remains with me over 25 years later when I think of it. There is a point, for me I think it was the recovery of children from the daycare that led me to believe that those who did that no longer deserved to live in a civilized society.

strong case!

Maybe because I worked in a federal building, maybe because I had a child in a federal daycare, maybe because of the death count, I don’t know. I am not generally in favor of the death penalty, but every once in a while, I see something that so offends me, that so traumatized society, that is so awful, that I don’t think that incarceration does any good. They are rare instances but every once in a while, like I said, I am not proud of my answer, but yes

One other exception I would consider is someone who kills in prison on the basis that there are people who would continue to murder and eliminating them would save lives

...but as much as I'd like to say 'yes', I can't...

...better a guilty person lives incarcerated than an innocent person be put to death...

...nothing us humans do is 100% fool-proof or perfect including killing each other for a good reason...

...

And I know of so many guilty verdicts that have been overturned.

Spending the rest of your life in prison is a pretty awful penalty.

stabbings, some of the Jan 06 assholes and a few others.

Beyond that of a few, I don't support it.

N.J. has no provision for death penalty and I am ok with that. My main objection is convictions based on cop and/or prosecutorial misconduct.

barbaric

I'm more in favor of punishment.

Do some people do things that are bad enough to deserve death? Sure, but that's beside the point. State sanctioned murder is not the answer. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

me and until I do I will absolutely 100% oppose the death penalty.

and not now.

Would a state’s legal system consent to a law mandating that if a person executed turned out to be innocent, that the cops who investigated the case, the prosecuting attorney, the presiding judge, and the team carrying out the execution ALL get a mandatory death sentence for killing an innocent? Would there still BE a death penalty?

if I was the person the state asked to put an end to someone's life I would not be able to do so, therefore I cannot in good conscience ask another to do the same.

I do make an exception, however, for the telemarketers who barrage my home landline daily. I could pull the lever for them without remorse.

Pretty soon there'll be a despicable murder and the right wing will appeal to popular anger and you'll have to defend paying lifetime prison costs for some despicable murderer.

Pick your battles, Democrats. Social Security, Medicare, economy, democracy -- not these hot-button issues.

Death row cost way more than life in prison

Much to the surprise of many who, logically, would assume that shortening someone's life should be cheaper than paying for it until natural expiration, it turns out that it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than to execute them. In fact, it is almost 10 times cheaper!

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/which-is-cheaper-execution-or-life-in-prison-without-parole-31614#:~:text=Much%20to%20the%20surprise%20of,is%20almost%2010%20times%20cheaper!

Like mass murderers, serial killers, etc.

So, if I fumble this, I apologize.

I think that a lot of the time when a sentence of execution of levied, death is too kind of a sentence. It's a heavier sentence to lock someone up FOREVER with NO CHANCE of EVER getting out.

Let's also not forget that the sentence of "execution" is not handed out evenly/fairly.

And the standard of conviction in this country is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Juries, very often, do not consist of reasonable people. Our justice system is probably the best in the world, but that doesn't make it perfect. The finality of execution should demand perfection... which of course is not possible.

admittedly much less important reason that few ever list. Lifelong incarceration is MUCH cheaper for the taxpayer than the death penalty with all its appeals and special housing requirements, etc.

Again note, I am not saying it is the most important reason why I oppose the death penalty. Those important reasons have been well covered in this thread. But it is another reason that should be listed in a discussion.

Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2023, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)

I ask this. Where is the line drawn when the person is too dangerous to be kept alive?

Who fits that description.

age and rot in a prison cell. No government should be in the business of executing its own citizens.

Keep them there for life.

Mafia bosses do this all the time in prison as well.

in favor I ask this? What justice is done by administering the death penalty? Is the family of the murdered whole again once the murderer is dead? In murder cases, THER IS NO JUSTICE. EVER. It's a tragic no win situation. No way to make that even remotely right. The murdered will still be dead. So, does a second death make it all better?

define "too dangerous"?

eom

Now a days, they are just 3 squares and a bed as well as a place to plan and pass along future crimes.

Have any data to back up that assertion?

nt

but after watching what unfolded at our Nation's Capital
on January 6, 2021, that belief has been sorely tested.

Nope, I am a Never DP. Ever.

So as a practical matter, I'm opposed to it. Sure, I could say "if there's NO DOUBT", and there are plenty of cases where there is no doubt, but there's no real way to write a black-letter law codifying that so I'm perfectly content to forego it.

I'm also not sure 50+ years in ADX Florence-type conditions is really a better option. I'd be begging for the needle after a year.

I don't think giving the State the power to take a life is a good idea given how often mistakes are made. we executed FAR too many innocent people.

BUT... that's not to say I wouldn't feel a personal desire for retribution. My daughter is a victim of sexual assault/rape and I can tell you that I fantasize about killing the perpetrator. My daughter has really suffered as a result of her experience, and he gives not a shit. That peice of crap doesn't deserve to consume oxygen.

Our DP system is inhumane and costs 10 times more to carry out than simple life in prison. Our justice system is filled with issues including sexism, racism, classism, and well documented police corruption. Also, what's the point of executing someone 20 or 30 years after his/her crime?

I think life in a maximum security prison is enough...

For terrorist leaders or coup plotters, isolate them or keep them with one or a few others so that they can't organize a rebellion in prison.

so I’m gonna say no. But it’s hard when considering people who murder and rape children or commit treason against the country like Trump. But ultimately no, I don’t believe that murder by the state is ever justified.

I can't see any tangible differences to the safety of the community that life in prison wouldn't also cover. A life sentence can be rescinded/reevaluated if errors were made in trial while after a certain period of time has passed, a death sentence cannot be.

Reinforcing that, OR Gov. Kate Brown said a couple of years ago, “Justice is not served by the state taking a life. Its impact is inequitable... and third, it doesn’t prevent violent crimes.”

I don’t like it morally since it’s more killing (just by the state) on top of a killing. I consider that no better. If there’s a chance one innocent person may die, that is too many. Plus, it has always been racist and against poorer defendants. I have been completely against it almost all my adult life and never liked it much.

with a very high level of proof.

Psych evaluation says sane, etc. You get the idea.

Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy had to go. Too many of them in California died a natural death.

Study after study has shown the death penalty is not a deterrent. On top of that, it even costs MORE than keeping them incarcerated for life. Finally, we lose valuable information. We need to study cold blooded killers in order to prevent or intervene new ones.

Sorry, not supporting death sentences with a system that rewards prosecutors for number of convictions rather than in getting to the truth. One mistake is too many for me.

Plenty of time to think about what they’ve done.

They made a deal and offered him life without parole in exchange for ALL info about ALL victims. If he left something out, that could be dealt with in accordance with the law. Ridgeway himself said he could not remember all of the people he murdered or where he put all of the bodies, but he agreed. A whole lotta case get cleared, loved ones get closure, and they don't have to endure the pain and anguish of a trial.

Every single day in prison, Ridgeway likely goes to sleep and wakes up thinking, "Is today the day?" Is today the day they find another body linked to him for which he can get the death penalty? Governor Inslee issued a moratorium, but it could be revoked to execute Ridgeway.

I expect that he'll die in prison, but to me, it is the perfect execution [pun intended] of the death penalty.

Many people could have gotten closure if this had been possible with Ted Bundy.