Why are you pro-capital punishment?

[Modem Butterfly]

I'd like to know why people are pro-capital punishment. Particularly Xians, whom I would think would naturally be anti-capital punishment.

Come on, sock it to me.

[Beaver Tail]

1. Well I am not pro-capital punishment

I can’t justify an eye for an eye.

[Beaverhausen]

2. see this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4250659

[Modem Butterfly]

5. The cognitive dissonance is astounding

[MemphisTiger]

3. I'm against it, I'd love to hear the justification for

murder under the guise of justice.

[carnie_sf]

4. You may not get much response on this board

Maybe you should post your question at free republic

[Modem Butterfly]

10. I think you'll be surprised.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

6. Cause Hammurabi said "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"

:eyes:

I really don't know. Ive never heard a single good justification for it. The only time I would be pro-capital punishment is if we had someone like Hitler on trial....i guess...and even I'm having a hard time typing this out and saying it

[craychek]

7. Catholic and against capital punishment, all catholics should be

if you're catholic and for capital punishment you are going against Jesus, God, and the Church...

[Walt Starr]

8. Because there are cases where the criminal needs to be removed

from society, the gene pool, and existance in general.

[Shoeempress]

11. Seconded, but only in very extreme circumstances.

Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer. Too afraid someone like that could eventually be paroled.

[Selatius]

28. That's why they have life in prison...with no possibility of parole

[Carni]

35. Rare case but didn't (bush look alike) Bundy escape?

Granted that was not a typical case (in any way and maybe that has never happened with anyone else) but I do worry about the most heinous of serial killers escaping, or something.

Maybe I have seen too many horror flicks.

[Modem Butterfly]

43. I don't think so

I can't think of any serial killers who escaped after conviction, but I can think of quite a few who successfully evaded capture for a very long time.

[Shoeempress]

67. He escaped 2 times while waiting for trial in Colorado.

Once he jumped out of the window in the Law library and 2n time, he crawled out the air vent in the local jail

[Carni]

97. Ok thanks so it was a county jail then

I guess that's better than escaping from federal prison

[Lochloosa]

95. Bundy escaped from a County lockup.

He was waiting to be tried on kidnapping charges. He never escaped from prison.

[Carni]

96. Maybe that is what I was thinking of

He was probably one of the worst and most crafty of the serial killers

[Silverhair]

102. Since when does "Life without parole" really mean it?

As time goes by and the crime drops into the past, those whose hearts are always ready to bleed for even the worst of crimes start crying for mercy for the convict. Appeal after appeal is filed and finally the sentence is commuted to something lesser, and finally parole and freedom. The only exceptions are if the case is too famous.

One of Hitler's inner circle, Hess, was sentenced to life. In the last few years there were people who wanted to let the now aged Hess out of prison to spend his last years with his family. Only the Russian held firm, and Hess died in prison.

[Walt Starr]

36. I'm of a different school and include any violent sex offender

Especially those who prey on children.

They need to be removed from the gene pool. Only way to accomplish that satisfactorally is to remove their DNA from existance altogether.

[Modem Butterfly]

45. Jesus! So you'd kill their kids and their siblings too?

YIKES!

[Walt Starr]

47. WTF? Where did I say that?

:wtf:

[Modem Butterfly]

52. Right here:

They need to be removed from the gene pool. Only way to accomplish that satisfactorally is to remove their DNA from existance altogether.

The only way to remove someone's DNA from existance altogether is to remove their children and siblings, and maybe a few other relatives, too...

[Walt Starr]

57. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

The only way to remove a person's DNA from the gene pool ios to destroy every last bit of their body.

Their children, siblings, etc. have their OWN DNA. IF we carried tyour argument to its logical conculsion, it advocates the destrcution of every primate on earth due to the amount of shared DNA between the species.

:eyes:

Sheesh!

[Modem Butterfly]

58. Oh yeah! That's why DNA isn't used to determine paternity!

Silly Butterfly!

[Walt Starr]

59. Because you are amtcing "PART" of the DNA

Only identical twins share DNA precisely, and mutations still occur thus no two people are 100% precisely identical in all DNA within their bodies.

[Modem Butterfly]

64. ROFLMAO!

They need to be removed from the gene pool. Only way to accomplish that satisfactorally is to remove their DNA from existance altogether.

Parents and children, siblings and other relatives share DNA, Walt. DNA doesn't spontaneously arise unless a gene mutates, you get it from somewhere. To remove someone's DNA from existance altogether is to remove it from their relatives as well.

[Walt Starr]

65. Well if you're going to that extent, you and I share over 97% of our DNA

:eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

68. That was my next point, actually.

[Walt Starr]

70. Okay, it's useless talking to you on the subject

But I still say put all violent rapists to death. You'll never change my mind on that. I want their (specifically that one human being who committed the rape and nobody esle no matter how closely related to them otherwise) DNA removed from teh gene pool.

[Modem Butterfly]

73. That's a great idea

Then the world would have been saved from someone like Thomas Doswell:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1718972,00.html

A MAN who spent 19 years in jail for rape was freed yesterday after a DNA test proved his innocence.

And these three guys in St. Louis

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Aug/20050801News014.asp

So far, three St. Louis men convicted of rape have been exonerated - each after serving at least 17 years in prison.

[Walt Starr]

78. It's great living in an age where DNA can prove or disprove guilt

DNA testing can be used to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt when somebody is guilty of rape. That's much higher than the standard of reasonable doubt, for those keeping tabs.

And no, you'll never be able to convince me the DP should be abandoned.

I like your ambush thread. Good idea, I think I'll just click the old X now.

[Modem Butterfly]

82. We were living in that age when Doswell was convicted...

Good thing we're not living in an age in which convicted rapists are executed.

Capital punishment is a complex question. Simple half-assed solutions like "completely remove the offender's DNA from the gene pool" do a disservice to that.

Personally, I am not opposed to the concept of capital punishment, but I am opposed to the idea of carrying it out in a deeply flawed justice system. The Thomas Doswell case is a perfect example. So were the dozens of cases in Illinois. We're not yet advanced enough as a society, either technologically or ethically, to handle capital punishment.

[Walt Starr]

84. Hey, you believe what you want to believe

If somebody is a violent rapist beyond a shadow of a doubt, take 'em out.

[Modem Butterfly]

86. Unfortunately, it's the shadow that I have doubts about

[Walt Starr]

88. That's your prerogative

Read your IMs

[Book Lover]

109. Then what does "removing their DNA from the gene pool" mean?

I understand the phrase to mean that the person shouldn't reproduce. If they already have, then the logical conclusion to your argument is to kill any offspring they might have had. Or are you using a phrase sans meaning?

[wuushew]

54. Walt your position could be used to justify widespread eugenics

If sexual crimes are primarily caused by genetic determinism, then should not the mapped human genome be cleansed at birth by the powers that be before any such individual has a chance to commit a crime?

Its hard to argue that crimes caused by mental defect can be remedied by criminal justice, since incarceration implies an ability to modify the behavior of the guilty by loss of personal freedom. The inability to do so with sexual criminals brings into question whether or not such behavior should be viewed as an incurable mental disorder not a crime.

If the latter is true the euthanizing of the subject should be a solemn and stoic occasion not blood crazed giddiness of uber-"justice" seekers.

[MemphisTiger]

79. Exactly, it sounds like a Hitler doctrine

It's not hard to understand that no parole means no parole.

[Modem Butterfly]

85. I think Walt was just letting his emotions do the talking there

It's not difficult to understand the emotions behind wanting someone to never again be able to hurt other human beings. I don't think Walt really thought about what he was saying before he said it.

[MemphisTiger]

87. I agree

Sometimes we all say/type things that we don't think all the way through

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

77. Exactly.

I don't need to know that they suffer more in prison or death lets them off too easy. If there is conclusive DNA evidence in a serial murder, serial rapist or child sex offender case, society is better off without them.

[KarenInMA]

9. Because there are some crimes that are

so heinous that you sacrifice your right to live if you commit them.

[Modem Butterfly]

12. Like what?

[KarenInMA]

15. Rape. Premeditated Murder. Terrorism. Treason.

[Modem Butterfly]

16. Treason? You mean like Air America?

:evilgrin:

[KarenInMA]

17. No, Like Karl Rove

[Modem Butterfly]

21. How do you define treason?

[KarenInMA]

29. Treason:

A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.

[Modem Butterfly]

38. Here's what the Constitution says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Treason

The Constitution defines treason as "levying War against , or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."

Section Three also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same "overt" act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. In Cramer v. United States, the Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses". In Haupt v. United States, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are only required to prove that the overt act actually occurred.

Furthermore, Section Three permits Congress to determine the punishment for treason. However, this punishment may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. In other words, the descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" (i.e., their blood could not be corrupted) by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, the clause permits Congress to confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

[Lannes]

13. Someone murdered a good friend of mine

In 2000 and I admit I wanted the guy taken out.He actually walked away scott free becuase the witness changed her story because she was too scared to testify against the killer.

Its hard to stand back and be objective in that type of a situation regarding capital punishment.For me anyway.

My main reason for opposing it is that its been proven that some people have been falsely accused and put to death for a crime they did not commit some were cleared just before they were about to be put to death.

So my answer would be that Im more concerned about the innocent being put to death than the guilty.

[Splatter Phoenix]

23. That's really big of you...

What was that movie called...Life of David Bane or David ...something or another....hang on, I'll look it up. GALE, Life of David Gale. Did you ever see that movie?

[Lannes]

27. No whats your point?

I dont know if you are being serious or sarcastic.If you werent sarcastic then I apologize,its a sensitive subject with me.


edit for clarification

[MemphisTiger]

81. That's an interesting point

If the court screws up and executes the wrong person, the real person is still out there. You can't just tell the family of the innocent executed man/woman "sorry for the mixup." IMO, life in prison is far worse than death anyway.

[Selatius]

14. It's an issue of societal revenge

It is a legal way for people to get revenge. It feels good or reassuring.

Jesus said that we should forgive and avoid revenge, but for many Christians, they ignore it. They are hypocrites.

Also, innocent people invariably end up in death row. That's not a risk I'm willing to take. I cannot support a machine that sucks up innocent lives.

[juliemf]

18. Economics

The main reason that I am pro-capital punishment is because of economic reasons. It has been shown time and time again the the prison system is inadequate. Between drugs, gangs, rape, abuse, and shady officers, what good is the system really doing. Rehabilitation is not really happening, what we are doing is giving criminals a free ride. Law-abiding citizens are paying the criminal's way. We feed them, teach them, cloth them, shelter them, etc. Are we stimulating crime with this punishment?

[Selatius]

20. That's what you get when you don't reform the prison system

The reason it has been shown time and time again to not work is because no one bothered to make an issue of it to push reforms. The question I ask you is have we even bothered to try to address it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. I don't see where the economics argument fits.

The people going in and out of prison are not the death row inmates - they are the drug users and two-bit dealers and petty thieves that are being turned into professional criminals by the prison system. They are not part of this discussion, though that is worthy of its own thread.

It costs 2 to 5 times as much to prosecute a criminal through to execution than it does to keep him in prison for the rest of his life, without parole. So, economically speaking, the death penalty is costing far more than its alternatives.

[juliemf]

37. That is fair enough, but

The only reason that it costs so much to prosecute someone to the death penalty is because of controversy. Besides it's not the prosecution, but prison living that is the issue for me. A hard working citizen has to struggle for money for food, shelter, etc...but a criminal can skate through the system while I pay for him/her. In cases where there is a severely brutal crime with overwhelming evidence, the death penalty is warranted.

[wuushew]

61. You find more money in the budget if pot was legal

All this country's drug laws are absurd. You get get out of prison for violent crime sooner than many drug convictions.

[juliemf]

66. I agree

Drug law is the same way. The harm drug users and sellers do is not comparable to their crime...especially since you and I are paying for their free meals.

[XanaDUer]

116. Lol!

While I know I run the risk of being called pro-criminal here, which I am not, a lot of those "free meals" and nothing more than a baloney sandwich.

In Florida, that bastion of goodness and law-abidingness <sarcasm>, many inmates have to have relatives/friends send money to their prison accounts so they can augment their "free meals" with stale leftover Little Debbie knock offs of fig newtons and crackers.

God help the innocent person tossed into the prison system.

[XanaDUer]

117. So killing people, innocent or not,

is better than prison reform. Uh-huh.

[Guitarman]

19. Some people and their actions are so evil...

they do not deserve to live. Case in point, the recent kidnapping and murder of Jessica Lunsford. I would have no problem watching JOhn Couey die. The same goes for Edward Duncan, kidnapped Shasta Groene and murdered her brother and three others.

I do not advocate the death penalty be handed out indiscriminately. But there are cases where I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Oh, and while I do consider myself a Christian. I do not pretend to use it as a get out of "moral jail" free card. Just like every other mere mortal, I have to struggle with a dark side. The kind of dark side that could personally pull the plug on these guys and still get a good nights sleep.

[wli]

22. could you set up a poll later?

enumerating the rationales stated here and then getting some votes in on them might be useful.

[DaveJ]

24. Personally...

I would favor a Clockwork Orange method of forcibly rehabilitating the minds of the most violent criminals. On the other hand, a lot of people think messing with someone's brain would be a travesty yet killing the person is fine.

[Modem Butterfly]

25. It's been a few years, but IIRC, that didn't work out so well...

[DaveJ]

34. I'm not an expert on the history of it all....

But I think with a combination of medical and technological science a cost effect solution could be found.

This isn't the exact same thing, but I saw a study once where rapists where given plastic surgery to improve their appearance and practially none of them became repeat offenders.

I'm not condoning doing these criminals any favors, but I'm just saying that I think there are almost always alternatives to barbarism.

[juliemf]

69. No favors please!

Giving rapists plastic surgery. I prefer castration. That'll keep them from raping. I have heard of an abusive mother who was repeatedly arrested and she was given an involuntary hysterectomy. That may be a bit extreme...but sometimes taking away the tools of the crime...uterus, penis, life...is validated.

[Modem Butterfly]

76. No it won't

Assuming they've reached puberty, castration won't stop them from committing rape. But it will keep them from having children.

have heard of an abusive mother who was repeatedly arrested and she was given an involuntary hysterectomy. That may be a bit extreme...but sometimes taking away the tools of the crime...uterus, penis, life...is validated.

She beat them with her uterus?

[juliemf]

80. Lacking logic

Not sure how to start.

A mother obviously did not beat her children with her uterus, but after repeat arrests and still having children...she will not be abusing any more children. Keeping a child from being born into a world where their only protector (their mother) is also their enemy, is the most proactive and applaudable thing someone can do.

Explain to me how someone can rape another without a penis? Sexual assault yes, but penetration, no I don't think so! Additionally, I said these cases were extreme, but it's the idea that taking aways someone's tool to commit a crime is a good punishment.

[Modem Butterfly]

83. Men don't have uteruses and they abuse children every day

You don't have to be physically capable of having a child in order to abuse a child. I think it probably would have been more wise to put her on probation so that they could actually monitor her and make sure she didn't, say, teach a Sunday school class or open a day care...

Castration doesn't involve the penis.

[Silverhair]

105. Castration STOPS testosterone production.

And that has a great impact on a man's behavior. It completely takes away their agression. That's why we castrate bulls to steers and stallions to geldings - to gentle them.

[DaveJ]

101. Well someone can be chemically rendered impotent

That may be a good option. I know rape is incredibly horrible and these guys needs to suffer for the rest of their lives, but I think they are getting far too much of the attention in our pool of violent criminals to chose from. In other words I think the death penalty or castration is going to far. Maybe I'm just jaded from seeing a lot of bad stuff in my life, but rape doesn't even make it on my top 10 list.

[XanaDUer]

120. What if the rapist used another item to commit rape with?

Also, taking away the tools of the crime could also mean cutting off someone's hands.

[Carni]

26. I am not pro capital punishment

But some of the serial killers make me want to be!

That guy that buried the nine year old alive in Florida (Cooey or whover?)would be one that would not be missed by me personally in any way shape or form.

I know in theory the DP is wrong because there is always the possibility that an innocent person has been wrongly convicted,
but I find it very hard to justify supporting some of these creatures that actually have done horrendous murders--esp when it is children that they have murdered in a gruesome fashion.

Guess my final answer is I am against it, but if I were a parent of a victim I think I would go nuts and kill the perp myself.

BTW to clarify I am not a Christian

[BIG Sean]

31. Because this earth would be better off without some people.

You rape a child, you should die.

[DaveJ]

49. Killing could be seen as letting some off too lightly though.

Rape victims have to live with phsyological scars for the rest of their lives. Certainly a rapist should at least suffer to the same extent for the rest of their lives. But I don't think killing them is the answer.

[Ignoramus]

32. Because it promotes suffering

Suffering is what makes us better than others. So, if you kill someone as punishment, it's okay because it reinforces our image of ourselves as enduring suffering righteously.

In the case of abortion or assisted suicide, these are an abomination because the reduce suffering, which would mean that we are weak.

[The Magistrate]

33. Several Points, Ma'am

It is hard to see anything balancing the enormity of death but death itself. Death is forever, and any terms of confinemenmt seems sather tetchy by compare to that.

The rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is curiously self-enforcing, in my view. How people treat others can properly be taken as their own instruction on how others ought to treat them. A person who has killed another for the gratification of some desire can have no ground for complaint over being killed to gratify a desire for vengeance or punishment.

The idea that the state should not kill has always struck me as humorous. Killing is what states do, and always have done.

The process of sentencing persons to execution, and executing them, inn our society, however, is in almost every instance a noxious one. The thing is capricious, and so contains inherent elements of injustice. In many instances what is felt to be worth execution is not the most heinous acts, but those that directly affect the state: in a number of jurisdictions, for example, killing a police officer is a capital offense, but killing an old woman or a child, even torturously, will not be. It is undeniable that many instances occur in which prosecutors and police distort the evidence, and in which persons facing a capital charge have no competent legal representation. The process for bringing to court exculpatory evidence discovered after trial is fraught with terrible flaws. All these are excellent reasons to oppose the practice as currently exercised, and not all of them ae things that may be rectified. Thus it is quite possible to oppose the practice in a great many actual instances. without opposing the thing itself....

[Endangered Specie]

93. "The idea that the state should not kill has always struck me as humorous

Killing is what states do, and always have done."

nail, meet head; Im gonna have to use that one :thumbsup:

[eallen]

39. I think capital punishment makes sense for a select few crimes....

Murder committed while incarcerated. Murder with intent to silence a witness or change the course of a trial. False imprisonment with intent to murder. Murder in the commission of piracy. In such cases, there is the problem that the criminal may be serving or facing a long prison sentence, and that the commission of a further murder is then a way to ameliorate that or protect against it. Putting capital punishment on the table changes the calculation by bringing into play an even worse punishment. For example, someone on trial for simple murder faces a long prison sentence, but if they kill a crucial witness, they then face the only possible worse sentence.

[beyurslf]

40. I would support it if I thought it could be applied fairly. I oppose CP

now because I believe the implementation is unfair and biased against the poor, men, and minorities. I don't find anything objectionable at all about using CP on a moral level, however.
We seem to lose the argument the second we say it is immoral to kill any human being or that it is "cruel and unusual." Everyone, in every community, can remember that one terrible, heinous crime that shocked the city to a standstill. I live in Wichita, KS. It is the Carr brothers murders here several years ago. They killed 4 people in a field and tried to kill one other. She lived. They were caught on videotape at the ATM with them earlier, making them take their money out. Premeditated. Eyewitness. Execution style murder.
If you try to tell someone in my city that CP is cruel or wrong, they ask you to justify why those two men should be allowed to live. The answer is they don't. They deserve to be put to death. However, if we have to keep them alive in order to ensure that others who may be innocent are spared, then it is worth it. If we have to spare the Carr brothers so that we know that other minorities or the poor are treated fairly, then I can deal with that too. But don't try to convince me that they deserve the right to any kind of life at all.

[Sgent]

41. I only support it in the case

of murder w/ intent to terrorise (OK bombing), crimes against humanity, and cases where someone is facing 2 or more 1st degree murder charges.

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. So you think it's a good thing that the OK bomber is now never

going to be able to tell us who else was involved in his plot?

They killed him quick to keep him quiet, IMO.

[Ignoramus]

42. Because actions aren't good or bad, they just have a price

It's not important to prevent good or bad actions from occurring in the world, it's only important to pay the appropriate fee for an action.

For example, when you are born you have no credit or debt, so you are innocent. As you grow, you accumulate debt and credit. Membership in certain groups enhances your overall credibility. So, 1 murder = n units of ethical credit. Those who can't pay their bills should be put in debtors prison or be eliminated.

[abbeyco]

44. Having some experience

Being the victim of a violent crime, it changed my stance from non to pro. Having a life altering experience like that can change your fundamental beliefs.

Having said that, I'm also a Catholic and should not support such a view. My faith has helped me to try to forgive, but I'd still kill the dirty bastard as would others in my family.

[Modem Butterfly]

46. How do you square that position...

...with worshipping a man who himself was executed through capital punishment?

[juliemf]

51. Jesus Forgave.

Jesus was forgiving, so we're supposed to learn to forgive as well. Christians are also taught that God is an angry vengeful God. This is coming from a confused Christian, who does not always believe everything that I'm supposed to.

I feel that love and faith in a higher being supersede religious law and that a good person will never be damned.

[Modem Butterfly]

55. So the capital punishment of Christ doesn't strike a chord in you?

[juliemf]

62. He was willing

The scriptures say that Jesus was ready and that he could have stopped his own death if he wanted to. Christians are taught that he gave his life for ours. How can I argue that?

[H2O Man]

124. That would hardly seem

to indicate that Jesus was an advocate of the death penalty. One may find a message hidden, though not too deeply, in his being crucified between two criminals.

[DaveJ]

56. I think it means God has the right to take life.

But since Jesus was the human manifestation of God that he should forgive. Could be wrong though.

[Ignoramus]

72. All people are good, Only actions can be bad.

Okay, I'll try not being sarcastic.

A baby is supposedly "innocent", right? A "bad" person is supposedly someone who knows they are doing something wrong and does it anyway.

How does someone make a choice? If you are drunk and you choose to swerve into oncoming traffic, did you know that it would be wrong to run into a truck but you did it anyway? I don't think so. I think a drunk person's environment has influenced his choice.

Similarly, if someone is enraged and bashes someone's head in, does he know it is wrong but he does it anyway? If someone calmly chooses to fire missiles at an enemy and causes scores of civilian casualties, does he know it is wrong but does it anyway, or did he make choices that were influenced by his environment?

My opinion is that all people are good. Choices can be bad. What is important is to prevent the bad actions from occurring, not to pose everything as simply having a price, where n units of goodness allows you forgiveness for n units of bad actions.

[abbeyco]

53. Honestly, I don't

I don't ask Jesus or God why they let it happen to me - that's just not in my make-up. I know some people that behave in that manner and harp that Jesus died for our sins; however, I don't believe that I ever, ever committed a sin that equaled what happened to me.

I'm just saying that having your life threatened and nearly taken and some of your core beliefs just might change. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but those I've told about it feel the same as I do - pro capital punishment.

[H2O Man]

125. A distinction can be made

between the state enforcing a policy of capital punishment, and the victim of a crime taking justice into their own hands. I am not saying that a victim/family member killing someone is either better or worse, but it is certainly different.

[kcass1954]

48. Not now, but I was for a long time.

Someone convicted of a heinous crime, and the first words out of my mouth were "fry 'em!"

I come from a long, long line of conservative southern republicans, and am a recovered repub. I began to question a lot of feelings and beliefs after I left the repub party when ronnie raygun was elected in 80.

With regard to capital punishment, I never thought about it, and I mean that I literally never thought about it. It wasn't that I made a conscious decision to support it. It never even crossed my mind. I was a repub and the repubs supported capital punishment, so I supported it without question. (Apparently, there was some koolaid being passed around back then too!)

[Tims]

50. Capital Punishment is not "Punishment"

For the most part it is simple vengeance.

That said, I am not in principle against the death sentence for particularly violent criminals where any reform is unlikely and who always present a significant danger. This is not punishment, but simply the removal of something proven to be dangerous to the public.

The problem is in practice we cannot guarantee either absolute guilt or the possiblity of future reform methods. Therefore capital punishment can never be morally acceptable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. 'Cuz it makes me feel almost as tuff as settin' cats on fire.

Or, blowin' up frogs. Yeeeehawwww!

I am opposed to capital punishment for precisely the same reason that I'm opposed to murder.

[Midlodemocrat]

71. I am a practicing Catholic.

and decidely anti-death penalty. I think it is wrong, just wrong on every possible level.

Yes there are predators who do not deserve to live, but it is not up to the state to determine which ones. Lock 'em up, and throw away the key, but do not, I repeat do not, commit murder in my name.

I think Jesus was anti-death penalty as well, seeing as how he was a victim of it.

[distantearlywarning]

74. I am pro-DP to some degree.

I used to be more strongly in favor of it but in recent years have come to see the wisdom of attempting to avoid an excessive focus on vengeance (as a society). Also, I believe that executing a person deprives them of the chance to redeem themselves in this lifetime in a psychological/spiritual sense (regardless of whether they ever leave prison or not), and this bothers me.

That being said, I still think that in some circumstances capital punishment has a utilitarian value - when the individual's crimes are horrendous and there is little to no chance of rehabilitation or even a changed outlook. Some people are just "bad", are unlikely to change in any significant way regardless of treatment, and are an extreme danger to others. Some sexual predators clearly fall into this category.

There may also be cases where it is important that a society as a whole witness this kind of justice being executed on their behalf in terms of psychological closure - a kind of "faith restoration" in the justness of their society, if you will. An example might be war criminals who put millions of citizens to death in camps, or extremely corrupt leaders who have been ousted.

In these kinds of cases, I still support capital punishment.

However, at the moment I would like to see a total moratorium on the death penalty in this country until we can fix our legal process to better assure that innocent people are not being put to death, and to address some of the racial issues and other procedural violations that seem to be rampant in death penalty cases.

[sweetheart]

75. Reincarnation

Given reincarnation, that a person put to death for evil
capital offenses, will be back on the planet in a decade or two likely
following the same karmic path.

This is a good reason to not use capital punishment. Put the worst
in correctional facilities (those criminally violent), and keep them
alive for many decades, so at least they don't wind up back on the
streets right away.

As well, the US justice system is notoriously dodgey and corrupt, so
a death sentence is inappropriate given the high margins of error.

If we consider the sovereign state as a legal person/entity, then if it
renounces killing as a way of operating, it becomes civil. Until then,
the state itself is criminally insane. It has lost any moral authority
to demand the deaths of organic citizens.

In that sense, the criminal state, is something that jesus spent his
whole life tangling with indirectly, and he suggested that in his
reincarnation, "this time round", he would be a "lion", something
fearless, direct and powerful enough to consume and destroy his
political enemies crushing them directly, with the iron fist of god,
hammering down the criminal court system, hammering down the evil
corrupt president and his gang in to a prison to keep them from
reincarnating. Putting the nazis to death was a reincarnation
mistake... better to put them on ice.

[bluestateguy]

89. I am

But I also favor due process, which we do not have here in Texas. Thus I would support a temporary moritorium in this state.

But as a matter of principle I favor it for genocidal war crimes, child molesters (real molesters, not some 18 year old kid who gets arrested for screwing his 16 year old girlfriend), mass murderers and people who deliberatley abuse animals. Also, for white collar super-criminals.

I do not consider myself a formal Christian (or any other organized religion), though I do believe in God.

[wuushew]

90. Capital punishment for white-collar crime is silly

No amount of material wealth is equivalent to an individual's life. You could arguably make the claim that premature death was caused by poverty in the case of Enron and the like.

Would this form of justice be appropriate in more socialist countries or ones that have comprehensive social safety nets? You are stating that X amount of financial or material wealth stolen in the course of fraudulent business transactions is equivalent to a human life.

[Endangered Specie]

91. I am pro death penalty only in certain cases:

-High Treason
-Mass Murder (includes acts of terrorism)
-Maybe others (serial rapists, child murderers)


One reason for the death penalty is to allow a plea bargaining down to life in prision, I remember there was a guy who was selling secrets to the russians, and in exchange for life in prision instead of death, he had to tell all the secrets he compromised.


There comes an extreme point when someone does not deserve to live in a civilized society, and is too dangerous to be kept even in prison; and taking multiple lives is the general 'line in the sand' for me.


However, I agree that the current system is highly flawed and discriminatory, and would not be against a temporary hiatus of executions until its fixed properly.

[Pystoff]

92. Odd how so many that don't believe in it answered wrong

Maybe some folks need to re-read the question? Many answered with personal affirmations why they were rather their thought as to why some ppl are pro-DP. Sorry just hadta get that gripe out there.

Me certainly no fundy...agnostic myself. And pro-DP for violent crimes involving murder, rape,and treason.

Why ppl are pro-DP...damn hard question to answer without a 150 essay involving some of the best psych analists you could muster if you ask me. It's an idiviual case basis for most ppl I've ever asked about this but I'll give my reason. First I want the actual offender prosecuted so don't think I am a bloodthirsty head hunter type like some in our society that just want a warm body. Me I feel that when someone violates what it means to be human and decides they can kill another with intent or take from the innocent a peice of them that will never return or turn their backs on those in their society and endanger them willingly such as making them endangered by another country they void their being kept alive by my tax dollar in a prison for life.

As for others many have the same reasons I have made for mine but the fundies they have alot explaining to do. Most religous ppl don't follow their religion that well from what I've seen and the fundies are the most hell fire and brimstone types might explain why they are so bloodthirsty. Bloodthirsty being give me a warm body I don't care if its even the right person types. The fundies have it in their minds that god is vengeful and reckoning day is comming so that might well explain this.

Maybe that is a bit simplistic but I don't have time to go too deep into this I got things to do ya know? Good question to ask tho very engaging subject.

[sweetheart]

100. "Don't answer the question that was asked,

Answer the question that you wish was asked."

- Robert MacNamara

[Pystoff]

114. A true politicians look at it there

Seems ppl in the politcal blogworld forget sometimes you gotta turn it off and get to the meat of a question. This isn't a politcal question it is a sociological question. Sadly even that has been made into a political thing even for ppl on the same politcal side.

MacNamara got it right as far as being a total politcal animal with that comment.

[tk2kewl]

94. I' not.

[Silverhair]

98. Romans 13:1-7 authorizes the State to use capital punishment.

Referring to the governmental authorities: Romans 13:4b ...But if you do wrong be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, and agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. NIV

[Spider Jerusalem]

103. How does two-thousand-year-old myth and superstition justify ANYTHING?

There's a bit in Leviticus that says "stone to death rebellious children", too. So just because it's in the Bible, it's okay? :eyes:

[Silverhair]

108. I was answering the question that was asked.

The posters asks how a Christian can be for CP. She wanted to know how I could square it with my faith. THAT is the question I was answering.

Further, I was addressing the principle only. I have serious problems with CP as it is administered currently. But that is NOT the question she asked.

Since you appear to be a nonbeliever, then obviously that reason means nothing to you. I can understand that, and a discussion of the DP with you would have to proceed differently. Also, I am disappointed in you, Spider. Normally your posts show a better respect for and understanding of the English language.

[Spider Jerusalem]

110. Oh, I understand the English language just fine...

I'm just wondering where in any of the Gospels Jesus justifies capital punishment. Paul is rather beside the point, and I personally know more than a few Christians who are of the opinion that he was responsible for the twisting and perversion of the basic Christian message. Even if I WERE a believer, I'd have some problems with that justification for just those reasons.

[Silverhair]

112. I am talking about how to square it with MY faith, not yours.

There are many variations of Christianity, as I am sure you know. My version accepts the entire Bible, although some sections of it are certainly allegorical, and other sections of it the (Early sections of Genesis) the moral of the story is more important than the historicity of the story.

[wuushew]

104. Good thing this country was founded by enlightened men

building on the traditions of English law.

What is this "Bible" you speak of?

[anarch]

99. a very thought provoking question

This is something that I have always personally wrestled with, and I don't really have an answer.

I think the most justifiable reason for being pro-execution is that there may be some criminals (the types of which have been enumerated by others here) who cannot in any way be rehabilitated, or even stopped from doing harm, and who will always be a danger to others. But, as has been pointed out in here, there's that "shadow of a doubt" quotient, regarding guilt of specific individuals, that makes it hard to justify the sort of thing that goes on now--as dramatically illustrated by the recent release of a "convicted rapist" after 18 years in prison.

Personally, I'd have to agree with whoever it was that said life in prison is much worse than death, but that's just my opinion. While I am vehemently opposed to imprisonment, I have more trouble sorting out my personal ethics with regard to the death penalty. There are certainly some people who I think deserve to die...but again, that's just my opinion. I have no problem at all with someone being killed in the process of committing a heinous crime (rape and murder, mainly), but in that case the death, or at least the neutralization, of the offender would be mandated in order to stop further violence against the victim.

When the state executes someone, it's really just revenge. There's a visceral sense of outrage at particularly violent crimes, and people want to see somebody pay. That's all.

Does having a death penalty deter violent criminals? Probably not, really.

Does it bring solace to the victims of violent crimes and/or their families? Maybe so, but then what if it is later found that the wrong person was executed?

In the end, it's a pretty barbaric practice. Definitely not very Christian. I still can't quite bring myself to say it's totally wrong, though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. Treason!! Like that long haired carpenter got!

It sure taught that traitor against the establishmet a lesson. It's ironic how so many alleged Christians justify the very process that killed Christ.

[dr.strangelove]

107. I believe in capital punishment because

their are some intentional actions for which a populace should be able to decide requires the highest possible punishment. The population has the right to decide what punishments may be leveled by a judge or jury for crimes. I have no problem with a population doing this. I may disagree that it be used in a given situation, but I see no problem with a citizenry empowering a jury or judge to issue a death sentence. I don't know why citizens should not have this power.

[Love Bug]

111. I'm against it

"It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed their kind." -- George Bernard Shaw

I'm against capital punishment because of what it does to us. Puts us on their level. It has not been proven to be a deterrant -- many European countries don't use capital punishment and they still have murderers. It's just revenge. We decide another human being no longer deserves to live for doing ____________ (fill in the blank because the reasons have changed over time -- look at history).

And yes, I'm honest enough to admit if someone I loved were murdered I would probably feel differently but it would still be revenge.

[JHBowden]

113. I'm moderately for it.

Some individuals have forfeited their right to live. You're telling me you wouldn't give bin Laden the death penalty?

That being said, given human beings *are* fallible, I would prefer that DP would only be used in extreme cases.

[Modem Butterfly]

115. Osama bin Laden and the death penalty

No, I wouldn't execute Osama bin Laden. Why give his followers a martyr? Far better to just find his ass and keep it on ice.

[Dogmudgeon]

118. I think it's a lot of fun

I mean, keep it between consenting adults, but it can be a lot of fun with the right person. It's not good for kids, but I don't intend to harangue a parent who uses it in moderation.

Oh, wait a minute.

I thought it said "Corporal Punishment".

Sorry 'bout that.

:spank:

--p!

[REP]

119. I'm Also Pro-Moratorium

I'm not Xian, so I can't answer that.

In theory, I am pro-capital punishment. I cannot see what good it does either a criminal or society to lock a man (or woman) in a cage for life and have another man (or woman) watch him/her. Using criminals as research subjects is a little horrifying; locked up, they are hard-pressed to refuse and additionally, many personality pathologies that end up in incarcerated are manipulative and cannot be relied upon to give usable data. One example is everybody's favorite example, Ted Bundy, whose answers to why he killed were tailored to meet the expectations of his interviewers.

In practice, however, there are just too many weaknesses and flaws in the system. The rich can buy their way out of trouble, even murder, while the poor have almost no chance of proving their innocence. DNA is showing that those convicted of crimes were in fact not involved and eyewitness testimony is being shown to be less reliable than once thought. Until these serious problems are addressed and rectified, there's no way capital punishment can be carried out with any sort of confidence of not killing the wrongly convicted. As horrible as life in a cell may be, at least there's some recourse when an error is made (well, in theory).

[ulysses]

121. I'm not.

:)

[mixedview]

122. until we get prison reform - this debate is meaningless

The problem we have to deal with right now is UNADJUDICATED punishment: prison rape (including HIV infection as a result), savage beatings, and outright murder - all of which our criminal justice system turns a blind eye to.

This death penalty debate is irrelevant - it always has been.

If the system wants a prisoner dead - he/she will be killed in prison. The guards will simply put the inmate in with a killer and look the other way. And we cowardly, hypocritical Americans also will look the other way.

Shit - at least in other supposedly barbaric countries they have the GONADS to be honest about what type of sick punishment they are going to deliver.

We Americans do believe in cruel and unusual punishment - we just don't believe in adjudicating it - being honest with ourselves would call our so-called values into question.

Me - If I wound up with life in prison - I'd beg for the death penalty (death row inmates are protected and lethal injection is humane) over a lifetime of rape, beatings, or murder by another inmate.

I'm not making a judgement one way or the other on the death penalty- just that we need to fix the prison system before we could even have this debate. Until then, this is simply an academic/theoretical discussion removed from the reality of our system.

[Swamp Rat]

123. I am against capital punishment, even for Hitler...

though, I might have strangled him with my bare hands if I had the opportunity. We need to protect ourselves from harmful impulses, like revenge, lest we become like the monsters we desire to kill. Besides that, our justice system is flawed and extremely biased against minorities and the poor in general.

My core belief: Killing is wrong. Period.