A Conversation About the Death Penalty

[Plaid Adder]

I cannot say I was pleased about Obama's stance on the recent Supreme Court decision, though I note that he was careful to state his support in the narrowest and most specific sense. But I'm voting for him anyway, of course, so ultimately nobody has to care.

To the debate that has been spawned about the death penalty, rape, murder, etc., I wanted to contribute this conversation I had a few weeks ago with a friend of mine. This is a real conversation, with a real person, and therefore I am going to be somewhat vague about specifics because I don't want her or any of the other people that come into the story to be identifiable.

Many years ago, my friend's sister was abducted and raped at gunpoint. One of the things my friend said when we talked about this soon after it happened was that it was suddenly brought home to her what a huge difference there was between "raped" and "raped and murdered." This is a difference that I see a lot of people in the DP threads eliding, so it's worth pointing it out. Yes, rape and murder are both heinous. It would just about kill you to know one of your loved ones had gone through either. But the victim of a rape survives, scarred though s/he is, and with luck gets enough help and healing to lead a full life later on. To treat rape as if it is equivalent to murder, IMHO, is to devalue the lives that rape survivors go on to have; it gives rape and rapists more power than they really have.

But that's not the conversation I was talking about. As part of a much longer discussion about politics, my friend said that at the time that her sister's attacker was going to trial, she would have liked for him to get the death penalty, because it would have meant that he could never do this to anyone else again. She said that she felt that his actions had "erased his humanity," and that therefore the law's duty was to kill him for the sake of protecting all the other people who were still human. In fact, he did not get the death penalty; he was imprisoned for several years and then finally released.

My friend said that now, she feels very differently about it--partly because of Abu Ghraib. Seeing what American soldiers had done at Abu Ghraib, she said, moved her away from "this kind of violence and sadism is inhuman" to "is it not terrible that this is part of what it means to be human." As a result, she says, her view of humanity is much, much darker than it was; but that means that she no longer believes that it is possible to "erase" one's humanity, no matter how heinous one's actions are.

The other thing that had changed her thinking about the death penalty, she said, was reading some sort of article in which they included a chart showing the diversity of responses given by people who were asked to rank crimes in order of heinosity. Essentially, the point of the study was that although people may agree that the death penalty is appropriate when applied to, as Obama says, the "most egregious of crimes," they do not agree on what the most egregious crimes actually are. It was a shock to my friend to discover that some respondents ranked shooting a policeman as more heinous than killing a child. I don't want to argue about whether they were right or not; the point is that she felt that if we can't even come to a consensus about what the really heinous crimes are, we've got no business making decisions about whose lives we're going to take.

I put that out there because I learned a lot from talking to her about this. We are all so entrenched in our ideological positions that it gets hard to really hear someone coming at this from a different perspective. I think the fundamental difference between supporting the death penalty and rejecting it is right there in her story about going from seeing violence, sadism, cruelty, etc. as inhuman to seeing them as, unfortunately, quite human.

I said, my thinking about this has always been more abstract; for me it's about human life, itself, having value, no matter whose miserable body it inspires. A society that cannot guarantee a certain basic minimum level of decency that will be accorded to *all* human beings--no matter who they are or what they have done--simply by virtue of the fact that they have human lives, is a society in trouble. Because if you allow your state to define anyone as inhuman, then you create a category of people to whom absolutely *anything* can be done; and once that happens, the number of people that the state finds convenient to assign to that category will get larger and larger and larger.

Anyway. Obama is a politician and he is doing a good job of winning the bullshit games in which the media insist on engaging him; and that's what his answer was really about. I find it disappointing and discouraging, but I have come around to the idea that any presidential candidate who took political advice from me would lose BIG, even running against someone as weak as McCain. So at this point, I just grit my teeth and go on. Cause if Obama doesn't win, McCain will get to appoint at least one and probably two Supreme Court justices, and McCain--based on his response to an earlier Supreme Court decision in which they also, shockingly, did the right thing--is now officially and publicly enamored of Guantanamo and all that goes on there. And we can't fucking afford THAT.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder

[grantcart]

1. excellent points all -

[demigoddess]

2. good points , but I can remember some local cases where

a man was charged with murder and threatened with the death penalty when he shot a cop during a middle of the night raid on his house. Turned out later the cops had the wrong address, but they still tried him to the full extent of the law.
I also remember a case where a man killed a five year old by rape and beating, made the family go through the trial twice because he claimed someone else did it and then finally confessed. I think he was sentenced to less than ten years.
Some cases where a husband kills a wife gets the perpetrator only a few years, because of the assumption that the woman 'made him angry' there fore it was not really murder.

All that said, if a man who rapes a child under the age of say 12 does not deserve the death penalty, who does?

[Triana]

4. "if a man who rapes a child under the age of say 12 does not deserve the death penalty, who does? "

That's my question and I DO think the death penalty is warranted in some cases - particularly if there is DNA evidence. And as far as husbands/wives/spousal abuse and domestic violence/domestic abuse - those crimes are FAR from being taken seriously enough (particularly when it's the male who is the perp) - both when they result in death and when they don't. That stems from the attitude that still prevails that a wife / woman is a man's property and is/should be subservient and that the man is entitled to that.

ANYONE who rapes and murders a 5-year-old oughtta be dead. That type of animal is NOT human (psychopaths lack conscience) and not rehabitable and society should not be obliged after such a crime to fund its existence for a lifetime - nor should society have to tolerate it in their midst so it can strike the most innocent of citizens again. There is such a thing as the most egragriously, heinously UNACCEPTABLE human behavior and if child rape/murder isn't the epitome of that, nothing is.

[roguevalley]

10. I will never agree with the death penalty because killing people for

killing people is murder no matter whether the state or some nut. Also, its too fast. People should live with what they did forever. Sit and stew, have it in their life. That is punishment equivalent to the crime for me.

[Jackpine Radical]

44. I agree with you on the death penalty.

Nevertheless, I'm quite convinced, on pretty good grounds, that some people are so lacking in conscience that they are incapable of remorse. They do, however, fake it quite well when there is a tactical advantage to doing so. These are the psychopaths--people so psychologically deformed that the most we can hope for is to put them away so as to protect ourselves from them. Killing brutalizes society. The death penalty is killing.

[question everything]

11. Death penalty for a rapist

I am probably getting into a mine field... still..

I am not an African American, and my reaction is not as visceral as if I were. However, when I heard the news and the debates today, all I could think was that blacks (and a Jew in Atlanta some 100 years ago) were lynched for just a suggestion of a rape.

I may be comparing pumpkins and grapes, but that link just stayed in my mind.

I am against the death penalty under any circumstances. We are the only developed country that have it on our penal code. But at this point, I will take the decision by the liberal majority of the Supreme Court, the one that we hoped to enlarge by electing a Democrat, that such a punishment should be reserved to murder cases alone.

[babylonsister]

13. Agree, and thanks. nt

[southlandshari]

21. In answer to your question....no one.

No one deserves the death penalty. No matter what their crime. My own refusal to support the death penalty is rooted in my Christian faith, but I believe there are plenty of non-religious reasons for others to reject the death penalty as well.

A quick summary can be found here


And just to restate the obvious....a refusal to support the death penalty for those who rape children does not equal a belief that those actions are in any way "acceptable behavior" or unworthy of harsh punishment.

[Triana]

25. If you'd read my post you'd see I answered that question for myself therein...

..."ANYONE who rapes and murders a 5-year-old oughtta be dead."

But thanks for your opinion anyway. I appreciate it. But I don't agree w/ it.

[southlandshari]

46. I did read it

I understood that the question in your subject line was somewhat rhetorical because you had indeed given your own answer in the body of your post. That said, my answer to the same question was very different than yours and therefore it seemed to me to be worth sharing for the sake of discussion, given the topic of the thread.

I meant no disrespect to you or your views. I understood your post. I just disagreed with it.

Agreeably, I hope.

:)

[polmaven]

32. Thank you very much!

Your attachment is well done. I also believe much like you do. The death penalty is unacceptable in ALL cases.

I will admit that there have been times that my opposition to it has been sorely tested in my own mind, but, then I stop, calm down, and realize that barbarism is not an answer to barbarism.

I sometimes think that, in the case of the rape of a child, maybe the perp's life in prison could have him or her wishing to be dead, if the other inmates know about it.

[katerinasmommy]

37. I don't agree at all

I think there are plenty of people that DESERVE the death penalty, and someone that rapes a small child is a special kind of bastard. I am, however, against the death penalty because I think it's bad for our society for any number of reasons. But I sure didn't cry for monsters like McVeigh or Gacy. And I wouldn't cry for someone who raped a child. Like that obscenity that passes for human in Florida that raped that little girl and buried her alive. Actually he doesn't DESERVE just the death penalty. He DESERVES to be tortured to death just like he tortured that poor little nine year old baby clutching her stuffed dolphin as he shoveled dirt over her while she was STILL ALIVE. Should society kill him, no. But that's what he DESERVES

[question everything]

41. Thank you for the link

What an excellent source for those of us who oppose the death penalty under any circumstances.

[Forkboy]

3. I wrote this months and months ago, and still stand by it.

This was in response to someone who favored the death penalty, especially in cases such as child rape, etc...

I feel exactly what you feel.At times I'd bet even more so. It's a daily struggle not to give in to such feelings for me. I don't know if it's learnable for everyone because I fight it daily.

But let me ask, how much punishment does it take before you feel it's enough? Is it really a matter of punishment or do you need that blood to spill? For me it's matter of who I am. I don't want to be that person who gives into that violent instinct anymore.

Yes, I used to support the death penalty, and at times would have administered it myself. Those days are hopefully behind me, though cases like this still stir those feelings. I don't know what exactly made me against it. A combination of things I guess, from realizing that it was just a matter of satisfying my own personal bloodlust to a serious discomfort with the concept of the State deciding who should be dead and who shouldn't. There was no one thing I can point to, just a building of ideas and thoughts over the years.

Let me make something clear: I don't think any less of you for feeling what you feel. Shit like this boils my brain as well, and even with my views this man is lucky the police found him before I did. But knowing that very feeling is inside me scares me, and my fear is that if I give in to it once more, I will again, and it'll get easier and easier with each instance. I've spent twenty plus years avoiding going further down that path, and no matter how someone like this makes me feel it's crucial to who I am to not give into that urge.

It's not about him...it's about me. And I don't know if I'm right or not.

[southlandshari]

7. I didn't read this the first time you posted it

but I'm glad I caught it the second time around.

Nicely said, forkboy.

:)

[justaregularperson]

5. We are really cleaving to revenge these days

I remember having a number of conversations about the death penalties 20 or so years ago. If memory serves me right, most people were embarrassed to discuss it in terms of "revenge". The discussion was always about "effectiveness".

I don't have the data to say if it is effective or not (does it keep others from committing crimes in the future?), but I have to say I am surprised at how important revenge has become when we discuss justice. Says a lot about how our cultural values have changed.....

[question everything]

8. Revenge it is

The death penalty does not deter future crimes, it does not even offer a "closure" to the families of the victims - there was once a research about it - does not bring back the murdered victim. The only reason it is applied is revenge, which is not part of the penal code.

Why is it that we are the only developed country in the world with the death penalty?

[babylonsister]

14. Pls. provide a link about how bad the DP is and what it does and

doesn't deter. And I'd love to hear about 'closure'. Thanks.

[question everything]

15. This is a major task

Studies like that have been going on for many years. The research about closure I read in several years ago, will have to find it.

Tomorrow. Way past my bed time.

[babylonsister]

17. You offer 'crap' that you can't back up. I look forward to tomorrow. nt

[polmaven]

33. Please see post #21

and read the summary attached therein.

[question everything]

40. Oh, go to hell

There have been many studies that show that capital punishment does not deter future murders.

You can do your own search.

Last thing I need is approval by the likes of you.

[Prophet 451]

19. No punishment ever deters

The plain fact is that for the average criminal, no punishment is ever a deterrent because criminals generally do not consider the punishment before they commit the crime. You or I would, that's why we aren't criminals. The higher levels of organised crime might (the Mafia supposedly had a ban on drug-dealing for years due to stiff sentencing) but the average street criminal won't consider the punishment before he's caught.

That's not to say that stiff punishment might not be warranted, of course, for the safety of society if nothing else but the psychology of crime is such that no punishment has much deterrent effect. I can't provide links (alas, my Google-fu is weak) but I can give you some book suggestions if you'd like.

[AustinTX]

6. I regret giving money to his campaign now ...

The Death Penalty is wrong. Period. The rest of the civilized world has realized it (no democracy in Europe has a death penalty, neither does Canada or Australia), maybe one day the US will grow up and realize it as well.

Given that Mr. Obama calls himself a Christian (as do so many other assholes who call themselves Christians and support the death penalty), what part of the sixth commandment (You shall not kill) does he not understand? Four words, not open to interpretation, no exceptions. I am not a Christan, just for reference - I just hate hypocrisies.

The US is in great company though: Some other places that like to murder their citizens in the name of "justice" are such wonderful countries as China, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan and Libya. Great company to be in, really!

I'm extremely disappointed in this guy - I wish I had done some better research before I sent his campaign my hard earned money.

[question everything]

9. Well said. And welcome to DU

Unfortunately, this is what we are stuck with. It is either him or McCain.

What bothers me is for over a year now, many of us said that we would support the nominee, whoever he, or she, is for one important reason: the future of the Supreme Court (and of our country).

The next president will face two or three vacancies, of liberal justices. But if Obama sides with Thomas and Scalia, instead of Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, that why bother?

[babylonsister]

16. Lesson for you, dear. Obama will NOT side with Scalia or Thomas.

Get that, learn that. He is a Democrat. Sorry if you can't see it.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Prophet 451]

18. I actually agree with Obama's position

My own position has always been that the death penalty should be applied only to the worst of the worst, crimes such as multiple murder, grand terrorism or high treason. However, it should also only be used in cases where the evidence is cast-iron and where there is no realistic hope of rehabilitation. Essentially, I'm saying that there are offenders (thankfully, very few) who are so dangerous that even the miniscule chance of their somehow getting loose again is too big a chance to take.

The death penalty is a monstrous thing, I won't argue that but I think that on occasion, we must be monsters for a time to safeguard the society. Still, it should never be an option we celebrate. It should be a terrible necessity, one carried out with due reluctance because if we must be monsters, we must be careful that we not forget how to be men.

Finally, all of the above assumes an honest justice system. I'd fully support a moritorium on the DP while the justice system is reformed.

[Solon]

20. That moratorium you call for will be permanent by default...

No justice system is completely honest, nor will it ever be perfect, the best thing to do is abandon the death penalty just like every other Western Democracy on the planet.

[hardtoport]

22. I couldn't agree with you more.

It seems that whenever the subject of the death penalty comes up I hear " You might feel differently if your family was murdered. " I found that to be true in my case. I believed in the death penalty until my brothers were murdered.

I got to watch up close as the criminal justice system tried ( unsuccessfully ) to railroad an innocent man. They took two years of his life, and as horrible as that is, at least they weren't able to take his life.

I don't deny for a minute that some people commit crimes so heinous and are such a blight on humanity that they don't deserve to live. And having felt that anger which only someone who has been so grievously wronged can understand, an anger that defies description, I could never judge anyone who wants to see someone who murdered or raped their loved one receive the ultimate punishment.

All I'm saying is that given the criminal justice system is, and always will be flawed, could we consider life imprisonment justice? Because in my world, the person or persons who killed my brothers could never pay enough for what they took from me. Thanks to the flawed criminal justice system, it is unlikely they will ever even see jail time. At this point, I would be glad to settle for them spending the rest of their lives behind bars.

[Prophet 451]

36. and that would be fine

If the evidence isn't cast-iron, don't use the DP. If the reforms would take forever, that's fine too.

[Lyric]

30. I don't agree with Obama's position on this, but you already know that.

Child rape is horrible. Child rape and murder is worse. If we permit the death penalty for child rape, the rapist knows that if he or she is caught, they will receive death. So what motivation is there to let the raped child LIVE?

Laws like this would have the sum effect of making sure that, in states what child rape will earn death, child rape alone will drop, and child rape plus murder will skyrocket. After all, the state can only kill you once.

I love my son, and I'd be shredded and enraged and broken inside if someone raped him. But I would heal, and hopefully so would he. But if someone raped him and then murdered him because they knew damned well that the punishment was the same either way, so they might as well kill the only witness...I'd be destroyed. I'd rather have him hurt and alive than hurt and dead.

[Prophet 451]

35. Sweetheart,

You know that I'm not arguing for a uniform DP. I said it and I'll say it again, only for the very, very worst offenders: multiple murder, grand terrorism and high treason, the phonomenally dangerous (and rare) offenders. The one's I know of who fit that definition number perhaps a dozen in the last decade.

And the rates of rape or rape+murder won't change much either way because, generally speaking, criminals do not consider the punishment either way before they commit the crime. If they want to let the child live, they will, punishment won't make any difference. We would consider the punishment, that's why we aren't criminals. Perhaps organised crime figures might consider it but a motivation based criminal like a child rapist? He won't consider his potential punishment no matter what it could be.

[Lyric]

38. This I disagree with

And the rates of rape or rape+murder won't change much either way because, generally speaking, criminals do not consider the punishment either way before they commit the crime. If they want to let the child live, they will, punishment won't make any difference. We would consider the punishment, that's why we aren't criminals. Perhaps organised crime figures might consider it but a motivation based criminal like a child rapist? He won't consider his potential punishment no matter what it could be.

If someone is intent upon murder, then no, they aren't considering the punishment. But there are a lot of cases where, after a rape, there is a pause--oh my god, what have I done? I assume that even some rapists can be human, and perhaps feel regret, so it's not unreasonable to think that, at that moment, the enormity and the consequences of what they've just done might truly sink in. At that moment...if the punishment for what they've already done is the same as the punishment for going ahead and killing the child to remove the witness, it removes any possibility of mercy. Mercy is rare in cases like that, but it does happen. It's not illogical to think that a rapist might consider the fact that, "If I stop right here, the worst that will happen is prison. If I kill...I'll be killed." If that isn't true at least some of the time, then what is the point of having harsher punishments for worse crimes at *all*? Our justice system's entire foundation rests on the concept that people are deterred from further crime by the idea of harsher punishment. Remove the possibility of harsher punishment, and the rapist can then kill a human being, a child, with no fear of any harsher retribution.

I would rather not create a situation where someone could commit a murder without fear of harsher punishment than they are already destined to receive. That seems incredibly foolish, even from a logical standpoint. And if the fear of harsher punishment is not a deterrent, then what is the point of the death penalty at all? Why bother? The only reason that remains is to permanently remove a danger to society, and that requires handing over an enormous amount of trust to the government and to the largely-apathetic and easily-led voting population to define "dangerous enough to society to kill." I don't trust the American people to make that decision without leaning on emotion and thoughts of vengeance. We are not logical people when we are angry. This power the kill is the most dangerous power that we have ever allowed our government to possess, and I fear it will be the one governmental power that we come to regret the most.

[Prophet 451]

42. Well...

The fact is that in that pause you speak of, the criminal is often thinking "what have I done?", they might be thinking about getting rid of the evidence and how to evade capture but usually (there are a few rare exceptions), they're not thinking beyond that, they're not thinking about what the punishment might be. No, it's not illogical to think that they might go through the process you suggested but the criminal is not thinking logically at the time. So what's the point of having harsher punishments? The safeguarding of society.

"Remove the possibility of harsher punishment, and the rapist can then kill a human being, a child, with no fear of any harsher retribution."

Luv, I'm not sure where that came from because I'm not arguing that raping someone (even a child) should attract the death penalty. I'm arguing against the total abolition of the death penalty and laid out three instances (multiple murder, grand terrorism and high treason) where I would consider it justified for the further safety of society.

"And if the fear of harsher punishment is not a deterrent, then what is the point of the death penalty at all?"

The safeguarding of society against the (few) phonomenally dangerous individuals who we cannot take even the most miniscule chance of them being loose again under any circumstances.

"that requires handing over an enormous amount of trust to the government and to the largely-apathetic and easily-led voting population to define "dangerous enough to society to kill."

No, it means handing that trust to judges, whom we already trust to make life-or-death decisions (Terri Schiavo, for example). Neither government, nor the people make decisions on sentencing (barring the absurdly inflexible three-strikes rules which I universally oppose), that power is reserved to judges.

"We are not logical people when we are angry."

No, I appreciate that (although given that 20% of the US population thinks the sun orbits the earth, it's questionable if they're logical at all) which is why I wasn't entrusting that decision to the dimwitted public (you already know my opinion of the general public) or to politicians but to the dry, dispassionate and logical arena of the courts (and if you'd like to point out that courts sometimes aren't those things, I already said I'd support a moritorium on the DP while the justice system is reformed).

"This power the kill is the most dangerous power that we have ever allowed our government to possess"

ALL governments have the power to kill, luv, they just don't say so. You have the military for starters; both our governments employ armed guards around their legislature and I'd be very surprised if both of them didn't have departments for "disposing" of certain people.

[happygoluckytoyou]

23. DEATH.... when there is no doubt and the crime is this....OKAY WITH ME TOO

[ulysses]

24. you're really posting far too little these days.

:thumbsup:

[PeaceNikki]

26. Race and the Death Penalty

http://www.aclu.org/capital/unequal/10389pub20030226.html

The color of a defendant and victim's skin plays a crucial and unacceptable role in deciding who receives the death penalty in America. People of color have accounted for a disproportionate 43 % of total executions since 1976 and 55 % of those currently awaiting execution. A moratorium of the death penalty is necessary to address the blatant prejudice in our application of the death penalty.

The jurisdictions with the highest percentages of minorities on its death row:

U.S. Military (86%)
Colorado (80%)
U.S. Government (77%)
Louisiana (72%)
Pennsylvania (70%)

While white victims account for approximately one-half of all murder victims, 80% of all Capital cases involve white victims. Furthermore, as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims.

For many years reports from around the country have found that a pervasive racial prejudice in the application of the death penalty exists.

In January 2003, researchers at the University of Maryland concluded in a study commissioned by the Maryland Governor that defendants are much more likely to be sentenced to death if they have killed a white person. Urgent: Maryland residents can take action to send a free fax to their state legislators about a pending death penalty bill!

In August 2001, the New Jersey Supreme Court released a report which also found that the state's death penalty law is more likely to proceed against defendants who kill white victims.

In April 2001, researchers from the University of North Carolina released a study of all homicide cases in North Carolina between 1993 and 1997. The study found that the odds of getting a death sentence increased three and a half times if the victim was white rather than black.

(more at link)

[GihrenZabi]

27. Wrong argument

Pointing out, correctly, the racism inherent in the American application of capital punishment is not, logically, a valid argument against the death penalty. It is an argument for shoring up the laws and standards by which the death penalty is applied, not an argument against the death penalty.

IMHO, if you want to argue the death penalty, you assume a system where the criminal is always actually guilty and the crime was actually committed. Then you can focus on the real issue, which is whether the State ever has the right to put a human being to death.

It just helps to keep the conversation on proper, logical track. :)

[PeaceNikki]

31. It's one of MANY arguments, IMHO.

[Kaylee]

28. I am really torn on the death penalty....

on one hand I do believe some people and some crimes are so heinous that we as a society can ask for death, and I won't even try to speculate what my feelings would be if a person close to me were the victim.....on the other hand I doubt if I could personally kill someone. How can I ask the state to kill someone, if I wouldn't be willing to inject the needle myself?

I suspect most Americans are just as torn on the subject.

[wysimdnwyg]

29. I am a staunch advocate of abolishing the death penalty

What is the purpose of capital punishment? Is it a deterrent? Gee, how's that working out? Is it a punishment? As a friend used to quote many years ago (I've long since forgotten who originated this), "why do we kill people who kill people? Is it to show that killing is wrong?" So, for a society supposedly enlightened and trying to prove that murder (and potentially other heinous crimes) is wrong, we say the punishment for these crimes is to kill the perpetrator? That's some fucked up logic.

Now, when you consider the way our system currently works, many who are sentenced to the DP sit on death row for upwards of 20, even 30 years before their sentence is finally meted. So we spend all of that money to house this prisoner for 30 years, plus the ongoing legal fees - often including public defender fees, as the defendants can not afford their own representation - only to go through the enormous added expense of actually carrying out the DP.

Considering all of that, what is the point? Are we making an example of the defendant? Are we punishing them? Would it not be just as bad for them if they were given a sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole? For many, that's what they have on death row anyway. They sit there for 30 years, then die of a heart attack, cancer or some other cause, but never actually have to go sit in that chair or lie on that gurney. The family of the victim never gets to have whatever retribution they might hope to find from the death of the defendant.

And finally, none of this takes into consideration the many, MANY defendants who, after sitting on death row for 20 years, trying desperately to get a new trial, finally get that one piece of evidence that proves their innocence. What of those who did NOT find that evidence (or were unable to get it admitted and get a new trial), and were put to death despite their innocence? How do we, the people who are responsible for allowing the death penalty to continue, justify putting even one innocent person to death?


But none of that is the question here. The question is, did Barack Obama just take a stance in favor of the death penalty in cases of child rape? No, he did not. What he did - as even someone who feels like I would do - was to explain that he believes the law LA put in place was constitutional and that the Supreme Court over stepped its bounds by overturning said law. And he said it in a very generic way, careful not to give the impression that he is necessarily in favor of the law.

I don't want anyone to get the impression I'm apologizing for Obama here. There are several areas with which I disagree (sometimes strongly) with Obama. But he is the best hope, I believe, progressives have had in many years. I can't guarantee that, if elected, he will do everything we want him to do. I doubt he'll get even 70% of that list started. But when you consider the partisan way Washington works today - and the fact that, like it or not, we here at DU are not mainstream, but somewhere nearer to a socialist community than we are to many currently in office - you have to accept that anyone who is with us 100% of the time will have a very difficult time getting elected to the office to which Obama currently aspires. It's just not politically viable. On the whole, however, Obama is far and away the best chance we've had to move the discussion back our way in quite some time. Don't let a few issues - most minor when it comes down to it - cloud your judgment. He may not be perfect, but he's a damn sight better than the alternative.

[Neshanic]

34. Ah well is right. Thanks for writing that. The death penalty is wrong. Period.

[Robyn66]

39. I agree- no argument the death penalty is wrong period! (nt)

[Caentor]

43. One point

"Many years ago, my friend's sister was abducted and raped at gunpoint. One of the things my friend said when we talked about this soon after it happened was that it was suddenly brought home to her what a huge difference there was between "raped" and "raped and murdered." This is a difference that I see a lot of people in the DP threads eliding, so it's worth pointing it out. Yes, rape and murder are both heinous. It would just about kill you to know one of your loved ones had gone through either. But the victim of a rape survives, scarred though s/he is, and with luck gets enough help and healing to lead a full life later on. To treat rape as if it is equivalent to murder, IMHO, is to devalue the lives that rape survivors go on to have; it gives rape and rapists more power than they really have."

1) Saying that Child Rape is a crime that justifies the death penalty does not mean it's equal to murder. Analogy. In WA state, Child Rape and Murder are both Class A (the highest grade felonies). So is Kidnapping. It doesn't follow that they are EQUIVALENT. It just means they are sufficiently heinous to justify Class A penalties.

2) There is a difference between forcible rape of (for example) a 10 yr old and rape of an adult. The former is, on average, far more developmentally and psychologically damaging. Although both are heinous, the former is more so. And the issue in question was the DP for child rape, not rape in general

Ok, that's two points :)

[RichardRay]

45. There's a distinction to be drawn

Question 1 - If there is perfect knowledge of a person's action X, then is the death penalty appropriate, moral, fair, etc.?

vs.

Question 2 - If a person is found in court to be guilty of breaking a law that proscribes action X, then is the death penalty appropriate, moral, fair, etc.?

Answering yes to #2 is very different from yes to #1, and failing to distinguish between the two leads to some seriously flawed argument, policy and practice.