Death Penalty - News, Thoughts, Info

[Mitmo01]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

IM in total agreement because I know what i am capable of it anything ever happened to one of my loved ones.....i would demand retribution and vengence regardless of the outcome and you know what...I guess i would be prepared to pay the price for it....im still wondering how in the hell that joseph duncan is actually still alive, i thought for sure he wouldve been shanked in prison by now...

[Julie]

Absolutely AGAINST the Death Penalty.
My reasons...
POC as a rule are given unfair trials.
POC as a rule are not given the same legal help as White People.
I believe because of this, the risk of innocent people being put to death is far too great.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/exec...sibly-innocent

"Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995
A year-long investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has uncovered evidence that Larry Griffin may have been innocent of the crime for which he was executed by the state of Missouri on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence until his death, and investigators say his case is the strongest demonstration yet of an execution of an innocent man. The report notes that a man injured in the same drive-by shooting that claimed the life of Quintin Moss says Griffin was not involved in the crime, and the first police officer on the scene has given a new account that undermines the trial testimony of the only witness who identified Griffin as the murderer. Based on its findings, the NAACP has supplied the prosecution with the names of three men it suspects committed the crime, and all three of the suspects are currently in jail for other murders. Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said she has reopened the investigation and will conduct a comprehensive review of the case over the next few months. "There is no real doubt that we have an innocent person. If we could go to trial on this case, if there was a forum where we could take this to trial, we would win hands down," stated University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, who supervised the investigation into Griffin's case. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 11, 2005). "

We will spend billions on weapons and war - We can spend some of that money on education and reform in the prison system, so the rate of recidivism drops.

I am a die hard liberal - even when it comes to those who have perpetuated crimes against me.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

Okay, so you would not, in principle, have a problem with returning to system of ad hoc vendetta such that if someone kills your brother you can kill one of their relatives? I mean at the point where we are talking about state-sanctioned revenge, why involve the state at all? Why not just go for the direct, personal route? Because now we're not talking about justice, now we're talking about vengeance.

And I'm not saying that if someone harmed my wife, son, granddaughter, sister et. al. that I wouldn't want revenge--but that's why I live in a (nominally) civilized nation because I need to check my *own* impulses as well as others.

Cheers
Aj

[LipstickLola]

I'm very uncomfortable with the death penalty, and am against it. I believe in a judgement much higher than that of man. I also believe there are things worse than death, and that if at all possible, criminals of these heinous, horrific, unspeakable crimes should be shown a life in a 10x10 cell. And I don't mean they should be able to "better themselves", or treated to Club Fed.

My human nature wants to run over, hang, shoot, torture those who commit crimes against the elderly, children, the incapacitated, any human life, or even certain crimes against animals, and that is my reason.......I do believe "they'll get theirs", it may not be when we want, or when we can see it, but 'they' will. Prisons are overcrowded, the justice system is more imprefect than it works, or so it seems, criminals walk the street, those who are unable to hire a great defense spend more time behind bars, all of these injustices don't change my mind. Having a very very close friend murdered, testifying, having been a crime victim, I still don't believe it's the right thing to do, for if it were, are we any better than the perpetrators themselves??

This is one of those discussions that can last forever with sooooo many different points of view, I can totally relate to wanting and eye for an eye, I just don't feel competent to actually make that decision regarding human life.

Just my thoughts and feelings. thanks!

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Okay, so you would not, in principle, have a problem with returning to system of ad hoc vendetta such that if someone kills your brother you can kill one of their relatives? I mean at the point where we are talking about state-sanctioned revenge, why involve the state at all? Why not just go for the direct, personal route? Because now we're not talking about justice, now we're talking about vengeance.

And I'm not saying that if someone harmed my wife, son, granddaughter, sister et. al. that I wouldn't want revenge--but that's why I live in a (nominally) civilized nation because I need to check my *own* impulses as well as others.

Cheers
Aj

I am going to answer this honestly. If harm came to mine, I would do it myself or I'd want front row seats so they could look me in the eyes before they died. That way I can see my own in theirs, and they see what I feel in mine.

I know it's not clear thinking it's more emotional. So my answer is ugly

[betenoire]

Taken from Amnesty dot ca

Twenty Years of Abolition: the Canadian Experience
Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

I am going to answer this honestly. If harm came to mine, I would do it myself or I'd want front row seats so they could look me in the eyes before they died. That way I can see my own in theirs, and they see what I feel in mine.

I know it's not clear thinking it's more emotional. So my answer is ugly

When it comes down to crimes against "Family," I completely understand this from an emotional stand point. I get it. If someone were to hurt one of my children and that could include anyone - a friend, an ex or family member - I will hurt them. I will find a way to hurt them. If not myself, then I will find someone to do it for me.

But what if... I am wrong? What if the person I am seeking vengeance on is not in fact the person who committed the crime? Many times, we never see our attackers. Many times there is no DNA. Yet, many times these people are sent to their death without proof, because of who they might be.

I believe, if it is a clear cut "I know it was you." -- I would seek it. But, if I am not 100% sure that this is the person - I cannot wish death on them, because what if I am wrong? Then I have placed death on an innocent person.

I am only against the death penalty because it has been proven innocent (far too many) people have been put to their death.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Okay, so you would not, in principle, have a problem with returning to system of ad hoc vendetta such that if someone kills your brother you can kill one of their relatives? I mean at the point where we are talking about state-sanctioned revenge, why involve the state at all? Why not just go for the direct, personal route? Because now we're not talking about justice, now we're talking about vengeance.

And I'm not saying that if someone harmed my wife, son, granddaughter, sister et. al. that I wouldn't want revenge--but that's why I live in a (nominally) civilized nation because I need to check my *own* impulses as well as others.

Cheers
Aj

This actually leads me to a question I've been asking myself lately:

Human sacrifice has been a practice in different societies in history. Did it go away or did it just transform into these types of things?

and

In a podcast of "Speaking of Faith," with Krista Tippett, she spoke with Michael McCullough, professor of psychology at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, where he directs the Laboratory for Social and Clinical Psychology and also teaches in the Department of Religious studies. He wrote a book called, "Beyond Revenge," where he analyzed extensive data from social scientific studies on humans and animals as well as biology and brain chemistry.

During that podcast, he mentioned that Japanese macaques are very status-conscious and intimidated by power. He said, "If you're a high-ranking Japanese macaque and you harm a low-ranking Japanese macaque, that low-ranking individual is not going to harm you back, right? *It's just too intimidating. It's too anxiety-provoking. But what they do instead, and this still astonishes me, is they will find a relative of that high-ranking individual and go seek that low-ranking cousin or nephew and harm him in retaliation...So it's as if they're saying, "You know, I'm not powerful enough to get you back, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to harm your nephew...Here's the kicker, is when they're harming this nephew, most of the time they're doing it while the high-ranking individual is watching. They want the high-ranking individual to know that, 'You can harm me, I know you can harm me, I know you're more powerful than I am. But rest assured, I know how to get at what you care about and what you value."

And then Krista Tippett's response intrigued me: "I had this realization a few years ago when we did a program on the death penalty. It might seem simple, but it seems so stunning to me to realize that the criminal justice system, and even, and especially, the death penalty in history, was progress because before there was any kind of criminal justice system, human societies regulated themselves by precisely that ind of revenge you're describing."

So, if she has a point, though I personally think the death penalty is extremely repugnant, maybe society demands a certain amount of blood-letting, a certain amount of human sacrifice, in order for peace to be kept and in order to keep people from taking the law back into their own hands?

I asked a few friends if they thought the death penalty was a modern form of human sacrifice. One said no way. Another said, yes - and also mentioned the religiosity around the deaths of soldiers to fill another part of that same societal yearning. So I guess I do wonder if the death penalty serves some sort of vestige blood lust. Humans are pack animals and predators and yet most of us live lives very far away from that reality.

[atomiczombie]

I am against the death penalty for this reason: killing people is wrong. And if it is wrong for a citizen to do it, then it is wrong for the state to do it. It makes no sense to kill people because they kill people. It is just state sanctioned violence and revenge. If killing people is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone and we need to be consistent, otherwise we are a bunch of hypocrites. There is no justice in revenge. We are no better than the criminals who commit these crimes if we commit the same crime against them. You can't sanitize murder with a syringe. Sorry, that's the truth people.

[Kobi]

I am on the fence on this one.

Part of me thinks we spend way too much money and resources
on prisons and the death penalty minus countless appeals. Thus it
would be fiscally prudent.

On the other hand, I would not want to execute someone who
might indeed be innocent. That would be ethically repugnant to me.

On the third hand...I cannot see me wanting to exact revenge if someone harmed someone close to me.
Inflicting harm on another after the fact is morally troubling for me.
It would make me a vigilante in my mind and that is not acceptable to me.

On the fourth hand....I would have no trouble defending myself, a loved, someone in danger if needed to do so.
That is simple self defense or coming to the aid of another in distress.
That, to me, is simple human survival instincts.

[dykeumentary]

I am against the death penalty. Also i oppose war -- another state mechanism where innocent people and beloved family members are killed.

[Isadora]

I do not in anyway believe in the death penalty. A lot of the reasons people have already stated, also, if I wanted everyone "killed" who hurt or harmed me or my family...well, let's just say there would already be a trail. Cause we hurt or harm each other a lot in our society. I prefer cursing said offenders.

As a witch, I believe that we are responsible for ourselves. We like to pursue the positive and give ourselves credit when we take a proactive approach and accomplish something. But when it comes to the anger, the betrayals, the abuse, murder, assault and so forth, too often we give the job over to someone else to do (e.g. the state, the universe, the God/dess).

I believe in cursing. It is a tradition of lots of cultures and I think it was Z Budapest that said that a Witch who cannot hex cannot heal.

Cursing can be about more than just the person who is your target. It can be healing for you. It can purge you of the hurt and anger and propel you towards a better place. I'm working on the assumption that you have been seriously wronged. I'm not talking about cursing your stylist because she gave you a bad haircut or just releasing misdirected anger. But if someone has injured you, why not hold them accountable? If you don't, who will? As a witch/Crone we must create the world we want. Do you want your world to be one where people just get away with injustices? It is just a matter of HOW, we as a society, want to handle injustice. I chose to handle it in my witchypooh way.

I believe in the death penalty. I also believe an eye for an eye... why should someone who has murdered in cold blood be allowed to continue to live albeit prison is not living, an hour of sunshine a day if you behave... if you had behaved in the first place... well ?????? Sorrow and remorse, where is that? and you want a TV and a play station cuz NOW you are bored. I am not sorry that I feel this way but I do feel sorrow for the families who are left behind, the children who are left behind and ALL the unansered questions cuz you plead out, escaped the death penalty and now instead of paying for what you did, you get to live. WHY??? Someone showed you mercy and you did not and now you live with that.

[atomiczombie]

I absolutely believe in justice, and those who commit heinous crimes need to be locked up. With todays supermax prisons, there is no need to fear someone will escape and re-offend. But that is justice, not revenge. I believe that revenge harms the one who seeks it as much as the one on the receiving end. It feeds off the pain caused by the perpetrator and allows that pain to fester. Revenge doesn't make things better. It just perpetuates the cycle of violence and injustice.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

I understand.

Two of the people closest to me have been the victim of violent crimes perpetrated by people they/I know.
I have had overwhelming urges to harm those perpetrators physically. To destroy them.
My desire to harm them has been so great that I have consciously gone out of my way to avoid situations where my own emotions might overcome my rational thought, my ethics (regarding taking a life or harming another person) and my sense of self-preservation.

I also know, my job is to love and support those people closest to me to help them to heal and to carry on with their lives. That is the most important thing, I as an individual, can do. In my experience, vengeance doesn't heal.

As far as "the state" is concerned - I do not trust that our legal and justice systems are unbiased enough to be granted the power to take a life.

To me the natural question that should arise from this debate is -

The death penalty doesn't work - it neither reduces (nor deters) violent crime, so:

How do we prevent and reduce violent crime?

We talk about how much it costs to keep perpetrators on death row through their (rightful) due course of law, we talk about how overcrowded prisons are, how short sentences are, how rehabilitation doesn't work...

But we don't talk about tightening legislation around gun control. We don't talk about making weapons for personal use illegal all together (NRA-forfend). We don't talk about substance abuse as endemic to our nation. Or the "blind eye" law enforcement turns to domestic violence in so many cases. Or the reality that the impetus is upon a rape victim to prove s/he was raped...

And we don't discuss the NEED to dramatically alter our national fiscal priorities so that we can strengthen our social services, education and physical/mental health systems; provide more support for parents and children; and training for teachers and nurses and school counselors (those on the front line of raising healthy non-violent people).

[katsarecool]

When I was young I was very much against the death penalty. When I was 26 a close friend learned his sister was violently murdered by the mass murdered Paul John Knowles who went through a killing rampage from Washington DC to Florida killing without mercy men, women and children. Then I changed my mind.

Many years later there was the case of the African American man who was excecuted with very flimsy evidence and once again I had to search my soul about how I really feel about the death penalty. With all the dire statistics concerning the difference in how white and POC are treated by the justice system and the proven cases of once found guilty then DNA proved them innocent; I cannnot accept the death penalty.

As stated here unless there is absolute proof a life sentence is the proper punishment.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I'm reading, hearing, and listening to you all, it's a hot topic! I won't post much though cause it's ugly and it comes from an emotional place. I will be reading and learning from everyone though.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

Isn't that ironic???

I bet if they find a mate they have the right to marry, we on the other hand do not. Just isn't right.

They do have that right, unfortunately.



I'm sure I'm in the minority, but when someone acts in cold blood, I go cold towards them. I'm not talking about petty theft or small time crimes where no one was hurt but for murder, rape, torture, and maiming (and other similar and horrific (especially premeditated) crimes), they cease to exist as a human to me when they lose their humanity towards another.

I don't want money going to support their existence in this world for years or decades. Money that could go towards starving people whose only crime is to be a victim of hard times. Money towards educational programs for children to get out of bad locales and to become bigger and greater than they could ever imagine. Money to help people SURVIVE.

I don't want them breathing fresh air and laughing and experiencing joy. They stole that from someone else. Someone who doesn't get the chance to do those things anymore.

I'm especially cold towards those who harm children. I feel that children who are abused, especially sexually, are in effect murdered. They will NEVER be that innocent child again and who they could have been is gone forever. They are forced through a rebirth of sorts that is cruel and excrutiatingly painful and unnecessary. The people who prey on kids are the worst of the lot, imo, and should be spared absolutely no mercy.

I do realize that I am a cold, heartless bitch in regards to this topic. I'm okay with that. I've personally known someone who killed his partner and, though I liked him very much, would support the death penalty for him. No favoritism.

As for the advances in technology and DNA, I do believe that older cases should routinely be reevaluated to be absolutely certain since, as many have pointed out, "justice" has been carried out differently throughout time.

[dreadgeek]

So a quick question:

Hypothetical 1: We live in a culture where vendetta is allowed. I think your brother killed my father, so I kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Hypothetical 2: We live in a culture with the death penalty. The state thinks your brother killed my father so they try, convict and kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Question 1: What substantial consequential difference is there between these two?
Question 2: What is the substantial moral difference between these two?

Cheers
Aj

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Gemme

They do have that right, unfortunately.



I'm sure I'm in the minority, but when someone acts in cold blood, I go cold towards them. I'm not talking about petty theft or small time crimes where no one was hurt but for murder, rape, torture, and maiming (and other similar and horrific (especially premeditated) crimes), they cease to exist as a human to me when they lose their humanity towards another.

I don't want money going to support their existence in this world for years or decades. Money that could go towards starving people whose only crime is to be a victim of hard times. Money towards educational programs for children to get out of bad locales and to become bigger and greater than they could ever imagine. Money to help people SURVIVE.

I don't want them breathing fresh air and laughing and experiencing joy. They stole that from someone else. Someone who doesn't get the chance to do those things anymore.

I'm especially cold towards those who harm children. I feel that children who are abused, especially sexually, are in effect murdered. They will NEVER be that innocent child again and who they could have been is gone forever. They are forced through a rebirth of sorts that is cruel and excrutiatingly painful and unnecessary. The people who prey on kids are the worst of the lot, imo, and should be spared absolutely no mercy.

I do realize that I am a cold, heartless bitch in regards to this topic. I'm okay with that. I've personally known someone who killed his partner and, though I liked him very much, would support the death penalty for him. No favoritism.

As for the advances in technology and DNA, I do believe that older cases should routinely be reevaluated to be absolutely certain since, as many have pointed out, "justice" has been carried out differently throughout time.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

So a quick question:

Hypothetical 1: We live in a culture where vendetta is allowed. I think your brother killed my father, so I kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Hypothetical 2: We live in a culture with the death penalty. The state thinks your brother killed my father so they try, convict and kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Question 1: What substantial consequential difference is there between these two?
Question 2: What is the substantial moral difference between these two?

Cheers
Aj

Cheers
Aj

I'm not saying that I wouldn't want the accused to go through the system and have good representation and the benefit of the doubt. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. But I also don't want to not give the death penalty 'in case' he really didn't do it.

Each case is individual.

If there is sufficient proof that a person killed another, then why is it MY moral responsibility? S/he did it. May their punishment fit their crime.

The thing about posting in these type of threads is that the debate gets heated and, inevitably, someone tries to prove their point and sway others.

I won't be swayed on this matter.