DEATH PENALTY I taught a peace and justice class this morning

[gopiscrap]

and the discussion was about the death penalty. This is at a fairly liberal congregation and I was surprised at how evenly split the class was about it. How do you feel about the death penalty?

21 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	yes for capital offenses
	7 (33%)
	leaning yes for capital offenses
	0 (0%)
	ambivilant
	1 (5%)
	leaning no
	0 (0%)
	never
	10 (48%)
	only for treason in a time of war
	0 (0%)
	only for war crimes
	1 (5%)
	other explain
	2 (10%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[cali]

1. never ever.

[gopiscrap]

2. that was my take also

generated some pretty interesting discussion

[hrmjustin]

3. Never.

[Blue_In_AK]

4. I've always been opposed.

I'm thankful we don't have the death penalty in Alaska.

[Logical]

9. That surprises me actually. I would assume that state did. n-t

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Our constitution is very progressive.

No DP, and a very strong privacy clause which is responsible for marijuana being virtually legal here since a 1975 court decision, legal abortions since before Roe, and civil rights protections for our Native population in place before the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Also the citizens of the state own the natural resources in common, which is why we get a permanent fund dividend every year.

This was a Democratic state before the oil boom brought all the Texans and Oklahomans, ALEC, Koch Bros. etc. up here. I'm looking forward to it running out so they'll all go home.

[Logical]

13. Cool, thanks for the information!! n-t

[BlueJazz]

5. Never, Ever. There are seconds when I feel some horrible person should die but then I know there...

....are thousands of horrible people that have done worse and they will not even go to trial.

[GeorgeGist]

6. am·biv·a·lent

[Brickbat]

7. Against it. I will admit to wanting it, or thinking someone deserves it, or hoping for some kind of

cosmic reckoning, but I reject the idea of killing by the state in my name.

[Logical]

8. No liberal should ever be for this. Disgusting. n-t

[Major Nikon]

27. Exactly

There's absolutely nothing progressive about the DP. It serves absolutely no purpose for society and given that our justice system is far from perfect, it insures innocent people will die.

[aikoaiko]

11. It should be rare.

When its a heinous crime + certainty of agency + no compelling mitigating circumstances then I'm Ok with DP.

[Logical]

14. "certainty of agency" meaning what? n-t

[aikoaiko]

16. Beyond all doubt - not just reasonable doubt.

There are cases where it there is zero doubt that a person performed some behavior that led to a death.

[Logical]

21. Wow, here we go again......

So many DUers say this shit. I would imagine most juries that rule on capital punishment use that rule anyway.

And you realize about one person a year is let off death row because they are innocent?

25% of the people the Innocence Project has gotten released because of DNA evidence had CONFESSED to the crime because of abusive police tactics. I assume your "Beyond all doubt" would include confessions.

Do more reading. Jesus.

[aikoaiko]

23. yes, we've had this same conversation and it ended the same way.

Nice chatting with you.

[Logical]

24. Your theory is silly. "If you are really really super duper sure, lets kill him". LOL. n-t

[Major Nikon]

41. Here's how I see it

All of the other countries that have the death penalty consider toilet paper a luxury item. Now I suppose the possibility exists that the USA and all the other backwards despotic shithole countries got it right and the rest of the civilized world got it wrong, but I consider that more than just a bit remote.

[Logical]

59. Great point! +1000! nt

[Major Nikon]

28. So how do you define that legally?

There is not one form of evidence you can name that is infallible, even if you had a justice system that is 100% reliable (and no system of justice is). Death penalty cases already have a much higher standard which already drives the costs up higher than life in prison. Furthermore what could you possibly hope to accomplish by driving the costs up even higher? The DP serves no purpose to society or even victims. There is no deterrent effect and it simply drags out the misery of the victims through years if not decades of appeals.

[aikoaiko]

34. With words. The same way we do other levels of confidence of evidence

We already instruct jurors that they don't have to reach a level of certainty - just beyond reasonable doubt. The legal definition is implied in the definition of beyond reasonable doubt.

To convict I can live with reasonable doubt, but to sentence with the DP one should be certain.

What do I hope to achieve? Justice.

[Major Nikon]

35. The words for that are "beyond a shadow of a doubt"

Which is an impossible legal standard.

So what else have you got?

[aikoaiko]

36. Not impossible. But that's why the DP lshould be rare.

And that's all you get, sport.

[Major Nikon]

37. All I got was abstract rhetoric

The best you could come up with for a reason for the DP was "justice" and it didn't get any better from there.

Just sayin'

Beyond the shadow of a doubt is the strictest standard of proof. It requires that there be no doubt as to the issue. Widely considered an impossible standard, a situation stemming from the nature of knowledge itself, it is valuable to mention only as a comment on the fact that evidence in a court never need (nor can) reach this level. This phrase, has, nonetheless, come to be associated with the law in popular culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt

[pipoman]

44. "Widely considered"

doesn't mean true. I knew BTK, he came to my house 2 times on business. When he was questioned he admitted his crimes with information nobody but BTK could possibly know. Further he was linked through physical evidence to some of the crime scenes. Beyond a shadow of a doubt...it happens with some regularity..

That said, I am not sure the utility of the DP..

[Major Nikon]

47. It doesn't mean the outlier is remotely pragmatic either

The standard of proof that exists is already incredibly high because our system of justice favors allowing many guilty to go free rather than wrongly punishing a few innocents. Now add to this the fact that capital punishment cases carry much higher standards of appeal than other criminal cases. So now we are to believe that even if such a much higher standard were actually achievable in the realm of possibility, that such a standard would also be achievable from a practical standpoint. Furthermore all of this assumes our system of investigation, charging, prosecution, and conviction are all never without failure and this is not even within a cab ride of reality. It's certainly possible that BTK wanted to be executed and the police fed him all the information. Is it likely? No, but neither is it beyond impossible, and that's what you are claiming is achievable.

Furthermore, every state in the union that has capital punishment has the right to establish their own legal standards and all of them do. What you are proposing would in all practical sense require a Constitutional amendment or at the very least a very unlikely Supreme Court ruling, all to preserve a piss poor method of punishment the rest of the civilized world considers barbaric.

[aikoaiko]

55. Burden of proof IS an abstract concept.

That's just the way it is.

And justice is a fine reason for sentencing someone.

[Major Nikon]

63. It is anything but

In fact, I can't think of too many things farther from abstract.

[aikoaiko]

64. What is the physical or concrete form of beyond reasonable doubt?

[Major Nikon]

65. Your question makes no sense

No idea is physical. An objective idea that is well defined is the opposite of an abstract idea.

[aikoaiko]

66. I think we disagree on the meaning of some key words here, so...

...I'll just walk away

[Major Nikon]

68. On that I can agree

[sarisataka]

58. You sum up my former logic...

but over the years I have realized two things-
-one is humans will always try and bend the rules to subvert the intent so there is the chance a mitigating circumstance will be ignored
-two, killing a person does no one any good. I don't consider murder the best crime for the DP; crimes against children, the most heinous rape cases, genocide- those are when I consider should the perpetrator die. But I realize that the DP will not undo that which has been done.

[aikoaiko]

61. Truth be told -- I'm fine with my state or the US banning the DP

But as long as it is permissible, I want the option.

[nomorenomore08]

69. Certain crimes are heinous enough to make me hesitate for a second.

But overall, for the reasons already outlined, I totally oppose the death penalty and consider its abolition part of being a civilized society.

[petronius]

12. No DP, no exceptions, is my position

I have always considered the DP to be far more a reflection on the society than on the crime being punished - and ritualized killing by the state is not something any society should engage in...

[gopiscrap]

50. Exactly

[pipi_k]

15. Very mixed feelings on this

I don't like it. It doesn't deter people from committing crimes.

Sometimes people convicted of capital crimes are later found innocent. Not just "not guilty", but innocent

And yet...

There's still a part of me that feels, if the crime is heinous enough AND the evidence is rock solid, I'm not exactly going to root FOR it, but I'm not going to get all weepy for the condemned, either.

Also, I try to imagine myself in the shoes of people whose family members have been murdered.

If they feel like the DP is appropriate, who the hell am I to tell them they would have no right to feel the way they do..."liberal" or not...

Yeah, it's so goddamned easy for us to sit here on our asses saying that no true Liberal should ever want the DP if it's someone else's loved ones who had the most horrible things done to them.

I'm not going to judge someone else's heart as long as I don't...and hopefully never will...understand what that loss and pain must be like. And so, for that reason, this is not a black/white issue for me.

[Major Nikon]

29. Appeals to emotion work both ways

Imagine if your spouse, parent, or child were on death row.

[pipi_k]

42. I'm not

blind to that possibility, either.


My opinions on various issues are hardly ever fueled by either logic or emotion, but are often a mixture of the two.

Which is why I can't see this issue in terms of black OR white.

[Major Nikon]

46. That's the way it is for most people

Empathy is one of the most highly valued human characteristics. But I'm not convinced the death penalty does anything for the victims' families. Capital punishment cases have much higher standards of appeal. So it simply extends their misery as they wait years or decades for final justice, and often the offenders die in prison anyway. I'm also not convinced satisfying a vengeful eye-for-an-eye bloodlust offers any meaningful closure or emotional benefit over and above life in prison with no parole.

[pipi_k]

49. One of the strangest

(IMO) things I've witnessed about victims' families with regards to the DP is that sometimes they will opt to forgive the criminal, and not fight for the DP.

For the exact reason you mentioned...they know that eye-for-an-eye will not bring their loved ones back.

So they forgive and go on. That, to me, is the height of humanity and mercy. I really don't know if I would be capable of such a thing.

[Major Nikon]

62. I agree

I'm certainly not a believer, but as the saying goes, "to err is human, to forgive divine".

Spending your life behind bars until your dying breath is certainly not getting off lightly and is arguably a worse punishment. I can't say I'd have such fortitude either, but I certainly hope I would. Regardless from a public policy standpoint it needs to be stopped, for a variety of reasons.

[nomorenomore08]

71. IIRC that's what Matthew Shepard's parents did RE: his killers. Argued for life in prison

rather than the DP, essentially with the logic that nothing would bring their son back.

[nomorenomore08]

70. I don't judge them either. But it's with very good reason that we don't let them determine

the penalty themselves.

[undeterred]

17. Dead Man Walking

changed my mind and heart on this subject. Thanks to Sister Helen Prejean for writing this book and for those who made it into a film.

[JaneyVee]

18. Personally, I'm against it.

[caraher]

19. Ummm...

Isn't the very definition of "capital offense" one that carries with it the threat of a death penalty?

I'm completely against it, BTW

[rrneck]

20. Never. Killing is wrong, I don't care why. nt

[sir pball]

22. Morally, eh. But practically, no.

Frankly I do think some people deserve to be put to death and I have no particular moral qualms with the DP - but justice is human and therefore fallible; the DP is completely incompatible with mistakes so I can't support it on simple practical grounds.

[XRubicon]

67. I see it the same as you

The system is administered by humans so there will be errors.

Say for argument sake the error rate is 1 in 5000, if there were 4999 no doubt guilty murders would anyone volunteer to be the innocent one to be executed with them? I would not and I would never ask anyone else to do it either.

Just lock them up...

[LostOne4Ever]

25. Never

Killing people to show that killing people is wrong is a bad idea.

And when we INEVITABLY kill an innocent person (we probably already have) there will never be justice for that person ever.

[Demeter]

26. For crimes of horror or terror

Like Charles Manson's little expedition, Oklahoma bombing, truly outside the boundaries of understanding.

[Live and Learn]

30. Never. Two wrongs never make a right.

Killing is wrong no matter who does it. I abhor the fact that it is done by the State in my name.

[Major Nikon]

31. Most people should have learned that lesson in grammar school

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. Friedrich Nietsche

[gollygee]

39. +1

[gopiscrap]

52. I fully agree

[defacto7]

33. Never.

No civilized society can stoop to uncivilized behavior and still be civilized.

Out of the question.

[Major Nikon]

40. No country that's remotely civilized does

That alone should make the lightbulbs go off on its proponents.

[Iggo]

38. Never.

[Bad Thoughts]

43. Only for violent crimes against children. eom.

[Nye Bevan]

48. Even in those cases, surely life without parole is better.

Because then if someone is wrongfully convicted (and it happens) they can be released and paid compensation.

[Bad Thoughts]

54. Reforming criminal justice is something that should happen anyway

And given the state of affairs, I don't approve the carrying out of any sentence of capital punishment. Nonetheless, that shouldn't stop convictions from taking place, particularly if high standards of proof are applied.

[Calista241]

45. Mixed feelings

While I have mixed feelings, The DP is one of the few punishments explicitly allowed for and detailed in the constitution. This makes it difficult to say it's "illegal" or a "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Tbh, My mood on this seems to shift with the news. When there's not a high-profile case in the news I tend to be against it. Then every so often some dude comes up for execution, and he's the worst kind if human filth imaginable, and I'm a supporter again.

[stevenleser]

51. Never for me. But I know a significant minority of Democrats are in favor just like your experience

indicates.

[stevenleser]

53. I've always thought the discussion regarding DP in Judaism were worthwhile to read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism

A good summary in the above wiki is:

Contemporary attitudes towards capital punishment

Leading rabbis in Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Orthodox Judaism tend to hold that the death penalty is a correct and just punishment in theory, but they hold that it should not generally be used (or not used at all) in practice. In practice the application of such a punishment can only be carried out by humans whose system of justice is nearly perfect, a situation which has not existed for some time or never existed at all.

Rabbinical courts have given up the ability to inflict any kind of physical punishment, and such punishments are left to the civil court system to administer. But the modern institution of the death penalty is opposed by the major rabbinical organizations of Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism

[MicaelS]

56. People like Joseph Paul Franklin is why I support the Death Penalty, and always will.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/justice/death-row-interview-joseph-paul-franklin/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

And I'm not religious either. So don't try to bring any religious rhetoric into your argument.

[nomorenomore08]

72. The guy's going to spend the rest of his life in prison no matter what.

What extra benefit is derived from executing him?

[Decaffeinated]

57. Some folks just need to go away...

Hasan is a good example...

[idwiyo]

60. Never.

[Laelth]

73. My gut says "never," but the Constitution says it's permissible for treason.

Until the Constitution's amended, treason is enough.



-Laelth