death penalty

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Where are you on this? Yes, or no? I hate executions. I truly hate them. I cannot stand them, can you? I think that capital punishment is very sadistic, it is very brutal, and I don't believe that it's a necessary component to a civilized society. Why murder when you can receive free labor? err restitution. I'm a member of an anti-death penalty group myself, I hope that it is banned in every state, it's institutional murder, it's crimes against humanity. No?

[constituent]

no. if individuals are not given the right to take the life of another then why are governments?

i can't say, hey based on past experience that fella there poses a threat to
you, i'm gunna fry his ass. why can the gov't?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

no. if individuals are not given the right to take the life of another then why are governments?

i can't say, hey based on past experience that fella there poses a threat to
you, i'm gunna fry his ass. why can the gov't?

Institutional murder is cool with you?

[libertarianguy]

test

[Dustancostine]

I am in theory for executing heinous criminals. But there are been many instances where criminals have been found to be innocent after being killed. This is not just, therefore I have to be against the death penalty.

[libertarianguy]

test

[V-rod]

I'm against the death penalty only because there has been a good number of innocent men put to death.
I used to think solitary confinement would be a proper substitute for the death penalty, which in some ways is torture, until i realized that if a innocent man was placed into solitary, it would be worse than death.
I think the best punishment that can be exacted by the government is life imprisonment with little or no privileges, and very limited contact with other inmates.

[Brasil Branco]

Interestingly, Paul supported capital punishment during his 1988 run. I think that's the only issue he's "flopped" on.

[john_anderson_ii]

I've flip flopped on this issue several times.

First off, I grew up in New Mexico and Arizona, where the law of the land is "string 'em up." However, after reading "The Green Mile" I change my mind, when I was like 20. Now I think about Osama Bin Laden tried for his crimes, and I have a moral delima, he should be executed for what he has admitted to doing.

So now I have a very narrow on capital punishment. A policy that I wish to see implemented.

1.) No capital punishment unless convicted by a jury of peers.
2.) If an appeal is heard by an appellate court, capital punishment is off the table.

In short, only a jury can condemn a man. If there is enough doubt in the proceedings to grant an appeal than there is more than enough doubt to quench any inkling of capital punishment.

Again, I hail from a state where cattle rustling is still punishable by death, but I think we need to put some more reason into the situation. The entire Justice system of the U.S. is designed to let 100 guilty men go, rather than wrongfully imprison a single innocent. The same care and design should be taken in capital cases.

[angelatc]

Most capital cases are decided on circumstantial evidence. I always say that I would only support the death penalty if they let me decide.

[bbachtung]

My recollection of Ron Paul's position on the death penalty is that he opposes a federal death penalty because the federal government will get it wrong too often and will use it for political ends.

[PennCustom4RP]

I am for Capital Punishment, particularly in cases where the accused has plead guilty to doing the crime, after being caught red handed, with undeniable evidence. Premeditated 1st degree murder cases and Crimes Against Humanity cases also should receive the Death Penalty.

Cases like that of John Couey in news recently, raped and murdered 9yo Jessica Lunsford.

Cases like that of Ambrose Harris, who only months after being released after a 14 year prison term, kidnapped, raped and murdered my friend Kristen Higgins in 1992, then stomped to death another inmate.
He is still on death row in Trenton State Prison.
I would kill this fucker myself, with a spoon

When does the victims family get justice? Why should this scum continue to live on, at taxpayer expense, exhausting the resources of the already overburdened courts?

If these cases result in the Death Penalty, this sentence should be carried out...within the week



So now I have a very narrow on capital punishment. A policy that I wish to see implemented
1.) No capital punishment unless convicted by a jury of peers.
2.) If an appeal is heard by an appellate court, capital punishment is off the table.
.

The problem here is that all Death penalty cases automatically go through the endless appeals process after conviction, sometimes taking 20 years.

[Korey Kaczynski]

6 billion people, and most are rotten to the core. Sure, hang the ones who deserve it.

[constituent]

Institutional murder is cool with you?

i'm not sure what gave you that impression.....

if i can't say... then why can the gov't?

the answer.... they can't. or shouldn't be able to.

[angelatc]

I am for Capital Punishment, particularly in cases where the accused has plead guilty to doing the crime, after being caught red handed, with undeniable evidence....

Cases like that of John Couey in news recently, raped and murdered 9yo Jessica Lunsford.



The problem is that they use extreme cases like this to justify the law, then apply it to anyone and everyone. The case that changed my mind was a Florida case, where a guy was executed for participating in an armed robbery where a person died. The guy who was executed was the driver, he never touched a weapon, never entered the store, and maintained that he didn't even know his friends were robbing the place.

So the state used the Bundyesque cases for precedent, then used the law to kill people who hadn't actually killed anybody.

The state doesn't need the power to kill it's citizens. Period.

[PennCustom4RP]

The problem is that they use extreme cases like this to justify the law, then apply it to anyone and everyone. ....


Extreme crimes need extreme punishment...so the law is justified. The Death penalty is not applied to anyone, or everyone...not 2nd degree murder cases.

Look at this site:
http://www.prodeathpenaltynj.com/home/Frame-7-9ondeathrowpage7.html?refresh=1178627117130


These are the 9 Death Row inmates in NJ, yes only 9, surely more murderers are locked up, but few receive the Death Penalty.
Aside from the murderer of my friend, there is Jesse Timmendaquas, the man who raped and murdered Megan Kanka, back in 1994. She was 7 years old and for whom 'Megans Law" is named. He is still on death row 13 years later.

[angelatc]

LIke I said, the case that changed my mind was the case where the man never killed anybody.

The state uses the most horriffic examples, like the two you've cited, then uses it in situations that don't apply.

Most death penalty cases are circumstantial.

And I do not believe the state should have the right to kill anybody. It's pretty much the same reason I oppose state controlled health care. They will be effectively euthanizing the old people to save money.

[Dustancostine]

If it saves one innocent life, then abolishing the death penalty is worth it. Life in prison (if it is truly life) is not a cake walk. I think killing someone is not very much punishment considering that the person dies.

--Dustan

[BillyDkid]

It's not a simple yes or no question. There are obviously monsters among us who deserve to die, but it is fairly obvious that we are not well equipped to render genuine justice in many cases. I would support the death penalty were I able to be dead certain that every conviction were just and reserve it for the very worst offenders. With so many having been exonerated via DNA evidence it is very hard to feel secure enough in the justice system to justify such irreversible and extreme punishment. To me there is little more horrific than the idea of executing an innocent person.

[BillyDkid]

]Man, I hate be paranoid, but in the current atmosphere, even saying something like that (in jest or not) seems risky to me. My personal feeling is that the US is a fairly scarey place to live these day. God forbid, for example, that you disagree with a "peace officer".

[AThousandYoung]

I'm indifferent.

[Matt_R]

I am completely opposed to the death penalty, with two main points:

1) Putting an inmate to death, on average, costs far more than a life sentence.
2) The moral implication that it is right to put anyone to death. Even if you believe they deserve just punishment, I would much rather be put to death than spend my entire life being raped in prison, with no hope of any freedoml

[PennCustom4RP]

I am completely opposed to the death penalty, with two main points:

1) Putting an inmate to death, on average, costs far more than a life sentence.
A .45 cal bullet costs a dollar.


2) The moral implication that it is right to put anyone to death. Even if you believe they deserve just punishment, I would much rather be put to death than spend my entire life being raped in prison, with no hope of any freedoml

I agree

[libertarianguy]

test

[Manible]

Until I am sure that no innocent man was convicted, I will never support capital punishment.

[libertarianguy]

test

[BuddyRey]

I support the death penalty ONLY IF the absolute protection of the "innocent until proven guilty" proviso is enforced. And if someone is genuinely guilty, especially of murder, don't let the state execute them; let the FAMILY of the victim execute justice themselves!

[ChooseLiberty]

Used to support the death penalty until Bush began dismantling the judicial review. The coming police state just makes it too easy.

I'd go with solitary confinement for life instead of death. That's pure hell for the disturbed criminal mind. But for a person that was innocent and could be released later - maybe not so bad.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

I voted yes but only in very few cases where guilt can absolutely be determined (the current system is a joke it seems) and the crime was very heinous. In general, I am opposed to the death penalty but in rare cases think it is appropriate.

[crhoades]

For those who voted against the death penalty, do you believe that is ok to take another's life in self defense? Let's say someone breaks into your house and you are upstairs with your wife and kids after retreating. You call out to the attacker that you are calling the cops and that you are armed. They storm upstairs anyway and break your bedroom door down. You see that they are armed.

(sorry for such a long scenario but it helps) - In good conscience do you shoot?

[Electric Church]

I would support the death penalty in a system of true justice. But because our current system is corrupt and a lot of people have been falsely accused, for their sake, and theirs alone, I oppose the death penalty.

[Destroy The Fed]

I generally support Capital Punishment, but can see the reasons why you wouldn't want to use it. This gives too much power to the state instead of a jury of peers to decide punishment. There are far too many things against the law now, so if you had the death penalty for heinous crimes there would hardly be any jails.

States should decide on whether the justice system should have the death penalty or not. The only federal juristiction should be treason(spying for foreign governments) or war crimes(going into unjust wars, building secret prisons and torturing others). Personally the death penalty on the state level should be reserved for pedophiles and serial murderers(no not a 18 yr old with his 15 yr old girlfriend, like the 18 yr with a 6 yr old. Pretty much anyone who hasn't reached 12.).

This issue isn't a big thing with me except in cases of Treason and War Crimes. Those people have to go.

[ChooseLiberty]

Just to clarify - that scenario's not the "death penalty" under law, it's self defense.

Self defense is ALWAYS ok by me, as far as I'm concerned it's mandatory. I don't even think Mass. would require you to run away like a little girl in that scenario.

If you're attacked, you defend.



For those who voted against the death penalty, do you believe that is ok to take another's life in self defense? Let's say someone breaks into your house and you are upstairs with your wife and kids after retreating. You call out to the attacker that you are calling the cops and that you are armed. They storm upstairs anyway and break your bedroom door down. You see that they are armed.

(sorry for such a long scenario but it helps) - In good conscience do you shoot?

[alicegardener]

If you are against abortion because it is a taking of life, how can you be for capital punishment? On the other hand, I don't see why convicted criminals need anything resembling a cushy life and that includes cigarettes, TV, and junk food. If a person turns out to be innocent, he/she will just leave prison healthier!

[nexalacer]

I think the only ethical way to implement a death penalty is as follows:

1) Death can only be a punishment for another death.
2) Only the victim of a crime can determine the punishment of said crime.
3) Due to 1), people must write wills early and include clauses outlining punishment in the case of death at the hands of another person.

In today's legal world, such a will would be ignored by the courts, thus I voted no. Death Penalties by the Federal, State, or Local government are unethical when the prosecutor is "The State" or "The People" rather than the victim.

[Original_Intent]

If you believe in God, then support the death penalty because almost every religion teaches that if you spill a man's blood, your own blood must be spilled as punishment.

If you do not believe in God, then support the death penalty because there is obviously something terribly wrong with the person and we need to remove them from the gene pool.

If you are a compassionate person, consider that far more innocent people are killed by convicted murderers who are set free or escape, than innocent people who are killed by the state. I do feel that CP should only be implimented when it is an ironclad certainty of their guilt.

Personally, I have no problem doing away with the death penalty as long as they have to work to pay for their food and shelter, and as long as there is no possibility of release, and extreme security to prevent escape.

As far as the argument that we don't have the right to kill someone who kills, actually we do have that right, although it is a right that is not recognized by the US government. However, there is plenty of writings on Natural Rights that support that if someone killed a member of your family that you have an inherent right to their life (assuming that you have solid proof of who the guilty party is).

[nexalacer]

However, there is plenty of writings on Natural Rights that support that if someone killed a member of your family that you have an inherent right to their life (assuming that you have solid proof of who the guilty party is).

Most of these writings make a fatal error in logic: Only YOU own your self, therefore only YOU may make the decision as to whether some dies or not for killing YOU. Thus the need for a will with said clauses.

My family is very special to me, but that does not imply I have any sort of natural right over their lives. Thus, I cannot invoke the Natural Right to condemn an eye for an eye for my family member's eye.

[PaulineDisciple]

For those who voted against the death penalty, do you believe that is ok to take another's life in self defense? Let's say someone breaks into your house and you are upstairs with your wife and kids after retreating. You call out to the attacker that you are calling the cops and that you are armed. They storm upstairs anyway and break your bedroom door down. You see that they are armed.

(sorry for such a long scenario but it helps) - In good conscience do you shoot?

No, because I will not be the only one shooting, Me, my wife, my 10 year old daughter, my 8 year old daughter and my 6 year old daughter would all commence to unload all of their clips into him (I have taught all of them how to shoot). Only my two younger daughters would be given the 22 caliber pistols, the rest of us will be using higher caliber weapons.

Your truly,
David Morrow

[john_anderson_ii]

So now I have a very narrow on capital punishment. A policy that I wish to see implemented
1.) No capital punishment unless convicted by a jury of peers.
2.) If an appeal is heard by an appellate court, capital punishment is off the table.

The problem here is that all Death penalty cases automatically go through the endless appeals process after conviction, sometimes taking 20 years.

If I'm not mistaken, and I very well could be mistaken as IANAL, but isn't an appeal automatically requested, but not necessarily accepted to be retried? Like an appeal is entered automatically, but the appellate court can rule that there is no grounds to hear an appeal?

[PennCustom4RP]

If I'm not mistaken, and I very well could be mistaken as IANAL, but isn't an appeal automatically requested, but not necessarily accepted to be retried? Like an appeal is entered automatically, but the appellate court can rule that there is no grounds to hear an appeal?

John, My understanding of the process is that once a death penalty sentenced is imposed, the case automatically goes into the appeals process, where all evidence is re evaluated. There is also a period of time where any new evidence may be presented, not known at trial. There is also the 'witness guilt' as they may change their story because the subject was sentenced to death. Anything can raise a doubt, reasonable or not, and then goes through a further process, maybe resulting in a trial, which again may end with the same verdict. I am not sure as to how many times these processes can be repeated, but do eventually become exhausted. On top of all this, any crime the inmate commits in prison has to be tried, and any psychiatric illness, real or faked, physical illness etc had to be remedied, as the state will not execute a mentally ill or otherwise ill person. All of this, not even considering the court backlog, and some states have a certain slowness about them, as they are hesitant to carry out sentence(not TX tho), or think the law will be overturned again, or a Governor may commute that sentence to life, makes the execution date decades away.
Look at any recent execution, many were put to death for a crime they were convicted of in the 80's.

[cjhowe]

John, My understanding of the process is that once a death penalty sentenced is imposed, the case automatically goes into the appeals process, where all evidence is re evaluated. There is also a period of time where any new evidence may be presented, not known at trial. There is also the 'witness guilt' as they may change their story because the subject was sentenced to death. Anything can raise a doubt, reasonable or not, and then goes through a further process, maybe resulting in a trial, which again may end with the same verdict. I am not sure as to how many times these processes can be repeated, but do eventually become exhausted. On top of all this, any crime the inmate commits in prison has to be tried, and any psychiatric illness, real or faked, physical illness etc had to be remedied, as the state will not execute a mentally ill or otherwise ill person. All of this, not even considering the court backlog, and some states have a certain slowness about them, as they are hesitant to carry out sentence(not TX tho), or think the law will be overturned again, or a Governor may commute that sentence to life, makes the execution date decades away.
Look at any recent execution, many were put to death for a crime they were convicted of in the 80's.

Evidence is not re-evaluated in an appeal, only process and procedure.

[john_anderson_ii]

Well, like I said, I'm rather wishy washy on this issue anyway. On one hand, those that commit crimes like premeditated murder and the like surely deserve a $0.50 firing squad. Screw this lethal couple thousand dollar a pop lethal injection crap. On the other hand, you can't take a sentence like that back. If 10 years after the sentence is carried out new evidence is found that exonerates the dead man, you can't just say, "sorry, my bad. We'll let you go now."

If there was a way to be sure beyond any doubt, say 98% sure. Then it would be wise utilize the death penalty. I for sure don't want my tax dollars to feed a man who raped and killed a kid.

And the whole argument that you can't be pro-life and for capital punishment is complete nonsense. You surely can. A fetus is innocent. It hasn't willfully committed a crime that cost someone else their life.

[eleganz]

What type of feelings do you have for people who rape? people who murder?

Sure, I've seen gangsters change after 30 years of prison and become very decent people and also contributors of the community but how much money are we willing to pay to help out every single convict in the United States?

Prisons are over crowded, what should we do? The rate of people going in is faster than the rate of people coming out, what are we going to do?

[hard@work]

I am still waiting for someone to explain or justify the merits of accidentally taking the life of an innocent man in place of a guilty one. Once you explain that to me I'll support capital punishment.

[jjschless]

Perhaps if we had a better respect for the 2nd Amendment more crimes could be deterred and those that serious crimes that are committed may be mitigated expediently.

I don't condone vigilantly justice but from a common sense stand point if you witnessed or were near a violent incident and were armed a response could be under taken to incapacitate the offender.

[nexalacer]

"The prisons are crowded" is the most immoral excuse I've heard yet for Capital Punishment. They are overcrowded precisely due to excessive government power, so you want to give the government MORE power of life over death in order to solve the problem? Fuck, do people think anymore, or just spit out whatever shit gets shoveled in their head?