Is it a "safe" assumption to think that anyone who is against the DP is

[BigBearJohn]

also against killing in any form? How about killing in self defense? or killing people
who invade our country? If it sounds like I'm trying to be contrary, I'm not. I'm just
trying to come to grip with my feelings on this very weighty issue. It's troubling me.
Is any form of killing justified? I would appreciate your opinions. Honestly.

[northzax]

1. no, I am against the State killing its citizens

when there are other, equally valid options to balance out an imperfect system.

[BigBearJohn]

3. Ok, well some people are saying that ALL killing is wrong.

So, your point is, the State should not do it, but it is ok to defend oneself by killing another?

[northzax]

8. there are many instances in which killing is, if not acceptable,

then excusable. but very, very few in which premeditated killing is acceptable.

[tjdee]

2. It's not so much *killing* as GOVERNMENT killing, institutionalized killin

g.

But for the record, I'm against all forms of killing.

Of course, I've never had a close friend/relative killed. I may feel differently--but I would hope the level heads prevailed around me. Killing someone else wouldn't bring back my friend/relatives.

Killing is just so very sad all the way around. And I eat meat, too.

[Bluzmann57]

4. No

If someone invades our country, they should be killed, as they are saying "kill or be killed". State sanctioned killing is wrong though.

[MikeStl]

5. I don't think so...

I'm against the death penalty but for example someone being killed in self defense, or someone being killed who is threatening the life of another. I look at that as a matter of threat...someone who is sitting behind bars is not really posing a threat, so I can't see how killing them is justified. The moment has passed, killing them at this point is only revenge in my opinion.

[mondo joe]

6. No. I oppose the death penalty for specific reasons that don't apply to

the other situations described here.

[sandnsea]

7. Self defense is the only justification for killing

What does the death penalty have to do with self defense?

[Lolivia]

9. I think the DP and self-defense can be differentiated

DP is an issue I also struggle with myself - I don't have it all worked out yet. But I do see a difference between DP and self-defense. SD is basically a kill or be-killed situation - with the imminence of the threat being key. THere is no imminent threat of harm that the DP neutralizes. THe threat posed by a dangerous criminal could be neutralized by locking them up for life.

[incapsulated]

10. No.

I'm not a total pacifist. I'm against the State holding people, therefore no longer a threat to anyone, and then killing them for good measure. That is revenge, pure and simple. And given all the other particulars, such as class, race and the fact that innocents and the mentally retarded have been executed, it is morally inexcusable.

Self-defense or the defense of your country or even the defense of others from those with murderous intent is another thing. It's the very last resort to me, not something to be taken lightly, and perhaps on a spiritual level, never really justified. But it is not the crime that killing those already in custody is, to me.

[lonestarnot]

11. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Institutional killing makes

killers of the injectee, switchpuller, gasser. Hope they can live with themselves!

[babylonsister]

12. I'm not among the true

pacifists here so have been keeping my yapper shut. But for you, BBJ...
If someone is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty of a heinous crime, I have to say
let them meet whoever's on the(ir) other side. Perhaps it's vengence, revenge, whatever.
Living in TX, I think people have died here who were not guilty due to faulty evidence-gathering and lousy lawyers. So I'm ambivalent on account of it. :shrug:

And I don't understand the cost angle at all.

[Pushed To The Left]

13. No. My reason for being opposed

to capital punishment is that I don't want any innocent people to be executed. With the justice system being the way it is, wrongful convictions happen. I would rather give life without parole to somebody I would like to kill than risk killing an innocent person.

[Inland]

14. Not me.

I just think the criminal justice system does a shitty job in deciding who should die and who should live. It's not workable.

Killing in defense of country is also scattershot, but in the criminal justice system, we have the luxury of making the best decision, and the best decision is to eschew the death penalty.

[BigBearJohn]

15. Ok, good points. BUT, here is the part I am REALLY struggling with:

If some maniac killed say, 4 or 5 people... or even 1 or 2 people....

I ask you ... what RIGHT do they have to LIFE?

Say, for example, if my 8 year old nephew was savagely murdered by some maniac,
why then does that maniac have the RIGHT to continue living?

Why should the maniac have the privilege of living a full life
when he has deprived my nephew of his ENTIRE life?

Sorry, but I truly am lost here. Call me a low-life or anything you want,
but if my nephew was savagely raped, and say, suffocated... I would NOT want that maniac
offered the chance to redeem himself. Aren't there some people that are BEYOND redemption?

sorry.. I'm really confused on this one.

[NNN0LHI]

16. I have nightmares about having a plastic typewriter cover placed over...

...my head until I feel as though I am dying slowly from suffocation in a police interrogation room somewhere. The cops keep putting it over my face until I sign a confession for a crime I didn't commit. Then I am sent to death row to wait to be killed for a crime I didn't do. Quite an imagination huh?

Well this shit really happened just about 20 miles from where I live (not to me) over a period of about 10 years. An investigation found that 13 out of 25 death row inmates were proven innocent and had been tortured into confessing to crimes they had not committed.

If that isn't good enough for you nothing ever will be.

Don

[Avalux]

19. It's more difficult to grapple with when it becomes personal.

Because then it's about revenge. I really think keeping the perpetrator locked up is the best punishment. They'll die eventually (everyone does) and at that time, will have to atone for their deeds.

[incapsulated]

22. I completely understand

I truly understand the desire for revenge on those who would hurt someone I love. However, I don't believe it is the duty of the State to carry out my personal bloodlust.

I will say this, at least if matters are taken into the hands of the "wronged" on their own, they alone have to live with the death of another human being, no matter how little they may value that life. Or worse, live with the realization that they killed the wrong person. It isn't conferred upon the rest of society to do their killing for them.

Do you see the difference? Having the justice system, with all it's flaws decide who will live and who will die, having the anonymous bureaucracy of the state carry out personal vendettas, no matter how "justified", isn't acceptable to me. Personally or politically.

[mondo joe]

24. I'd say the DP is more about us than the accused or convicted.

As a matter of principal I do not believe the state should have the power to execute citizens.

I furthermore know that the wrongly convicted will certainly be executed when the DP is applied, and I think that is too great a risk.

[JanMichael]

17. Not with me.

That's all.

[CornField]

18. While I believe in self-defense

I wonder if I would have it in me to take a life to save my own -- hoping I never need to find out for sure. I have little doubt that I would be able to kill to protect my children. (I can't explain it, but I'm 99% sure I could do it in that circumstance.)

From interviews with military and law enforcement folks, I know that death is not something easily adjusted to. Taking a life - even in self-defense - is often something which haunts those who have to do it. Perhaps that is why the person who administers the drugs does not view the actual execution or the person being executed?

[ulysses]

20. no.

I don't oppose killing in self defense, or to save the life of an innocent. The death penalty is premeditated state murder.

[JerseygirlCT]

21. I think there's a huge difference

between state-sanctioned execution -- planned, cold-blooded murder -- and self-defense.

I'm not entirely sure I'm capable of killing in self-defense, even. I'm pretty sure I'm capable of doing so to protect my children, however. I don't think killing in defense of one's own or one's childrens lives is necessarily as wrong. It's still wrong, in a sense. But not on the same level, to me.

Likewise defending the country. I'm not talking about taking a fight somewhere else on trumped up charges of defending the homeland stuff. But, yes, I think there can be justification for fighting to protect our own shores.

The state has no reasonable need to kill. The person to be executed is safely removed from the general population -- there's no "defense" -- self or otherwise -- at play here.

[sojourner]

23. i think i'd kill in self defense and also in defense of my family.

in a moment of that kind of urgency i might also kill someone to save the life of another that he/she was trying to take (but not entirely sure what my reflexes would REALLY do).

but the DP is different. it is not defensive. it is retribution, vengeance. and it isn't applied evenly, nor has it ever been. there is an attempt to make it seem "measured" and "deliberative" but in the end, it's just human emotion.

human emotions are too flimsy to rest any notion of justice upon. and the human emotion behind DP is purely hatred of the evil-doer. it is not a preventative. it is archaic punishment rooted in the notion of an "eye for an eye".

maybe in an ideal world where each and every convicted murderer did in fact do the deed of which he/she is convicted, and in which the degree to which he/she was or was not moved to remorse about said deed could be accurately assessed and compared without regard to race, religion or creed, and in which the relative value of one human life could be accurately weighed and the punishment for killing one's child or spouse could be shown to be entirely different from killing a stranger or killing someone in the process of robbing them or killing 100 people at a time vs killing four or five or just one.... and whether the human life taken was one that "deserved" to continue his/her days vs someone who didn't really (in other words, was black or poor or disabled) ---- well you get my drift. Too many variables for an imperfect system to be weighing.

i think a better message would be teaching the value of life by example. if we could be shown to truly value every life, in a truly compassionate and merciful manner, then that would be the standard against which to measure behavior.

people for the DP make the mistake of thinking that those against don't also want vengeance. we do! but we also feel bound to honor a higher moral and ethical code - to honor the priniciple that for a society to be just it must behave in a just manner at all times, not just when it's convenient.

[Guaranteed]

25. No. I was for invading Afghanistan,

because I saw it as defending our country. Still do.

Killing is justified when it has to be done to protect one's loved ones, in the immediate sense.