My somewhat new opinion of the death penalty.

[nickshepDEM]

IMO, the death penalty should be in place for those who commit the most vicious crimes and are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I think there should be a 'rehabilitation' provision in place. Prime example: Tookie Williams. He's done some pretty admirable things while in prison and I doubt any would say he is not a changed man.

However, the death penalty should be available for people like Charles Manson. People who clearly show no signs of remorse and no signs of wanting to be rehabilitated.


Does that make any sense?

[Kazak]

1. Expensive and ineffective...

The state shouldn't be in the business of killing, IMO.

[HereSince1628]

8. I agree with that.

But in the current conservative climate the death penalty provides demonstration of ultimate authority and power, the capacity to make something seem unambiguously resolved, and above all plays on the conservative personalities most resonant: the fear of death.

Consequently, it's gonna be a long time before capital punishment is banned in all the commonwealths, states, and territories.

[Dances with Cats]

2. Manson...

...only received Life. Go figure. Anyway, in MY view of the matter in geneal, and the gruesome procedure in general, whoever "flips the switch" on Tookie Williams (or anyone else) is equally guilty of murder as the individual being "executed". The death penalty is a black eye on America.

[Vickers]

5. Manson received the death penalty. It was commuted to life

when the SC briefly made the death penalty unconstitutional.

[Dances with Cats]

10. Gotcha, thanks.....

You must be WAY older than me (just kiddin') :-)

[Vickers]

15. I just feel old

My kids are rough on me. :P

[Benhurst]

12. How many people did Manson plot to kill? Six? Ten? He was

pretty much of a piker compared to some Washington types who shall remain unnamed.

[Poppyseedman]

3. Tookie has shown no remorse

for his crimes.

My opinion of Tookie is he is the consummate con man.

Just My Humble Opinion

[Callalily]

4. I've never understood

the death penalty. It by far is the cruelest most evil thing our government can do to it's citizenry. And it certainly isn't a deterrent.

[Spinzonner]

6. Not much

'beyond a reasonable doubt' is already the standard for criminal conviction so what are you proposing that's different ?

Absolute certainty ? How would that be defined and attained ?

What is 'rehabilitation' and how would one determine it's sincere and reliable as opposed to an act ? Currently, there's a requirement that the convicted acknowledge the crime and their responsibility but what if they're really innocent - they have to confess and incriminate themselves ?

What if Manson's crazy and mentally incapable of experiencing remorse. How does he fit in then ?

[unblock]

7. i still think: why bother dwelling on these people? let 'em rot

life imprisonment without chance of parole is so much easier, so non-controversial, so effective, so undoable if an actual mistake is proven, and all-in-all so much less bother.

let's focus our energies and resources on the vastly more common crimes and problems in the criminal justice system rather than a few hundred scumbags who are already locked up anyway.

[Dances with Cats]

11. I love your name

don't like blocks and locks. But that avatar of yours...spooky, that eyeball, eh?

[welshTerrier2]

9. no, not really

i'm totally opposed to the death penalty regardless of the crime because i think it is immoral for governments or anyone else to take a life unless it is directly attributable to self-defense ... incarcerated prisioners do not pose a risk to society ... but this isn't the question you asked ...

you asked about whether a convicted murderer's conduct after their death penalty sentence but before their execution should be taken into consideration for clemency ...

i would argue that justice should be much swifter ... if someone receives the death penalty, should the society keep them on death row for years and years? it seems to me there should be a brief period in which appeals could be filed ... there should not be 5 years and 10 years and more during which the prisoner could establish a track record ... either the prisoner should be executed for the crime they committed or they shouldn't (i argue they shouldn't) ... being "rehabilitated" versus remaining, say, "angry at society" should not be the determining factor on the clemency issue ...

[jarab]

13. That's an admirable position, nickshepDEM ...

An important thing this person did was to become educated in prison so as to be able to make a difference under the circumstances.

I'm against the death penalty; my sore point is the appearance that being so shows little or no feelings for the victims' families - even though I feel revenge (and sometimes celebrity status) is part of the "plan".

How the death penalty is applied is my problem. If you can't afford a good lawyer, you're toast. If you can, perhaps you'll walk. I can certainly see your point; there certainly shouldn't be any doubts about who did it when there are 100 witnesses.
But, I don't trust the justice system throughout. A cop's word is better than yours. Lab results - forensics - can be influenced by the prosecution moreso than by the defense (FBI evidence scandal - KC?). Prosecutors can indict anyone they want to (simply a formality). Rich get venue changes. Poor don't even consider the option.
And on and on .....

Follow the money should not be a factor in criminal proceedings where life or death are the options. Lady Liberty is peeping through her blindfold, and the color green is what she sees most vividly.

...O...

[brmdp3123]

14. I've never been fundementally opposed to the death penalty.

However, I have always been concerned about the fact that mistakes-wrongful convictions-are made. It does seem like we could have a higher level of certainty-maybe if the person confessed, or there were 2 eyewitnesses? I'm not sure. I do believe that it should be an option. Even if it's not a deterrent, it keeps them from killing again. It doesn't seem right that they should be allowed to keep breathing, when their victims can't.

The appeal marathon is nuts. 24 years on death row! There was a guy here in Virginia not too long ago that killed his daughter and stepdaughter. He confessed and and refused all appeals. I think he was executed within 2 years of his crime. Gotta give him some credit for that!

To heck with those who say that they are reformed and repentant, though. That's too easy to fake.

[NoFederales]

16. My general opinion:

It is curious how the pendulum swings on killing. It seems when the conservatives are most anxious to prove how law and order they are, how the death penalty is so important as a determent to unsocial behavior, they spring right up and have the greatest of fits about how evil is abortion. I will never understand this. Killing is killing (and torture should be as inclusively considered).

Social justifications that scale when and how it is appropriate to kill are always alarming to sensitive thinking, and seem ridiculous to the less sensitive. North Americans seem particularly inured to killing and the associated violence that may lead to serious harm, or death. Our laws, our ‘philosophies’, or religions seem exceptionally flexible, even pragmatic, when it comes to justifying killing.

Killing must be social taboo. An extremist’s belief in this taboo would not defend his own life if it meant taking a life. Others might defend self, family, and community members to save a life, or lives, even if it meant killing an attacker. War is often viewed this way, that an attacker must be killed to save lives. Capital punishment is hardest to defend, but what do we do with taboo-breakers? What do we do with warriors whom we invite to kill after they have done their killing? What do we do with frail, terminally ill, diseased, or medically threatened individuals for whom death would be a release from pain?

If killing is truly taboo, we take offenders into serious care and mitigate sufferings and misery. If killing is not taboo, then humanity is so much less devolved and any arguments advancing civilities by these individuals is sheer hypocrisy and counterproductive to social growth.

NoFederales