Join The Debate!

Unjustifiable ...

1. “Cosmic injustice?” This is meaningless nonsense.

2. Killing to express revulsion at killing is an inherent self-contradiction.

3. Punishment is not an effective deterrent for crime, even if it could be applied immediately and unerringly and universally, which is impossible. Furthermore animal studies show conclusively that negative reinforcement (punishment) is the most easily extinguished form of conditioning.

4. The argument put forth by “great thinker” van den Haag is poorly conceived and unconvincing. To cite just one of its many flaws, deciding to commit a murder on one day rather than another is not at all tantamount to deciding not to commit the murder at all.

5. Prager’s cavalier dismissal of the possibility of executing innocent people illustrates his ignorance, as well as his moral depravity. Since its founding in 1992 the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Carozo School of Law in New York has used DNA evidence to exonerate 123 death row inmates who had been wrongfully convicted. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110
Had the group not taken up these cases, many of these people would have been killed. To claim that this kind of travesty hasn’t happened even once in the past fifty years is ludicrous.

6. Prager’s newest reason for capital punishment is as worthless as the rest. Not all opponents of capital punishment support vacating convictions on the basis of evidence obtained improperly. I certainly don’t. I believe that there are other ways to deter unlawful police procedures and I’m not at all in favor of liberating people who are demonstrably guilty of violent crimes.

Like most proponents of capital punishment, Prager ignores the facts, relies on appeals to ugly human motives like hatred, revenge, and cruelty, and ironically seems quite proud of himself. A true self parody.

Hugger for Trees

Yeah, because it...works.

The 4 aims of punishment are deterrence, punishment, retribution (is not revenge. Revenge is what leads to blood feuds. It is full of hate and emotion. Retribution, on the other hand is carried out by the state without emotion or hate. It is to give society a sense of 'evening up'/justice having being done) & rehabilitation. CP fulfills all 4 functions.

Ever seen 'Dead Man Walking?' Although many see it as anti-CP, you will notice that Sean Penn, the murderer, only atones for his crime when he is literally 'dead man walking'. Although only a movie, think it contains a lot of truisms. For some people (eg. pedophiles, sadistic murderers, as opposed to non-sadistic murderers - there is a difference) normal non-CP methods do not work. They are not sorry for what they have done & given the opportunity would do it again. They cannot be rehabilitated. The only way for them to come to terms with what they have done (extinguished someone's life, not to mention the misery they have put a family through), to fully empathise with the suffering of the victim is to experience what they have put the other person through. Only then can they have their eyes opened. It's harsh (Penn was brilliant). But no harsher, & probably a lot less harsh, than what they have done. The ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

The rest of your arguments are not arguments against CP per se, because they could also apply to any of the other punishments we have. So are you against those too? Including parking fines?
All punishments have to be proportional to all groups? As soon as the quota is reached for that group, we just don't punish that group any more?
It's cheaper to let someone go than put them in jail. Should we do that too?


If there are problems with the way CP is adminstered (eg expense), the obvious solution is to improve on those things, rather than dispense with the tool.

BisseI

"But if it isn't creating a measurable decrease in the drug trade, wouldn't that mean that it isn't effective as a deterrent because it isn't deterring anyone from committing the crime?"

Not necessarily. There might be other factors involved, eg. low risk of being caught, as I alluded to above. My argument is all things being equal, CP will have a greater deterrent effect compared to other punishments we have in the western world.

"The Benefits Outweight the Risks"

BisseI claims we should allow the police to have the ability to shoot people, even though they have a track record of killing innocent people, because "the benefits outweigh the risks".

Dennis Prager, the author of this column, makes THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT in defense of capital punishment.

Bissel and Tom: My traditional view

My tradition holds that the world was created by the (humanoid) sacrifice of a primordial giant. The primordial giant represented the dangerous raw natural energies of the same sort as hostile winter storms (in the Northwest US, we just went through one of those). The same natural principles are behind the worst crimes.

Therefore, all criminals were generally required to attone for their crimes to the victims (or their families) or else be sacrificed to the Gods. Sounds fair to me... Besides in this case, the capital punishment also served to help the perpetrator pay the debt by contributing to the development of a proserpous world through sacrifice.

Tom

Besides, the Turkey argument still stands: Drug dealing = death, so if the drug trade is increasing in a place that they execute those who are involved in the drug trade are executed, it pokes holes in the "OMG DEATH PENALTY!!@^%#" argument.

BisseI

"How is it fair that you take two of something for someone that took one of something? If you take five dollars from me, is it fair for me to take ten from you?"

Your example makes my case. If I take $5 from you (I've committed a crime), then if you (it wouldn't be you anyhow, it would be the state) took $5 from me, I would no worse off than before I committed the crime. So there would be no incentive (other than moral) for not taking the $5, since the worst that can happen is I'm back where I started. I can only gain from the crime. A poor example by you in any case.

"Wasn't the post a few days ago going on all about how we don't want to be like the Arabic countries?"

What do I care about "the post a few days ago"? I'll make up my own mind, thanks.

And just because there are things about arab culture we don't like does not mean that every single aspect about their culture is worthless.

"And, you know... clearly the drug trade in, say, Turkey and Afghanistan and the like, is waaay down."

einhverfr cleared that one up. But not all Arab countries are alike anyhow. I'm not going to identify the country I'm in becuase it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Lastly, lazy sarcasm isn't a substitute for the effort it takes to think.

Bissel: Arabic Countries

Just to be clear, neither Turkey nor Afghanistan (nor indeed Iran) qualify as Arabic countries. Islamic, yes, but Turkey is Turkic, and Iran and Afghanistan are (mostly) Persian (an some Turkic). Even Pakistan is either Persian or Indic.

That mostly leaves Iraq and the Arabian Penninsula, and maybe North Africa depending on how you count.

Tom

"it's about swift & severe (but not gratuitous) justice. Jessica's Law is an example of a move in that direction. 'An eye for an eye' to me comes close to the fairest system ever devised. In fact, I would go one step further and make that 2 (but not 3! I'm not in favour of sadistic punishments) eyes for an eye. The rationale being that if someone takes my eye out, why would I feel any sense of justice if that person lost an eye too?"

How is it fair that you take two of something for someone that took one of something? If you take five dollars from me, is it fair for me to take ten from you?

"I am now in the same predicament as the offender, through no fault of my own, but due to his intentional wrongdoing. Why would I be satisfied with that? I would only feel some sense of justice if this person was made to suffer more than what he has inflicted on me."

Because the basis of our criminal law is that the punishment must fit the crime.

"At least he is now worse off (other things being equal) than the one he has transgressed against.

Those (fortunately very few here) who argue that the US experience proves that CP is not effective are misguided. As Levitt points out in Freakonomics, the US does not have genuine CP. It's really an empty threat.

Of the few who do make it to death row, the annual death rate is 2%. I live in an arab country where CP is genuine. Murder or traffic drugs and it is game over. No surprise then that I feel totally safe in this place compared to all the western countries I have ever lived in. Yes, there could be other factors at hand here, but swift & severe justice definitely has a deterrent effect on behaviour. And it also breeds a respect for society & the law."

Wasn't the post a few days ago going on all about how we don't want to be like the Arabic countries? And, you know... clearly the drug trade in, say, Turkey and Afghanistan and the like, is waaay down.

Radlad...

"Retarded" was the kindest word I could use for such a transparent effort to conflate the two issues.

As for this: "Your interest is in "restraining the government" Liberals want an all intrusive, all controlling, all powerful central government. Under bush it seems that's what the repugnanticans want as well."

Sir, you really need to stop getting your information from pundits who spend their morning constitutionals doing situps under parked cars.

Most liberals, like most conservatives, are inherently capitalists, meaning we both believe the free market is the best vector for economic security. This places us apart from socialists, plutocrats and monarchists, who believe government and business should be one and the same. Where liberals and conservatives differ is the manner and degree of government influence and regulation of the free market. Conservatives favor handouts and tax breaks to corporations; liberals favor requiring corporations to clean up their own messes and to pay appropriate compensation to its employees.

Liberals are distinct from conservatives in that they want government OUT of our homes, our churches, our families, our Internet, and our media. We want to restrict the government's ability to intrude on such personal decisions as whom to love, what to believe, how to raise our children, and how we're allowed to express ourselves.

We believe government can be a powerful tool to improve the lives of its citizens. But we also believe in the rule of law and in limited government, one that does not oppress it citizens or exempt its officeholders from being governed by the same laws as the rest of us.

Not that you hear that from the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Pragers or Coulters of the world. But then, they don't achieve their popularity by speaking truth.

What About These Innocent People?

Whom was Sean Bell putting in clear and present danger?

Whom was Amadou Diallo putting in clear and present danger?

Whom was Patrick Dorismond putting in clear and present danger?

Whom was Pedro Navarro Oregon putting in clear and present danger?

Why tolerate mistaken shootings by police, KNOWING that they kill innocent people?

rd

Very sure.

To be a violation of federal law, it has to fall under the powers granted to Congress under the Constitution. Simply saying "They attacked us" isn't good enough.

The argument was that McVeigh carried out his attack from Kansas, therefore making it an interstate issue, and hence a Federal issue. Had he attacked a federal governemnt building in Topeka, maybe it would have been a State issue.

J-

"I'm not of a mind to let twelve pseudo-random people decide what I believe if I think I know better."

But you'll let the network selected representatives tell you instead? And if you think you know better or not, whatever the twelve pseudo-random people decide is the persons legal status...

Unless it's a bench trial.

Loyal Democrat: Agree and Disagree

Certainly there is an aspect to the fact that we should seek to generally regulate society to the least harm principle and we are doing a bad job at it.

Certainly the prisons should not be built to temper and harden the criminals in our society as they so often do. THis is largely due to our penchant for punshment without seeing where it fits in the larger scope of discipline. Though certainly balanced punishment is the first step to rehabilitation, right?

However, there *are* true psychopaths among us. Some of them even grow up to be CEO's of major corporations (Business Week did an article on this). And not all are even criminals by legal standards. No approach can get ri of this issue, and some people will always even be motivated so much by the need to justify their self-hatred that we will see serial murderers/rapists, and so forth.

In the end, I have to cautiously support capital punishment (and only in extreme cases). I certainly think it should be less frequently used, never used for first time offenders, and a few other things, but given the choice of locking someone up for life because we have given up on that person ever being a productive member of society and executing them, I would choose the latter in part because given the choice of fates, that is what I would choose for myself.

Dangit I Was Beat to the Punch!

Loyal Democrat's first post read like a parody I would have written, and some that I actually have. I was semi-jealous while laughing at the obvious satire, so naturally I looked up to the author line to see whose wit was on display...

and it was Loyal Democrat! It wasn't satire!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Fundamentally, Prager, I Disagree

Only five people voted on the exclusionary rule, and I bet at least half of them are dead. I think a trio or more of the Court owuld overturn it. Congress should punish cops who violate our constitutional rights - in fact, I thought section 1983 of the U.S. Code covered stuff like this (at least, punishing the cop's employer). But that doesn't mean the guilty should go free and we all should pay for his freedom with our blood at his hand.

rd: McVeigh and Fed. law

I suspect that the case against McVeigh as a federal matter had to do with the fact that the crime was committed in a way that violated Federal law because it involved crossing the state line from Kansas.

Cross a state line, it is a federal offence.

Had nothing to do with his target/

Unabashed Lib

Of course, I must be careful about what I write. I should have said "98.8% OF THE TIME, Capital Punishment is an issue for the states to decide."

There are over 3,400 inmates on death row. Of those 43 are on Federal death row. That is slightly more than 1%.

Timothy McVeigh was executed by the Federal Government because his crime was against the Federal Government. He did blow up a Federal building after all, along with the few hundred that he murdered.

rd

You are mistaken. There are several federal crimes for which death is the penalty - Tim McVeigh was executed by the federal government, for example.

In Minnesota, where we have no death penalty, someone was sentenced to die under Federal law (his crimes involved crossing the border to North Dakota), thus it was taken out of the State's hands.

Unabashed Lib

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the issue of Capital Punishment, but just to be clear we limited government types are concerned about the size and scope of the FEDERAL government. Capital Punishment is an issue for the individual states to decide, as it should be.

CC: I don't care what Mommy did

Your missing the point.

"To put it simply, our system of justice isn't as foolproof as many of us once thought. That's why more than a dozen states have launched reviews of the death penalty, as more and more people come to understand that bias, poor legal representation, questionable tactics by authorities and charged emotions can send innocent people to jail and potentially to their deaths, while leaving guilty people walking the streets."

If ONE person is wrongly put to Death (and they have been)it's time to STOP and make sure the system is working the way it was intended.

This "kill them all and let god sort them out attitude" IS killing innocent people. It's easy to sit at your keyboard and type your opinion.
No one thinks about INNOCENT PEOPLE until it affects them directly.

INNOCENT PEOPLE!! THATS MY CONCERN.

The system the way it is MUST BE stopped and reviewed and if people care about the possibility
of INNOCENT people being killed you should be with me and demand it be reviewed.

BisseI

Apparently that did not stop them from killing Sean Bell, or Patrick Dorismond, or Amadou Diallo.

Our policy of allowing police to shoot people when THEY perceive imminent threat of death or great bodily harm HAS unquestionably resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Why should we tolerate this policy which leads to the deaths of innocent people? What if you are next?

Unabashed Liberal

Do you support abolishing the police? Or prohibiting them from shooting anyone? Police ALREADY have the power to declare one's life forfeit; just look at what happened to Sean Bell?

BisseI

You write a lot about the possibility of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.

What about people who are wrongfully shot to death by police, as Sean Bell was? Are they any less dead than people who are wrongfully executed? Should we do away with the police or do away with all police shootings? If not, why is it so important for the police to be able to shoot people that you are willing to risk being wrongfully shot to death by them, but you want to abolish capital pubishment if there is a risk for you being wrongfully executed?

einhverfr

"Out of curiosity, would you rather be wrongly convicted and stay in prison all your natural life?

If I was wrongly convicted of, say, a string of killings, I would rather be put to death than left in prison for 50 years or more.

Either way, your life is ruined for all intents and purposes. I don't really fear death, but confinement for the rest of my natural life and a lack of realistic hope?"

To a point, any life is better than no life. And I guess it also depends on what there is after life, too. And there's a chance that they'll get the person who really did it, or something like that. (And with my luck, it'd be that they got that guy the day after I was killed ;))

Rugby

Blood is for men, pads are for women.

What a pinhead, twit,

Prager is a pinhead.

The thought thought that he's willing to have "acceptable losses" of innocent citizens murdered by mistake by the state since the ends justifies the means is horribly attrocious in a civil society. Accetable as the result of a "social policy"?? Who was it that said that it's better for a 100 guilty to go free than for an innocent to be wrongly convicted. That forms part of the basis of our legal system. It is why we have such a lengthy appeal process - to make sure that mistakes are not made, even though they most certainly are, since jurors are only human and often times more easily swayed by emotion than fact (e.g. OJ Simpson).

Although I used to be very much in favor of the "Try 'em and fry 'em" type of justice Prager advocates, as I've matured I have come to realize just what a travesty the capital punishment system really is, and how prone it is to depriving innocents of their most basic right, the right to life (recall: life, liberty and happines... anyone??).

This is only the second Prager column I've read, and I can only conclude that Prager hasn't taken a class in Enlightment philosophy (Locke, Descarte, Rosseau, Bacon, et al), or he's really just a blowhard pinhead looking for ratings.

Bissel

Out of curiosity, would you rather be wrongly convicted and stay in prison all your natural life?

If I was wrongly convicted of, say, a string of killings, I would rather be put to death than left in prison for 50 years or more.

Either way, your life is ruined for all intents and purposes. I don't really fear death, but confinement for the rest of my natural life and a lack of realistic hope?

I have an entirely selfish reason

for not wanting the death penalty.

Our justice system is flawed. That is, sometimes the innocent person is convicted and sometimes the guilty person is not. There is the possibility, however slight it might be, that there will be someone put to death that was innocent. With my luck, that one person would be me :)

Yes, that's my reason for not liking the death penalty: I don't want to be wrongfully convicted and put to death. I don't want my neighbor to be wrongfully convicted and put to death, I don't want anybody to be wrongfully convicted and put to death. So if our justice system were absolutely perfect, and there was no chance that an innocent would die, then yes, I would support the death penalty. But until that happens, I cannot.

And yeah, I'm sure people will say "But the child rapists!" and to that I say: Child rapists don't get put to death anyway. Rape, as far as I'm aware, is not a crime punishable by death. Even aggravated rape. Only murder is punishable by death. (Again, to the best of my knowledge.) But the point is, even if there are thousands of murderers out there who are in prison, the life of one innocent person is not worth it.

Executing Innocents

Any difference between that and killing innocents during lawful combat operations?

flaming liberal

The Porter case is so bogus it doesn't need refutation by me. Anyone can fabricate evidence. College kids who "proved" Porter's innocence, for example.

Gov. Ryan (soon to be someone's girl friend in prison) gave no specific reason for his commutations. He claimed "error". What error? Of course, Ryan's a convicted felon so of course F.L. buys into Ryan's BS.

F.L. (if that's your REAL name), you need to slither back to DailyKos.

rd

The anti-death penalty people started the myth that it costs more to execute someone than keep them jailed for life.

If a lifer spends 40 years in prison at $30,000/year, that's $1,200,000.

It doesn't cost anywhere near that to appeal a case.

Aurorawatcher

Once again, I am heartened by your reasonableness.

I think though there are two questions that need to be addressed differently, and these are the state of the justice system and the merits of capital punishment in the abstract. In certain limited circumstances I support the latter, but I think the former is deeply out of whack.

My own view as stated before is that punishment for most crimes is a means to an end-- the ultimate goal ought to be to help people do well enough that they don't reoffend. Yes, this starts with balanced punishment but it needs to end with job training programs etc. In fact I would support longer prison sentences if the excess was to be used for skill development. Only in certain circumstances is capital punishment justified (I would limit it to serial killers, serial rapists, and those who are found to habitually commit violent crimes).

May we first decide

is prison for punishment or reformation? I vote for punishment. Why do we send people to criminal school (prison), make them healthy, let them lift weights and watch cable and then set them loose again?

I think they should sit all day every day and learn to read and write and work. that is punishment for most of them as they certainly avoided it the first time around.

My thoughts on Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment is simply a very late term abortion. Why all the fuss?

Why are so many liberals against capital punishment, but are in favor of abortion? Not very consistent.

How can liberals be concerned about innocent people being mistakenly put to death, but not be even slightly concerned about innocent children being murdered by their mothers?

Not all states have "racist" death rows or have capital punishment applied to minorities more often than "whitty". Here in Arizona, the majority of death row inmates are white men. Which is surprising when you consider how many illegals we have here.

Another Brite Idear:-)

With the technology that is available today we could just put a collar on all parolees that announced every 30sec or so whatever crime the person was convicted of..Also, put an implant in the person so if they succeed at removing the collar, it blows their head,hand,self up??
Or if not an implant, use a combination of collar and two anklets that co-communicate with each other on a varying pattern so if one is removed or tampered with the other two go BOOM!!
Instant pediphile/rapist/murderer/crack dealer/heroin dealer removal.
What do you think about that??

Anthony

Anthony writes: Tuesday, December, 12, 2006 6:33 PM
Pro Death Penalty
Its quite simple. If a person is CONVICTED and found GUILTY in a court of law then they get the death penalty within 90 days of conviction.............Period!
*************************************************
Isn't that just a bit harsh? What if they convict the wrong man? I think they should at least give the guilty person 91 days just to be sure:-)

Pro Death Penalty

Its quite simple. If a person is CONVICTED and found GUILTY in a court of law then they get the death penalty within 90 days of conviction.............Period!

Hmmm (+ Uncle Max, Steve & jefff)

Obviously, my post struck a couple of nerves. Good. Robust debate is what democracy is all about. (FTR, I've been away from the computer all day.)

Uncle Max; Thanks for the attaboy, but I suspect you are far more eloquent than I on any given day. (Especially before I've had my first cup of coffee.) :-)

Steve; Good work at the range. Tactical team sharpshooters (Note; never call them "snipers"- that's a military MOS with an entirely different mission)are trained never to shoot unless they can do so with as nearly 0% risk of hitting an innocent (hostage) as possible. They can, and do, tell their superiors "no" when authorized to "take the shot" if their professional judgement is that the risk is too great. I have seen them walk away from a "set" because some superior thought he was right, and they were wrong. I have known a few, and they were extraordinary individuals, one and all. I'm moderately good with a rifle (better with a pistol), but I'm not even close to being in that class, and I know it. And as Clint Eastwood once observed, "A man's got to know his limitations".

jefff; You are partly correct. Modern forensic psychology can predict an individual's actions with a high degree of accuracy- once they know what they are looking for. This is the "profiling" you see on "Criminal Minds" every week. (An excellent show, and one I recommend, even though it does stretch the facts of the science at points for the sake of resolving the story inside of 42.5 minutes of actual narrative in an hour's airtime.) But even if you somehow could tell exactly what an individual might potentially do, due to their prior behavior, unless at least some of that behavior had put them into the criminal justice system, you cannot take action. Why?

Read the Constitution, specifically the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments. "Prior restraint", in any form, is a direct violation of their rights as a citizen of the United States. (And before anyone brings up terrorism, the word "citizen" is used precisely here. The rights the Constitution defines are for the citizens of this great country of ours, and do not necessarily apply to non-citizens, although it is customary in peacetime to extend most of the provisions in question to non-citizens within our borders as a courtesy. This is not peacetime.)

What you propose would violate the rights of the "suspect" some many ways from Sunday that I seriously doubt that either (a) he or she could ever be convicted in a court of law if they did commit a crime (for one thing, any evidence accrued by prior restraint would be "fruit of the poisoned tree" and inadmissible), or that (b) either the law enforcement group that attempted the "prior restraint", or any officer of same as an individual, would financially survive the (probably multi-million dollar) harassment suit that the person in question would surely file against the department and officers in question. With, no doubt, the help of the ACLU.

And all that is as it should be. We are all "innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law, by due process". This system has served us well for over two centuries. And am quite content to keep it that way.

Even the bit about the ACLU. Once in a while, they do actually serve a useful purpose.

Once in a while.

cheers

eon

Boiler 6:04 PM

Boiler, not to worry, wez not stupid, jus illtarete.

The statement is not true

With apologies for being off topic, do not respond to FDR4Rushmore's statement that thousands of Iraqi children have died as a direct result of US military action. This is the typical ploy of the liberal to repeat a falsehood often enough to have it accepted as true. Charlie Rangel and his rants about the demographics of the US Military are a perfect example. When provided with documented facts counter to his theory he simply chose to ignore their existence. As with Rangel's fallacious statements, there are no facts backing the outrageous statement made by FDR4 Rushmore.

Mulroney

Mulroney writes: Tuesday, December, 12, 2006 5:36 PM
No White Men
I have no problem with capital punishment for some, but I don't think white men should be executed. That just ain't right.
*************************************************
Mulroney:::::
You are just being silly, silly, silly!!!
A white man's neck will stretch just as good as any other color man's neck.
Come to think of it, I think white necks will stretch just a mite further than others.

Elaboration on 5:43 post

An incensed lunatic called me on the phone and made the statement that he was going to come to my house with his 12ga. and shoot holes in it till he killed everyone inside.
I called the Parish Deputy Sheriff in my area and asked him what I should do. He had known me all my life and I attended school with his children.
I was then advised by an officer of the law here in LA that if someone were shooting at you from your own yard, shoot them in the head and call them when they quit wiggling.
Well, the lunatic called back to inform me he was loading up and headed my way, so I informed him that if he did what he was threatening, I would politely shoot holes in his car and him with my trusty M1-Garrand 30-06 WW2 surplus rifle. Well, thank God, lunatic did not show up.

No White Men

I have no problem with capital punishment for some, but I don't think white men should be executed. That just ain't right.

Come on Aurorawatcher

While your story is truly compelling, it is totally irrelevant to this conversation. The reason I say this is because my guess (which is all I have to go on) is that this was absolutely not a death penalty case. Voluntary manslaughter, second degree murder or negligent homicide maybe, but certainly would not qualify for the death penalty in most jurisdictions.

By the way, you reference the idea that if you can retreat you must do so and correctly point out what is occurring more and more in state legislatures, the replacement of this antiquated notion with the right to defend oneself under any circumstances.

In fact here in Arizona they have just changed the law so that the burden of proof in self defense cases now rests on the prosecutor. Under the old law you had to prove the need to use deadly force in your own defense, which could be difficult and costly, whereas now it is the burden of the prosecutor to prove that you DID NOT need to use such force. Also, you are not required to retreat in the face of imminent danger. A huge victory for law abiding citizens in the state.

Problem

The main problem with any type of punishment is the fact that no matter who likes it or not, as long as plea bargans are used, there will be criminals that deserve 20-life will be able to bargan their way down to 5-10 or so.
Criminals that deserve the death penalty will be able to bargan to get a lesser sentence.
I am not familiar with all the sentencing guidelines, but you get the idea.
While I understand that plea bargans, in some cases, deliver other criminals into custody; it is obvious that this method is not working very well. And as much as I despise crack, heroin, and other type drug dealers for their preying on children, the punishments must be equaled with total disregard of race.

Definition of murder

I'll start by saying I am not opposed to the death penalty, I just have some concerns about the current justice system.

Example -- happened here in my own state of Alaska. In a town 120 miles from the nearest Troopers station, there were two families arguing over something. Some mining equipment had been vandalized, one family thought the other's kid had done it and the kid's family thought he was being falsely accused. Heated words had been exchanged.

Now, understand, everybody in Alaska wears a firearm when we go out into the woods. There's things out there that will eat you! So, Wade Gilmore was packing when he and his wife headed to the local roadhouse for a meal out. Nobody looks sideways on that. You can wear an unconcealed weapon into a bank and people don't get skittish. Wade claimed at trial that he didn't know the other family was at the roadhouse. The father and son were on the screen porch as Wade and his wife approached. I know the screen porch. You can't see people on the porch from the parking lot, but they can see you. The man opened fire as the Gilmores entered the porch, Mrs. Gilmore went down immediately from a torso shot and Wade took a bullet in his shoulder. He drew his weapon and killed the other man immediately. I think he fired three shots. Then the son tried to move and Wade fired at him and missed. The kid apparently took cover just in time for his mother to open fire with a semi-auto from the parking lot. The kid was hit by one of her bullets and survived. Her gun jammed and Wade went outside and shot her in a non-lethal area and then held her at gunpoint until the owner of the roadhouse decided it was safe to come out and take over. The police got there two hours later.

Alaska State law for many years would have made Wade's act perfectly legal, but at the time had recently been changed to say you can defend yourself in your own home as long as you had the reasonable expectation that you might be killed or harmed if you didn't defend yourself and as long as you were unable to avail yourself of an escape route. Obviously Wade wasn't in his own home and he might have been able to escape in his truck. However, his wife was bleeding profusely at his feet and the other woman was loading in the parking lot, so an escape route was questionable and do you abandon your wife to your enemies just to satisfy the law, assuming you can think in a situation like that?

My husband was on the jury. They walked into the jury room after hearing three days worth of testimony and two people voted to convict immediately while three jurors voted to acquit. Say, what? It broke immediately along certain lines. Alaskans understood the situation -- 120 miles away from police protection, ambushed, your wife bleeding at your feet, a bullet in your shoulder, what would you do? The two who wanted to convict were sheep. "He was charged with the crime, therefore, he is guilty." As my husband said, "Then why do we bother to have trials?" Most of the jury was for acquittal by the end of the first hour of deliberations, but those two held out for two days, insisting that the police knew what they were doing, that it wasn't for the jury to decide guilt, but to do what the police said. They were eventually worn down when the rest of the jury said they would take the jury into sequester rather than vote to convict.

There is my problem with capital punishment. Wade Gilmore never argued that he wasn't guilty of killing a man, but the circumstances were such that he had no choice (Alaska law has since been re-amended back to the old law that says you have the right to defend yourself under certain circumstances). He had killed somebody, but he wasn't guilty of murder. But, two of the jurors felt he was guilty simply because the police said he was guilty.

So, while many of you may be absolutely certain that someone is convicted of murder because they are guilty, I don't know that all jurors really understand the importance of their task. Police have one goal -- to arrest and convict all people who come across their path. They don't care about guilt or innocence. The DA cared only that the law in front of him had been violated and he was willing to ignore the circumstances because, well, he was a recent arrival in Alaska and didn't think circumstances matter. The majority of the jurors, however, knew differently.

So, unless we want to amend our criminal justice system and start actually educating jurors on why they're there, I think a lot of people end up in prison for crimes they either didn't commit or didn't violate to the degree the police say. The police and DA are not the final arbitrators of who is guilty or innocent, unless the jury decides otherwise and I think a lot of jurors just plain don't think.

So, the death penalty, while I think it is a good idea for guys like Ted Bundy and some rapists, is I think a recipe for killing people who may not even be guilty. It's not the death penalty per se that I have a problem with, but the juries who don't understand their duty.

GunnyG

GunnyG writes: Tuesday, December, 12, 2006 3:14 PM
Meant to add
these vermin should be executed as the Romans did.

Pick a group of people, hand them clubs, and let them dispose of the scumbag. THAT is justice.

But in any event, flushing this human garbage down the nearest toilet is good enough for me. H*ll, I'd VOLUNTEER my VACATION TIME to execute these turds. 10 scaffolds, no waiting.
*************************************************
Yah, that is an excellent idea, one that I have thought of many times when killers, rapists, pediphiles, and super kooks were released after only 5-7yrs on a sentence.
Public hangings would definitely make a strong impression on a person to avoid that type of behavior.
Another idea:::
Allow the one being sentenced to choose their own execution method. Give them a choice::
1)Hanging
2)Gillotine
3)Drawing and quartering
4)Stoning
5)Burned at the stake
6)Lethal injection
7)Firing squad
8)Suicide Bomb::Strap 500lbs of c4 to their butt and chunk them out of a c-147 at 20,000ft. no chute
9)Fed to the tigers, or lions, whichever is handy
They will make their choice by choosing a number in a lotto type drawing, to keep it interesting.
All above methods televised for maximum effect!

Just random thoughts...

First of all Prager writes this column as a result of the case in Illinois where the "freed" murderer killed again. That is the basis for his addressing a controversial issue.

The "government" is not murdering convicted killers, but "state governments" are carrying out the wishes (sentence) of its citizens. There is not a single governmental entity that carries out executions, and the citizens of each state determine if the death penalty will be enacted in their state. The jury of peers convicts the defendant based on their interpretation of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and in many states another panel then determines the final punishment, or the judge does.

Not all murders qualify for the "death penalty". There are many levels from involuntary manslaughter to murder in the first degree. Only the most heinous murders with extenuating factors are going to qualify for death. In most cased they must include pre-meditation, and almost always occur in cold blood.

FDR4Rushmore, two things. First I love American Football, but I also really appreciate European Football. Anyone that cannot watch that game and enjoy the athleticism and strategy involved most likely has attention deficit disorder and needs a score every two minutes. Watching plays unfold in the flow of the game, whether or not they result in a goal, is truly enjoyable with this sport. However, I believe you make the statement that thousands of Iraqi children have been killed as a direct result of American military action and I challenge you to provide any substantive facts backing up that statement. It is quite ludicrous.

Another Option

If we don't want to spend the money to lock criminal up, just give them equipment and drop them in the middle of Iraq, Iran, and Syria!
If they win, they live if they don't, Oh Well:-)
If memory serves me correctly the US did this to some extent in WW1 and WW2?
If the suckers want to be badasses, let them be badasses for sure. When they win, they can have 72 virgins, 50 sheep, 30 goats, 20 acres,a dozen palm trees, three camels, two donkeys, and one case of their favorite jungle juice:-)

LD gave himself away this time.

Nobody could really be stupid enough to believe that. He has to be a conservative provocateur.

Keep 'em stirred up, LD!

GunnyG

I agree. Bring back public executions; hanging is appropriate.

G. Gordon Liddy (a former Nixon guy and radio talk show host) says when someone is executed, "Another 100% successful rehabilitation!"

Meant to add

these vermin should be executed as the Romans did.

Pick a group of people, hand them clubs, and let them dispose of the scumbag. THAT is justice.

But in any event, flushing this human garbage down the nearest toilet is good enough for me. H*ll, I'd VOLUNTEER my VACATION TIME to execute these turds. 10 scaffolds, no waiting.

Stops them cold

In exactly 100% of the cases, where a murderer has been properly put to death, that murderer has never killed again, and thats good enough for me.

Loyal Democrat

I think you come here on this site to bait us with your incredible stupidity.

If you are a reflection of the left, no wonder we're in the mess we're in with political correctness. Your logic concludes that murderers are the victims.

You know what? You are not even worth debating.

No Examples of Wrongful Execution??

Dennis Writes:
"I do not know of a proved case of mistaken execution in America in the last 50 years"

Once the state fries or otherwise executes somebody, there is a great inertia towards the idea of digging into difficult questions of the deceased's actual innocence or guilt. But Dennis should check out http://www.texasmoratorium.org, which describes at least three Texas executions of what were probably innocent men.

If our system of justice so incompetent that it can't keep a dangerous murderers locked up but instead keeps letting them go so they can kill again, what makes you think that this very same system of justice is any good at preventing innocent people from being murdered by the state??

Illinois Gov George Ryan recently stopped all executions in his state, because he found so many innocent people on it's death row. The Web is full of examples of lost evidence, botched lab results, and outright laziness leading to wrongful convictions. And far too many prosecuting attourneys seem to care more about conviction rates than about actual guilt or innocence.

Life imprisonment protects society, and still offers the chance for a wrongfully convicted person to be proven innocent. If there are flaws in that system, where murderers are let out and kill again, then tighten it up as best we can. If we can't do that we can't keep from killing innocents.

FDR....

....does your wife think you're stubborn? :)

Let's do a little exercise and take a closer look at a few US cities and you tell me if analyzing their data more closely doesn't make the topic more interesting than just a general federal number.

Murder rate in 2003 per 100,000:

New York - 7
Detroit - 39 (no Capital Punishment)
Baltimore - 41
Washington, D.C. - 44 (no CP)
New Orleans - 57
Seattle - 5
Boston - 6
San Francisco - 8.9

As you can see, I'm not comparing cities to small towns or different countries. I'm only comparing large American cities and it's still difficult to draw conclusions. How do you explain, for example, the enormous disparity between New York, and Washington, D.C.? Washington has no Capital Punishment, very strict gun control laws, and a host of other liberal policies that you so admire, yet it is one of the nation's deadliest cities.

my 2 cents

LD - you made your points well. The fact that I flat out disagree with just about all of it is cool. It's known as freedom of speech.

Eon - You refuted him (?) much better than I could have.

Everyone else - thanks for the laughs. Some of you folks get really ballistic about stuff.

I have to take the dog for a walk.

IMO - I like Prager but he takes himself VERY seriously and is very self-important and I am sure is sure that his every word drips with import and those of us who do not gobble up his every word are at risk of .... - well I don't really know what. But we are at risk.

Capital Punishment

Interesting how the same bleeding heart liberals against capital punishment also believe you can sit down and negotiate with Islamo-fascists. 2007 might be a good year to usher in an Adopt-A-Criminal Program. Save the rest of us a lot of money.

Loyal Democrat

"Consider the fact that when two children are born, both start out with no opinions, hates, fears, etc. Thus, if one grows up to be a priest and the other a murderer, the choice was created solely by the environment each was raised in. Criminals, especially murderers, can typically be shown to be people that were raised in dysfuntional families. Therefore, they are a product of their environment, and when things turn out wrong, they have no choice but to engage in crime"

So why is it you people (liberals) feel this way about murderers but not about gays? You cannot have it both ways. If you would have us believe that homosexuality is genetic and that person has "no choice" about that, then antisocial tendencies must be the same way. I have known many homosexuals who chose to use some trauma from their past (one man I worked with was made to have sex with his own mother by his stepfather) as an excuse to justify their homosexuality. Many other people I know had severe trauma of a sexual nature and went on with their lives as normal. (one of the most notable of those was a rape victim I knew who had the strength of character to have the child of the rapist anyway, and it did not affect her sexuality, nor her love for that child).

Fact is, homosexuals choose to be the way they are and murderers, theives, and rapists all choose to do the things they do knowing full well their actions are illegal. Society did not hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to kill someone else. Nor does society force anyone to become homosexual. Those choices are all made by each and every person, and we will all be held accountable for those come Judgment Day.

very few "innocents"

Rich.....so what is the number of innocent thats OK with you.
What would your post be if YOU were one of the 113.

TALL........Now that sounds like a plan.

FDR

The only benefit that federal statistics on crime provide is that Europeans who believe themselves superior can say "it makes for ugly reading."

There are so many factors that affect crime, and the differences not just between cities and states within the US but between the US and European countries are so great that any comparisons are meaningless.

The US, for example, is and always has been a nation of immigrants, legal and illegal, and though we do a better job than other countries of acculturating our immigrants, they still considerably affect our crime rates.

European countries, until recently, have been largely homogeneous. As I'm sure you know, thanks to an increase in immigration, the Continent's capitals have also seen an increase in violent crime that shows no sign of slowing down. Though not yet to America's level, burning cars and buses in Paris or Amsterdam are nothing to be proud of.

So let's try to keep our comparisons between apples and apples.

Criminals

people commit crimes because libs have given them this "get out of jail free" card.. if you had a miserable childhood, it's ok that you raped and killed a woman. libs understand your pain. lib talking to "misunderstood criminal"--here's a tissue and some therapy..let's get you a job (perhaps at an elementary school) and give you all sorts of government benefits because you feel bad about yourself. funny the "she made me do it" excuse never worked with my parents..i had to take responsibility for my OWN actions. of touchy feely dems don't seems to understand that concept

FDR

perhaps you can point me to your victimization? honestly can't find it

Loyal Democrat

If all children start off the same and no different then that conflicts with the liberal notion of homosexuality and other things that can "not be helped". However each child is different. You can not group people together even though it makes things easier on you to do so. Even with each child being different (even twins and tripplets), it is still up to the choices they make.

In reality it is the CHOICES we make that form the paths we take.

My conservative objection

I'm opposed to the death penalty for a simple, conservative reason: why give the government that much power? Or are we, as the ACU has proclaimed, all big-government conservatives now? I don't see anything remotely intelligent about giving the government authority over life and death.

As an aside, this comment by Dennis:

"My answer has always been that this is so rare (I do not know of a proved case of mistaken execution in America in the last 50 years) that society must be prepared to pay that terrible price."

betrays historical ignorance. Our country's legal system is built around the idea that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to jail an innocent man. This isn't war, and we shouldn't accept collateral damage as simply a price society must pay for order.

My cautious support

for capital punishment derives from a very different source. One of the uniquely American traits is the way in which we value liberty even more than life. In our culture, then, despite what some people suggest, I think it is more severe to put someone in prison for the rest of his or her life than to end it. Yes, it is more expensive too, but we don't want to be cruel.

However, I think that people place way too much focus on punishment. Our prisons ought to be run to reduce recitivism rates in the first place and then capital punishment could be reserved for cases where we give up on the rehabilitation process. In short, punishment should be a means to an end (rehabilitation) and not the end in and of itself. This is not a new idea-- in fact, it is a very old idea.

However, there are certain psychopaths which we need to assume cannot be rehabilitated. Often for these individuals, rehabilitation is impossible because crime (often rape, murder, and the like) is a part of a cycle of self-hatred. They hate themselves, so they do bad things to justify that hatred. Serial killers and rapists usually fall into this category. The question then is: do we deprive them of life or liberty?

I argue that in these cases, depriving one of life is more in line with American values. It is therefore less cruel than the alternative.

FDR4Rushmore,

a real tough guy, a man for all seasons...dignifying the anonymity of the comment thread to the shame of Angelfish.

Phylo

'But it doesn't work for me because I think the death penalty is wrong because it brings the state down a notch morally.' Let me ask you, are you pro choice? The reason I ask is because you sound like you're an atheist, or just hate God. Abortion is an abomination and far worse than capital punishment. So leave morals out of your argument.

The only problem I have with the death penalty is that is takes too long to be carried out. Why is this process so tedious? If someone is convicted of murder, he/she should be put to death almost immediately.

Lucky?

How many murder victims are there??? A lot more than 113!! And with much better DNA evidence now, very few "innocents" will be convicted and sent to their deserved reward in he11. Again the number of murder victims from released murderers is much greater than 113 and while each innocent killed is a tragedy, the greater tragedy is in not protecting society from murderers!

The other side.

As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.

A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995. "An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty," he said in his conclusion. "One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty."

"113 Found INNOCENT and released"
how many INNOCENT have been killed.
anyone that believes "113" is OK is as sick as the murders.

I am a proponent of the death penalty...

...but i think that the system is a bit flawed. Dennis says that he knows of no case of a wrongfully convicted person being executed in the US in the past 50 years; that is a good thing indeed. But what about all of the people that have been wrongfully convicted and put on death ow over the last 50 years. Just because they were not executed does not mean that the system worked!

I live about 30 minutes from Winston-Salem, NC where back in the 1980s we had a horrific rape and murder occur one fall morning. The police actively set up an innocent man, Darryl Hunt, in order to quickly clear a case that the community demanded a resolution to. There was no physical evidence, the only eyewitness was a former Klansman, and the DA's office withheld exulpatory evidence. Darryl Hunt spent nearly 20 years on death row, was convicted twice on the same flawed evidence, and faced execution on a few different occassions. Is that system working correctly?

I agree that some crimes are worthy of death, I just worry that if we don't tighten up the system in some way we may very well execute the wrong man someday. And that will truly be tragic.

And yet another point

For a long time I lived in Baltimore, one of the worst cities for homicides on a per capita basis, and I can tell you, that sentencing defintiely had some impact.

What was the average sentence for a crime resulting in death (can't use "murder" as most were plead down to manslaughter or assault charges)? At the time I lived there it was 6 years. And they wondered why murder was so common in the city.

Trevor

Your comments are some of th most incoherent I have ever read on this site. Testosterone? Get real!

Dennis Prager is right.

"Mercy toward the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."

Opposition to the death penalty is immoral and obscene.

There is no such thing as life in prison without parole.Have you ever heard of a prisoner dying from old age in prison?When one generation takes over from another generation,some Governor or judge will free the prisoner because "he's been punished enough,wrote a book,edited a newspaper,blah,blah,blah."

I have always held the opinions expressed by Dennis Prager,but he has put it in words I could never do.

The other arguments made on this site against the death penality are too absurd to even comment on,so I won't waste my time.

FDR4Rushmore

Re: "Harsh sentencing guidelines are also obviously not working either."

What is obvious is that you have been asleep during the tough-on-crime campaigns of Rudy Giuliani in New York; both in the 80's as U.S. Attorney for the New York southern district, and the 90's as mayor of New York. During his reign, overall crime rates in the New York area were cut in half, and murder rates even more dramatic. It actually became safe to spend an evening out on Times Square again. His strategy? Identify the SOBs, lock them up and get them off the streets (i.e., harsh policing AND harsh sentencing). He was so effective that NATIONAL crime statistics were swayed by his efforts (New York made a significant percentage of national crime).

Get your facts straight, FDR, and/or wake up and pay attention. Liberal crime strategies have consistently done nothing but increase crime, making ALL less safe.

FDR4Rushmore

Actually, you ignore 3 facts when you talk about the US having such a high murder rate:

1. Many countries have a much higher murder rate, but it is "insitutionalized" and ignored as "civil war". Do you really think you are at more risk in Nebraska than in Sierra Leon? Just because the killers are called a militia or army we stop calling it murder. So, maybe you should stop looking at homicide rates and look at mortality per 1000 for young age brackets.

2. Some countries (eg. China) supress true murder stats for political reasons. Moscow's murder rate mysteriously soared with the end of communism and central control of thre numbers.

3. The US is more urbanized than most of the nations of which you speak, sot he high urban violence skews the numebrs more than a comparable urban murder rate would in other nations.

Just some thoughts for you before you pronounce the US the most violent country on earth.

FDR

You admit "I also accept that murder rates increased after most states did away with capital punishment in the 1960's and dropped after reinstatement in the 1970's."

There's the answer to your question about why the US has a higher murder rate AND a higher capital punishment rate than any other developed nation. Obviously, there's something going on in the US that makes murder more prevalent here. But, just as obviously, it's not capital punishment. What is it? Well, I have a theory on that.

But first, as high as you seem to think our capital punishment rate is, it is, in actuality, very, very low. Even in Texas, the most prolific executor of the death penalty, fewer than 100 executions occur in a year. How many murders occur in Texas in a year? 10,000? So that's, what? 1% of all murders that result in the killer's execution? Even then it's only after more than 10 years on death row, which is 10 years longer than their victims got to live. But the point is, how much of a "deterrent" is the death penalty if there's just a 1% chance it will actually be used?

Another famous case of "deterence" was the thousands of nuclear missiles the US and USSR had aimed at each other during the Cold War. This actually WAS a deterrent, because if one of those two nations launched a nuclear missile at the other, the other nation would, with 100% certainty or damned near, launch thousands of warheads back at the offender. Mutually assured destruction. The key word there is "assured". If the USSR thought there was a 1% or 5% or 10% chance that the US would counterattack, they would have nuked us 40 years ago. So before you say that capital punishment does not deter murder, let's give it a chance! Utilize it to its full extent.

Anyway, my theory about how the murder rate can be high despite the "prevalence" of capital punishment is this. All these other "developed" nations are, you could say, MORE developed than the US, at least in the sense that they have been "developed" for a longer period of time. Now, I hope that this is not the eventual fate of all developed nations, but it appears that all the other developed nations have somehow lost all their testosterone. That's right, testosterone. The same male hormone that drives men to murder also drives them to execute the murderers, and to compete in sports, and to defend their families and their nation, and all those other things that make a man a MAN.

We have plenty of testosterone here. Good thing? Bad thing? Not really relevant. The important thing is, we undoubtedly have a hell of a lot more of it than any other developed nation on the planet. The Germans were the last nation in Europe with any serious amount of testosterone, but it must have been concentrated in the soldiers who died in WW2. The French? I'm not sure they ever had any testosterone, but if they ever did, they got rid of long before the beginning of the 20th century. And the British, although they're a far cry from the French, are still just a bunch of effeminate snobs.

Where did all the testosterone in Europe go? Well, I have a theory on that too. It came to America with the settlers. Those who had the courage, the fortitude, to strike out for new and dangerous lands did so because they had testosterone. Those without testosterone stayed behind. And now, while our hormonally-deprived cousins in Europe are left wearing berets and sipping cappucino, we're over here brimming with testosterone, killing each other, executing each other, owning guns, playing football (REAL football, not that pansy soccer), defending our families, bar-room brawling, singing patriotic tunes, and fighting for our country.

To be sure, there are plenty of Americans who are seriously lacking in the testosterone department. The homosexuals, for example. And the peace movement. And all those mamby pampies who think our kids shouldn't be playing team sports, and when they do, we shouldn't keep score. But, on average, the percentage of men with an appreciable level of testosterone in their bodies is much, much higher in the US than in Europe. So we have more murders, and likewise have more capital punishment. Does that mean we should be giving men shots to kill the testosterone? Heck no! That same testosterone is what has enable us to INVENT and to EXPLORE. Beyond mere violence, testosterone fuels COMPETITION, and competition fuels all creative endeavors. And makes the world a better place.

I'll try to explain "cosmic injustice" to you. Though I've never used those words, I've often thought of that as the PRIMARY reason for capital punishment. Let me put it like this. If Person A kills Person B, then Person B's life is over (obviously). Forget about retribution. Forget about deterrence. Forget about the Bible. Forget about society. The plain and simple fact is that it just isn't FAIR that an innocent person is DEAD, and the person that caused that death remains ALIVE. In fact, every friggin SECOND that the murderer remains alive after the death of the innocent victim is a "cosmic injustice" (again, not my term). Which is why we can't stand it for the murderer to remain on death row for 10+ years before they fry his butt. But it's particularly disconcerting for us that SO MANY murderers, the vast majority of them, NEVER have to pay the ultimate penalty for their crimes against humanity. It just isn't FAIR that an innocent person is dead and a murderer remains alive. That is the point that Prager was trying to make, though I would have used the term "fairness" rather than the pretentious "cosmic (in)justice".

I know what you're going to say: "Well, Trevor, life ISN'T fair". And you're right, LIFE isn't fair. But the very purpose of government is, to the extent possible, to MAKE life fair. And in that context, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the government to inflict the same heinous punishment on murderers that they inflict on their victims.

Regards,
Trevor

Correction!!!

There are 38 states with the death penalty.
Six have had no executions since 1976(the year I graduated from highschool)New York death penalty ruled unconstitutional;One person still on death row.
*************************************************
But, what good is the penalty if it is not used?

Death Penalty

With regard to argument #2, rape in general sexual abuse of children in particular is arguably far more deplorable than a wife killing her abusive husband, or a husband killing his nagging wife. According to your argument the death penalty should be extended to include child molestation.

With regard to argument #3, murderers may choose to commit their murders on the days of the death penalty in order to strengthen their insanity defense.

I believe the death penalty should be abolished not because it is cruel, but because life in prison is more cruel - but equally as just. This would eliminate the cottage industry of mediocre public defenders on the public dole "fighting" for their defendants.

Loyal D.

You are just SEW right! It IS unfair.

But then, we just can't he'p it. It's our parent's fault that we like killin' folks.

We should abandon the death penalty.

The death penalty is simply too much power to put into the hands of government, any government.

eon

Your comments on what a well trained SWAT sniper can accomplish are a bullseye! I have no training in SWAT, but have fired bench rest rifles with telescopic sights and I, a rank amateur shooter could pick a letter on a pop can from 200 yards and put a round through it. I'm sure that someone with training and practice could not only take the perp down without harming a hostage, he or she could pick which eyeball to hit.

Rushmore and eon

yeah, I believe we have a high crime rate. And the criminals need to be put away and if they are sentenced to death for a heinous crime that is fine by me. That is one less of them on the street. That is one less to victimize someone else. That is one less that a police officer will need to confront "again" and possibly get killed himself.

And, I don't care about them sitting behind bars or social workers visiting them.
If they did the crime, they need to serve their time. Like I said I see absolutely no reason on this earth for a child murderer to stay alive.
And, that is just one example. I use what I consider one of the worst crimes anyone can commit. There are plenty more examples why someone should either stay behind bars for his entire life or be executed.

Criminals may not commit crime because they have celeb status, but it certainly is not a deterrent. A criminal today knows he/she can get off if they use the right "excuse" or tell the right "abuse" story because the liberals are always crying over them. Then if their story is interesting enough some celebrity will come to their defense.
The system is broken and the people who suffer are the honest citizens who get hurt.
Where is your sympathy for the victims? I see none.
And, just because Prager does not have a criminal justice background does not mean he cannot have an opinion.
Or do you want him to "shut up" because it does not agree with your opinion? Remember freedom of speech is for all of us, not just bleeding hearts.

eon, you are dead on with this. We have too many sociopaths living amongst us. And kudos for your service to our community.