No Death for the Death Penalty

[Lucky]

We think of Texas as a big death penalty state, and they do gas 'em with gusto, but the Golden State also loves it. The LA Times reports today:

About two-thirds of Californians support the death penalty, according to Field Poll survey results released Thursday.

The level of support -- 68% -- remains at about the same level as it has for the last few years, but is down from the 1980s and early 1990s, when 80% or more of California voters responding in the poll said they supported the death penalty.

Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to support keeping the death penalty -- 81% versus 57%.

Those who identified themselves as liberals were the only subgroup in which more respondents supported doing away with the death penalty than keeping it, with 49% saying it should be abolished and 46% in favor of keeping it.

Although most respondents said they did not want to abolish the death penalty, many saw life in prison as a preferred alternative.

When asked what penalty they personally would prefer for someone convicted of first-degree murder, 48% said life in prison without parole, while 40% opted for death.

That shows a change in views since 2000, when 44% of respondents said they would prefer the death penalty and 37% opted for life in prison.

The survey was a random sample of 1,001 registered voters, with each question asked to a random subsample of either 481 or 520 voters, with a maximum margin of error of 4.6 percentage points.

***********

In my opinion, the death penalty in practice has become a mess. It takes way too long for the appeals to run their course, and too many people later turn out to be innocent. Oops, sorry about that.

But, in theory, I do support the death penalty. John Wayne Gacy, William Bonin both murdered multitudes of young boys who would otherwise be alive and enjoying life today. I am glad they got the death penalty, and I'd vote for it now for the same level of criminal. I think we have to have some measure of what society thinks are the most abhorrent crimes, and the death penalty is it.

[TampaYankee]

But, in theory, I do support the death penalty. John Wayne Gacy, William Bonin both murdered multitudes of young boys who would otherwise be alive and enjoying life today. I am glad they got the death penalty, and I'd vote for it now for the same level of criminal. I think we have to have some measure of what society thinks are the most abhorrent crimes, and the death penalty is it.

Ditto.

[Lucky]

The Sunday dialogue in today's NY Times is on their editorial against the death penalty. Some interesting observations appear, as well as one interesting name: L. Phillips Runyon III. I thought it rather pompous, so I Googled him to see if his name really was Larry. It's not. But he does wear a bow tie, and he is a part-time judge, recently thwarting an attempt by two small town police chiefs to charge illegal aliens with criminal trespass!

Discussing Death

[lookin]

Personally, I decided a long time ago I don't want to kill anybody. Not John Wayne Gacy, not William Bonin, not even Ethel Rosenberg. Not anybody. Simple as that.

[TampaYankee]

Personally, I decided a long time ago I don't want to kill anybody. Not John Wayne Gacy, not William Bonin, not even Ethel Rosenberg. Not anybody. Simple as that.

Actually my preferred alternative to the death penalty for the truly guilty, for the truly heinous acts against humanity, in the singular or in the large: I would launch them in space capsule with fifty years of food and water on a one-way trip to eternity. This would be true solitary confinement. Budget considerations preclude exercising this merciful alternative.

[lookin]

I could get behind that, TY. Hell, I'd even put Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann on either side of the miscreant, and pipe in medleys from the Captain & Tennille.

[Lucky]

No doubt that would be cruel and unusual punishment!

Lookin, I don't want to kill anyone either. but as long as bad people continue to kill innocent people, then they have created their own future, as well as killing the future of their victims.

[lookin]

I understand what you're saying, Lucky, and agree that there are some nasty folks out there.

However, my viewpoint is based on who I am, not who they are. I simply don't want to put myself in the position of taking another person's life. I don't deserve to make that call, nor am I qualified.

[Lucky]

I understand what you're saying, Lucky, and agree that there are some nasty folks out there.

However, my viewpoint is based on who I am, not who they are. I simply don't want to put myself in the position of taking another person's life. I don't deserve to make that call, nor am I qualified.

The decision is certainly not one to take lightly, and I abhor what has become of the death penalty in many states and countries. But we kill all of the time, except that it is animals and insects and soldiers in other lands. Why killing a clearly guilty and depraved individual requires any special qualifications escapes me. It may not be something you would choose to do, I know. But we make judgments all of the time in our lives, and the choice to be safe from dangerous predators is one we do regularly. This is a choice, and if society does not want it, then it can ban it. Until they do, I keep thinking that we must have some measure of what society thinks are the most abhorrent crimes, and the death penalty is it.

[RA1]

I don't WANT to kill anyone, either, but, if they try to kill me I likely will take their lives in the process. Or, die trying to do so. This might be slightly different from what you are saying representing society as a whole as one member thereof.

The US process to deal with those convicted of heinous crimes that result in the death penalty has as part and parcel of same the lengthy and expensive process of trying to prevent error. This actually results in those given life imprisonment with no chance of parole a cheaper alternative to the death penalty. Cheaper meaning the cost to the tax payers.

However, what life imprisonment without chance of parole actually means is some chance of error being found, some change in the political spectrum or a pardon. That is NOT the same thing as being put into a cell and throwing away the key until natural death.

Therefore, even though I would prefer most of those miscreants to just sit there and contemplate their misdeeds for a very long time, I have to agree that death is much more of a real and final determination of their fate. After execution, they will without a doubt no longer misbehave.

I perceive no real answer to this question. Too much of it involves politics.

If you are asking me if I would pull the trigger, remove the floor under the gallows, push the button to send the electrical power to the chair or let the chemicals loose from the attached IV, the answer is, it depends.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

I knew I should have left that 'qualified' phrase out and stayed with my original version of the statement:

'My viewpoint is based on who I am, not who they are. I simply don't want to put myself in the position of taking another person's life. I don't deserve to make that call.'

Qualification be damned, the issue of deserving to make a life-or-death decision for another human being is the big one for me. It troubles me that some of the least evolved human beings on the planet have managed to convince themselves that they are entitled to put an end to someone else's life.

I'm glad that most countries are getting out of the execution business and I'll be even gladder when ours is one of them.

Legend:

Abolished for all crimes

Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)

Abolished in practice

Legal form of punishment

According to this this article, nine countries carried out executions so far this year:

Bangladesh

China

Iran

North Korea

the Palestinian Authority

Saudi Arabia

Somalia

UAE

USA

[Lucky]

You don't deserve to make that call? Who does, then? I take it that in your opinion, no one does. But the fact remains that we delegate duties such as this to those who might have the qualifications needed. Police officers are trained to kill, as are soldiers.

But what about you? I know that your preference is not to kill a person. You feel that you don't deserve to do so. I am not sure what about the use of the word "deserve" makes sense here. The implication seems to be that someone deserves this but not you.

We know that the president deserves to have his finger on the nuclear button because we gave him that right. So what would you do if we scaled down the need? Would you kill under any circumstances? To save your life, or that of a close friend, partner, lover, neighbor, neighbor's child? I think you would, but I cannot speak for you. But if just one exemption is made, then the concession to exemptions being made exists.

For me, who I can speak for, the death penalty should be used sparingly, as a last resort, only in the cases of greatest egregiousness, and only when guilt is clear and convincing. It should be used as punishment. The argument that it deters is not solid, although I believe it does when rational minds are involved. But it does punish, and for me, having Gacy and Bonin and their ilk dead is worth it.

[lookin]

But what about you? I know that your preference is not to kill a person. You feel that you don't deserve to do so. I am not sure what about the use of the word "deserve" makes sense here. The implication seems to be that someone deserves this but not you.

If I implied that, it was not intentional. I don't personally know anyone who I think 'deserves' to kill another human being. But I do know several folks who believe that they are entitled to make that decision.

For me, it always comes back to a conversation that each of us has with himself. I had my first such conversation in my mid-twenties, and have updated that conversation every few years since. I don't try to intrude on anyone else's personal conversation. Each of us must decide for himself. For example, I wouldn't try to convince you that your views are right or wrong. If asked, I'll share the dialogue I've had with myself, and how I came to believe what I believe.

My own personal dialogue included all the situations you have mentioned, from the abstract to the individual. Among the decisions I have made is not to go to war, and to discourage my country from going to war. I would not pull a switch on the electric chair, even if I were one of six people with 'only' a 16.7% chance of delivering the fatal shock.

As far as I know, I would not take another person's life to save my own; however, I realize that an instinct for self-preservation may very well kick in. If I did end up taking another life to save my own, I expect my remaining years would be unhappy ones.

The hardest conversation I've had is whether or not I'd kill another person to protect the life of another, especially someone who is very dear to me. I've concluded that I probably would although, again, I would not expect much joy in my life after I did it.

I was able to 'serve' my country in a peaceful capacity, and I've been fortunate to be able to live in a fairly safe environment. In practical terms, I've been blessed to be able to keep some distance from the line of fire.

Among my ethical concerns at the moment are that my country gets into wars where thousands of people are slaughtered to help support my 'lifestyle', and that many of my fellow citizens are killing many other of my fellow citizens without my voice being raised loudly enough to prevent it. I do make my views known in these areas, although I could do more.

I hope this gives you some insight into my personal dialogue. Again, I am not making any comment on yours or anybody else's. For me, it's enough that you are having it.

[Lucky]

Lookin, thanks for engaging with me on this subject. When I saw those poll results I was surprised and thought it might make for an interesting thread. I, too, have engaged in that conversation with myself, and obviously came out differently. But I am well aware of the arguments against the death penalty, having lived in San Francisco and having friends who disagree- vehemently.

I think we covered all of the bases, but if someone has a new argument, I am all ears.

[Guest gcursor]

I debated against capital punishment in debate class in High School. I am kind of ambivalent on the topic now because I cringe at the thought of us taking a person's life and I cringe at knowing somebody else has taken a life that caused them to be there.

The one thing that I do think is that capital punishment doesn't seem to decrease crimes. Further I believe ..well we'll stop that one there for now....

as I said in a previous post, the art of the draw...

[Lucky]

Even though we may think we know all of the arguments pro and con, I have not engaged in a debate on this for years, so I was interested to see what others had to say, and perhaps I might now react differently than I did in the past. You never know when an argument is finally going to hit home.

[Guest epigonos]

The death penalty is such a hot button issue that I have continually told myself to leave this thread alone. I am afraid, however, that the temptation has simple become too much for me. The death penalty and gun control are two issues with which I find myself seriously out at odds with most of my fellow Republicans.

I simply do NOT believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. My reasoning is not philosophical or religious. I simply believe that if society promotes the idea that it is wrong for an individual to take someone’s life then to be consistent it must be wrong for society to take someone's life. Simplistic I know but I believe it.

Whenever I discuss my position on this issue with most of my Republican friends they go into cardiac arrest. If I really want to make them crazy I then add that I do NOT believe in the private ownership of handguns – it’s true I don’t.

[Lucky]

Well, Epigonos and I agree on guns, that is something! But a Republican party that supports the death penalty and opposes abortion is not a consistent party, so it is no surprise that he might disagree with them on a policy or two.

With the Republicans obstructing any progress on the nation's deficit and faltering economy, we might all die anyway. Or at least the nation might. Remember, it's the Republicans who started the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, opposed gay marriage and gay soldiers, supported the Bush tax cuts which have contributed so much to our deficit, and supported the Patriot Act which is slowly destroying our civil liberties.

I am glad that Epigonos can find at least one or two of those policies to disagree with.