Do you support the use of capital punishment?
I would support capital punishment only for capital crimes committed by inmates serving a life sentence.
It is more punishment if they stay in prison
Used to be. Grew up in a conservative household in a pro-death penalty state and got all the way through law school thinking I would be a career prosecutor.
Then I started practicing law (as an ADA) and realized how often mistakes are made in the justice system. Judges and juries make the wrong decisions every day.
True, the mistakes do go both ways!
No but I’m honest enough to say I’m hypocritical about it. I’m against it but if it was a loved one who was murdered, I feel sure I would be calling for it.
Some people simply deserve it but I also think we don’t get to choose when a person dies. Most states that execute people write the cause of death as “homicide” on the death certificates of the executed. The state of AZ, TX, and maybe FL, read that the execution is taking place in the name of the people in the state, not the judicial system. I don’t know. I just don’t like that idea.
The dems don’t support capital punishment but they support 3rd trimester abortion. You figure it out.
For those of you who are against Capital Punishment? My guess is that you are probably For Abortions? Make sense?
Really? Capital punishment and abortion are two different things. A women needs to have control of her own body. Republicans want smaller government except when it involves personal freedoms. Hypocrites!
Baby good, murderer bad.
stopping a beating heart, whether through abortion or the death penalty is the same thing, unless it is in self defense. Not self interest.
Yes, but only for people proven guilty. The Innocence Project has proved there have been, according to PrinceOberon, far more than a couple of mistakes. In fact, we’re at 362 and counting.
Some people deserve to die. No one has the right or moral justification to end these people’s life
Only if there is undeniable proof (ie video, dna, etc).
It should be ended for the simple fact that (in the eyes of many) it turns the criminal into the victim, and garners them sympathy they don’t deserve.
Absolutely not, for a lot of reasons. It’s barbaric, and we are the only western country to use it. It should be eliminated.
It’s not my place to decide the worth of someone else’s life.
Well I say as long as abortions are legal, capital punishment should also be...
A government doesn’t have the right to take what they did not give, in this case life, from anyone in a just society.
That being said, I believe that there are things that, if I saw them, would lead me to believe someone has forfeited their right to live in this planet. Unfortunately, there is seldom ABSOLUTE proof of this. So, as a system, I’m against capital punishment.
Also solitary confinement.
Let’s not forget that DNA testing has overturned cases on over 400 death row prisoners.
This user is currently being ignored
Yes, I wholeheartedly support it.
Only for treason.
The Republicans just want to kill the problem instead of fixing it. Rehabilitation is the way to go. Prevention is the way to go. Education is the way to go.
Oh you mean like abortion and Democrats?
-im anti death penalty btw
Well given 20+ people on death row have been found innocent, I’m a strong no. 1 innocent person killed is 1 way too many
Because over 90% of those drugs come from legal points of entry. If you want to solve the problem a wall won’t do it. There’s many other better ideas that border patrol thinks would work a lot better like better screening equipment and more staff
Only if they change the law to kill them that day. No appeals. No sitting on death row for years wasting tax payer dollars.
So you're perfectly fine with the justice system failing and killing an innocent man -good to hear
Not even in the most extreme circumstances.
Life is a fundamental and natural right. Natural rights cannot be “forfeit” because of a past action. Executing an unarmed person for something they did in the past is a complete violation of their natural right to live. The only time taking someone’s life is acceptable is during an actual act where they are actively threatening to take another person’s life, liberty, or property.
I say all of this as someone who was adamantly pro-capital punishment up until January of last year. So much so that I would make polls about people on death row on their date of execution highlighting their actions. I had to be intellectually honest with myself and realize that it was inconsistent with my philosophy on natural rights.
What makes you say that life is a fundamental and natural right? Especially for someone who’s committed egregious crimes? Especially for someone who’s had the audacity to take OTHER lives?
Two wrongs don't make a right...
So you’re against abortion.
It's not an action that I would ever take however what people do behind closed doors that doesn't affect me isn't something I should make a judgment over.
What actually talking about pro-choice pro-life I fall on the pro-choice side. Simply because I feel something - doesnt mean I want to impose my feeling on another.
There is also a grave difference between what we allow each other to do and what we allow our government to do.
Yes, but your point would only be valid if you can establish that killing a defenseless person is ALWAYS wrong. My contention is that that’s not always the case.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right”... well, only one of these two wrongs is actually wrong, which would be murdering innocent people. But executing a murderer is not necessarily a wrong.
"Killing a person is always wrong"
That's actually not my position at all.
Allowing the government to take lives of its own citizens is where I have the problem.
There are plenty of good reasons a person could be killed.
No, all life is sacred. It all needs to be protected equally under the law
I'm sorry, those two statements sound oddly contradictory. This must be a mistake on my side. Would you care to elaborate?
Only on terrorists, not United States citizens
But most people who carry out terrorist attacks in the United States are American citizens. So then what?
So true SnotBubble! I also abhor the idea that if you’re an American citizen, your life is more important.
Hmmm... so if you’re an American, the law treats you more favorably than if you’re not American... is that not by definition racism? Also, citizens can be terrorists too, remember?
Yeah, I know, I noticed that it isn’t technically racist while I was writing that comment. But you’re still treating humans differently based solely on the origins of their birth. It’s equally bad as racism. You’re missing my point.
Not only support it but would like to see something like the “Hunger Games” and “Survivor” combined where you put some really evil people (murderers/rapists/terrorists) together on an island, give them each a gun with 3 rounds. If they kill someone they get their gun. Last man standing gets his freedom.
Pray for me.
@glockman I'm all for penal colonies, where do you stand on that?
I support it and more. We should have public hangings, and in certain cases some torture
Only in severe cases with absolute proof of crime
Yes, although I'm 100% willing to do away with the death penalty completely except in the military during wartime where Congress actually declares war, because the battlefield is different, in exchange for a ban on abortion except when the life of the mother is in imminent danger. The mother gets a choice in that case.
What about cases of incest or rape; do you believe abortion is a viable option?
That's gonna be a no on the incest unless it creates a life threatening situation for the mother. I personally lean no on the rape exception, but I am willing to negotiate on that one. For any rape exception negotiations, 2 criteria must be met. (1) The woman reports the rape to law enforcement. (2) A judge or the lead prosecutor must sign off on a form that basically says that police believe a crime may have taken place AND that they believe there may be enough evidence to support the case if given a reasonable amount of time to investigate.
A few things to note.
i. The child may be aborted at any point during the pregnancy, with the exception of during the 9th month, so long as the criteria for the exception are met.
ii. In the rape case, if we negotiate that as an exception, there will be no penalty for the woman, even if the case never is brought to trial, unless she lies to the police or deliberately misleads them.
Is what I'm saying understandable?
Republicans obviously forgot they are pro-life.
Babies are innocent and have no voice. Murders and rapists ARE NOT INNOCENT. Sad you can’t see the difference.
Your criticism is of Christ, who taught that everyone is loved by God equally and can be forgiven their sins no matter how heinous.
I'm prolife. Because I am prolife I am anti-captital-punishment.
All life is sacred and God given. We have no right to take anyone's life as long as we can keep them from harming others.
Christian conservatives are pro- innocent life.
They are not give a shit about life itself.
And would rather the government put their hands where does not belong.
They are pro life until the baby is born. After birth, it is none of their problem.
1. True Christians should be pro-life from conception to natural death. This is the view of the Catholic Church and anyone who disagrees is not truly Catholic.
2. Christians donate far more money, time, and resources to CPCs, food banks, charities, adoption agencies, and orphanages. Churches are still huge for aiding these things. The Catholic Church has it's own CPCs, Orphanages, and adoption agencies and most have food pantries and outreach for the poor.
I didn't say Christian's, I said Republicans. And do you know for a fact that Christians donate more?
I'd go so far as to say far more Republicans are Christians than Democrats.
I would say that more Republicans call themselves Christian's, even though a good portion really dont k ow what that means.
@raidadave that's a fair criticism
Ya, I can agree that that a well.
I think the death penalty is the easy way out. Sitting in a cage for the rest of life with no possibility of parole is a much more harsh penalty.
It may be more harsh but the victims families get NO CLOSURE.
Someone being locked up in jail to rot in a cage is closure. Ending someone's life to make someone happy when they aren't a threat anymore is murder.
A bullet to the head ends the problem permanently. These criminals get old. They need medical care. You pay for it.
That's not respect for life like Jesus told us to have.
Killing a defenseless human being however evil is wrong. You want to deny certain medical care to inmates that's one thing. Outright murder is another
“That's not respect for life like Jesus told us to have.”
Where can I find that in the Bible?
May he without sin cast the first stone?
The bible also endorses stoning gays and killing babies, I think I’ll choose a different source to find my moral guidance.
“The bible also endorses stoning gays and killing babies, I think I’ll choose a different source to find my moral guidance.”
What you are referring to are the Old Testament Mosaic Laws. There were 613 of them. They were given to Moses by God FOR THE JEWS ONLY. They were not for any other people living at that time. In addition....once Christ was crucified a NEW COVENANT was formed between God and man and the OT Mosaic Laws were nullified. I’m glad I could clarify that for you as many folks don’t understand.
“May he without sin cast the first stone?”
Jesus was speaking to ONE group of people concerning ONE PERSON’s sin. Trying to apply this to the death penalty is a stretch.
AJ- the Constitution banned alcohol and the law was changed. The old testament law of the Jews was law that was to be followed by God's people until the savior came. If you read Acts of the Apostles you would know that God overturned those laws.
Glock - Jesus wasn't really into the stoning someone to death for breaking the law thing. That whole mercy and forgiveness thing was kind of the sticking point of Jesus' moral teachings. "He without sin cast the first stone", "Judge lest ye be judged", the parable of the unmerciful servant and his master... Any of these ringing any bells? What you are talking about isn't justice, it's murder and goes directly against Jesus'teachings
Glock - "he was talking to 1 group of people in this 1 instance"
Jesus' teachings weren't circumstantial, they were universal. This is what bothers me with protestantism. You say you are Sola Scriptura and then twist scripture to mean what you want instead of what it actually means.
My explanation can be found here:
Really glock? Do you think that victims' families ever get closure at all?
I hate when people use links to defend their point of view. If you can't defend it yourself then you having that opinion just means it fits your narrative. Give me New Testament Bible verses to defend your pov. I gave you mine.
You asked where it is in the Bible. I told you. It's your turn now. Not some half baked cruddy Christian website.
I’m opposed because it’s barbaric.
As time has gone on, I've reached a spot where I think it should be abolished. I don't see a point anymore. It seems more harmful than useful.
No, there are worse things than death
The state shouldn’t have the ability to terminate life except when necessary to protect others. And even then it should only be used when there aren’t any other options.
Capital punishment is just that: a punishment. And a disgusting one. It isn’t necessary to protect anyone. The person being killed is already in custody and is no longer a threat to the community.
Only for white collar crimes.
Look out everyone! Someone is being edgy and controversial! /s
Nope. It's just practical. Punishment can only discourage those crimes that are carefully thought out. Most murders don't fit the bill. Things like securities fraud do, though...
(I may have interpreted your /s in the wrong direction, if so: oops)
Because you want to use it for vengeance.
Because 1) their crimes cause WAY more social harm than a murder and 2) if you execute one or two, it will serve as a massive deterrent and make those career criminals on Wall Street think twice before cheating.
No, except for cases going through the military legal system.
I'm against it because A) life without parole is a worse punishment and B) evidence exonerating the convict may come to light at a later time.
LWOP is a worse punishment than capital punishment. Taking an injection of overjuiced sleeping drugs like a sick dog is a much easier "way out" than contemplating your actions in a small white box for several decades.
The only reason it’s ineffective is bc they don’t kill them fast enough. Takes 40 years. It’s basically life in prison
Coffee a death penalty trial takes a long time to make as sure as possible the person is guilty. And we still make mistakes.
And most of those cases are applying current DNA technology to cases where they didn’t have it when the trial took place. Let’s not take cases that were tried in 1970 and pretend they have the same accuracy as those tried today
Coffee as far as I’m concerned if one innocent man dies then the system is flawed.
Don’t worry, the system is flawed way beyond that
True but killing innocent people is still bad
And the death penalty is t a deterrent.
Common knowledge. I know. I don’t support it because it deters people. I support it because it has a 0% recidivism rate. Can’t beat that 👍
And innocent people are killed.
Yeah literally everyone agrees that’s bad. That’s why technology has advanced in this area.
Also can we stop pretending like putting an innocent person to death is bad but putting them in jail for life and releasing them when they’re 90 is SOO much better? It’s tiring
Yes we don’t want to convict innocent people. I (I won’t use we bc I’m not sure about you) don’t want to bankrupt the country keeping thugs and criminals alive who murdered people. Obviously there is room for improvement
Actually life in prison is cheaper.
Don’t be dense. They are BOTH in prison. The added costs is the appeals. I’ve had this conversation with you before, you’re repeating talking points that would be borderline appropriate to someone who you’ve never talked to about this before. This is just awkward
And if we lower the number of appeals then more innocent people will die which is bad.
Let’s follow this logic, shall we? Better yet, don’t even lock anyone up. It’s immoral to take away someone’s life rotting in prison for something they didn’t do
If someone is convicted of a crime, set them free and allow them to appeal forever. Then we’ll never put an innocent man in prison.
Fun slippery slope argument you’ve got there. Seriously is that your best defense?
That’s your own logic!
Why is it OK to lock someone in a cell who might be innocent? They cannot get that time back, it is gone forever. Why do you think that’s OK?
I don’t but I think that at some point a line needs to be drawn and I draw it at killing people. I also think we need to make serious improvements to our prison system to focus them more on rehabilitation but that’s another issue.
Ah that’s the first reasonable thing you’ve said. Yes, that’s where you draw the line. Others draw it elsewhere. Either way you’re potentially harming innocent people, even using your line
Yes and I never said I wasn’t. I think your hearing a lot of things that I’m not saying.
You heavily implied it by saying where I draw the line means potential to harm innocents which implies yours doesn’t. Don’t be intellectually dishonest
I talked about killing innocent people you’re the one who lowered that to harming them.
Yes that’s what we’re talking about....harming innocent people. Both our lines allow for this.
Again I was talking about killing not harming. You are the one who claimed that I am against harming innocent people (which in principle I am but I allow that it is sometimes necessary)
Lol, you can’t retroactively remove a subset of a topic we’re talking about once you realize it makes you a hypocrite
I swear koro, there are people who are worse people than you on SoH, but no one is more intellectually dishonest in a debate than you
Coffee quote me where I said “I am against the death penalty because it harms innocent people.”
And if you think kill and harm mean the same thing then logically anyone who hurts another person is no better than a murderer.
Here we go with the playing dumb routine
Koro, I am talking about harming innocent people. You were too, in the context of the DP, it was only after I pointed out your hypocrisy that you were like “oh uhhhh I was just talking about a CERTAIN subset of harm, not ALL harm, certainly not the kind that proves I’m a hypocrite”
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO TALKED ABOUT HARMING PEOPLE.
From the beginning of this conversation I have specified that I am talking about killing innocent people. Seriously point to any time I used the word harm as opposed to kill.
Yes you’ve established you’ve been playing dumb
How? I don’t want innocent people to be killed I have not said anything that should leave you to believe anything otherwise. You on the other hand have decided that since you were talking about people being harmed I was talking about that as well.
This is just sad
Your insistence that was talking about harming people based on me talking about killing people? Yes it’s very sad.
No, it’s sad you play dumb
Ok koro, your dumb game is noted.
Anyway, so you agree where you draw the line on criminal justice harms innocent people, right?
Okay you know what I’ve tried to argue with you in good faith but you’ve refused to do so. If you ever decide you want to actually debate an issue let me know but this has left a sour taste in my mouth. Have a nice day I won’t be replying anymore (and this doesn’t mean you won it means I’m not willing to put up with your nonsense)
That’s what I just did! You’re unreal. You get called out for hypocrisy, play dumb, then I say ok fine whatever and reframe the discussion to accommodate your playing dumb game, and then you realize you’d actually have to debate now and you flee
You’d never admit it to me, but I hope at least you admit your hypocrisy to yourself. Glad I made you recognize that your own beliefs mean you are OK with harming innocent people
No. The government shouldn't ever have the power to forcibly commit murder.
The existence of a state is largely predicated on its monopoly of violence.
Prince, that's why we have the second amendment... So they don't have a monopoly.
The govt should not be able to kill defenseless people, period.
On that note, from my previous post it should be clear how I voted. I don’t agree with capital punishment because I don’t want the government to have that power.
That said, in a society that has capital punishment - it should be reserved for those who do the most harm to society.
Dirty politicians, judges, lawyers, and cops do more harm than someone whose killed a single person.
Businessmen who swindle millions from average people do more harm than a petty theft that kills someone in a robbery.
Way more harm. We shouldn’t execute anyone. But if we’re gonna, we’re killing the wrong people.
Man I’m making a lot of dumb grammatical errors this morning. I swear I know the difference between whose and who’s!
It’s SO bizarre to me that so many Libertarians vote yes on this.
You’re whole thing is limiting government power but you’re totally ok with giving the government the right to decide between life and death?
Letting the government decide when they can kill you is way too much power and a lot worse than too many taxes or them taking your toys away (ie guns)
Yes. But the system is busted.
I support capital punishment. At the top of my list is anyone who deliberately tortures, rapes, neglects or causes harm to minors.
Anyone who causes harm to a minor?
Wow that’s a broad statement. You could fry millions with that one.
@truenuff you know what she means fuck off,
Wow Iiddle if you were actually relevant to... well anything at all, maybe someone would take you seriously.
But since you’re an idiot it looks like people will continue to look at you like the fool you are.
@Amaricanguy that hurt. That realllllyyyyy hurt. 😂
Whoa.. my comment isn’t worthy of a big argument. Let’s drop it.
For murderers, rapists and pedophiles, yes. Bring back public hangings and show people what will happen to you if you commit such atrocities.
Yes in very particular cases.
Yes. It is the punishment for treason and murder. I don't believe in reforming killers nor betrayers. Take their heads or hang them and be done with it.
As long as there’s undeniable evidence that the accused person is indeed guilty, and the crime was that heinous, I see no problem with it. I would also prefer not to use tax dollars to pay for their life in prison.
You do realize it's cheaper to send them to prison for life, right? Death row inmates drain more tax dollars.
That’s definitely part of the problem.
I did until DNA testing proved several people on death row were innocent. The penalty can not be undone or compensated for if the person is proven falsely convicted. One wrongful death penalty makes us, society, the murderer.
Isn’t that kind of counterintuitive though? DNA testing did prove that several people on death row are innocent, but it also allows us to ensure that the number of innocent people there will be zero. I personally think we should take every measure possible to make sure that not only these tools are available, but also affordable so less legal money is spent reaching a verdict.
Just set up an oopsie fund and make any unfortunate mishaps a plaque. We need not undermine justice for a few mistakes.
DNA testing does *not* ensure that the number of innocent people will be zero. DNA analysis provides a powerful forensic tool, but it’s still just a tool. The evidence provided by DNA analysis has to be used and interpreted correctly.
Just because a specific person’s DNA was found on an object at a crime scene (on a gun, on shell casings, or even deposited in the vagina of a woman who was raped and murdered), that doesn’t necessarily mean that that person committed the crime. Someone else may have handled the gun and the shooter wore gloves. Someone else may have loaded the magazine and then their gun was stolen and used to kill someone. Someone else may have had a consensual sexual relationship with the victim, and the rapist/killer used a condom or did not ejaculate.
DNA is a tool. Not a death sentence, in itself.
And a huge “also” that I forgot:
Also, DNA is the determining evidence in only a portion of cases. I haven’t looked at actual recent statistics, but sometimes there’s no DNA to test, or none that would serve as proof of guilt. I’m pretty sure that people are still tried and convicted based on other evidence (which can sometimes be used & interpreted incorrectly) without DNA being used at all.