Third Party & Independents: Archives

I oppose the death penalty, for these simple reasons:
1. As you mentioned the fact that the justice system is highly fallible, makes it impossible in some cases to clearly determine whether you’ve got the right guy or not. Hence, I don’t believe that a system that is fraught with uncertainity should be able to award punishments that are so unretractable in nature.
2.I once read about some poll that was conducted amongst prisoners on death row and those serving life sentences that the majority of them say that they would rather live than die. So, while there’s nothing super about an innocent man rotting in a jail cell, he’d most likely tell you that he’d prefer it to death.
3.I don’t disagree that there are some crimes that warrant death, infact most people who oppose the death penalty will agree , that some people by virtue of their behaviour , forgoe the right to live.However, since you can never be sure about whether you caught the right man, I think it’s too much of risk being taken.

I watched Dead Man Walking a while ago, and what struck me about the film more than anything was that Sean Penn’s character hoped that the family of the couple that he killed would get some closure from his death. But I don’t see why they could’nt get closure from the fact that he was rotting away in a maximum security prison for the rest of his life.
You can’t award the death penalty unless,as you said, there is no room for doubt as to the guilt of the accussed. I just think it’s too much of risk to be taking.

Misha:

You put forth a very good discussion of the death penalty, but you are flawed in one major aspect. Kerry does NOT oppose the death penalty. I’ve found this absolutely surprising, since so many on the liberal side are against the “morality” as well as the application of the death penalty.

Kerry is on record as saying he would apply the death penalty in cases of terrorism (though this is a flip flop from a previous position where he said the death penalty for terrorism would simply cause other countries to disallow extradition of terrorists to the US).

By saying he would support the death penalty, but only for a certain crime, he cannot say that he opposes it. He CAN say that he favors it only for crimes that rise to a certain specific level, whereas Bush supports it in more instances. But he can no longer say that he opposes the death penalty. It will be interesting to see whether his position will be correctly addressed in the media, and whether it will affect those who truly oppose the death penalty.

thanks for that info joe, I did not know that.

Kerry is against the death penalty? During the war on terror? The guy is crazy. So that’s why hew’s always unsure when he gets questions about what should be done to Saddam and Bin Laden. After the Twin Towers he’s against the death penalty? Howww can you trust a guy to kill our enemies if he is against killing? Mindboggling.

One thing about the death penalty I’ve never understood is how people thing it’s a worse punisment. Personally, I’d rather be executed than life in jail without parole - they’re both death sentences, just one involves rotting in jail for 80 years.

Howww can you trust a guy to kill our enemies if he is against killing?

Oh, bullshit. War and criminal justice are utterly different things. Let’s recall that Kerry killed people - quite successfully - in Vietnam, whilst Bush puttered around in Texas.

Also, from JohnKerry.com: “Kerry told reporters at the press conference he believes bin Laden should be tried in the United States and given the death penalty.”

Death penalty is probably the one issue I tend to side with the conservatives on. I think that there are just some crimes too heinous to not sentance one to death, whether an act of murder on a grand scale (Timothy McVeigh) or an act of unthinkable cruelty (those responsible for James Byrd Jr.’s dragging death). I also think that on some level the death penalty could be some deterrant to senseless killings like gang violence.

I also support the death penalty, because if one takes a human life, then one obviously doesn’t have much respect for human life.

However, in its present state I see many problems with the death penalty. Most troubling to me is the number of “Death Row” prisoners exonerated, and the finality of this punishment. How many of those executed would have been exonerated?

There also needs to be something done to reduce the costs involved. While it now costs twice as much to try a death penalty case, I’m guessing in part due to the countless appeals, there needs to be a way to reduce this. Hopefully, the new technology that is helping free wrongly convicted can be implemented at the original trial to conclusively determine guilt. It pains me to see millions of dollars spent to house death row prisoners when that money could be much better used on schools, healthcare, public safety, etc.

I find it funny that people who are so pro-death penalty are also anti-abortion…..

no comment…just a funny fact.

While I’m pro-choice and ambivalent towards the death penalty, there doesn’t seem to be any logical disconnect there.

The position of anti-choicers is that abortion kills an innocent person.

This is what Kerry says about the death penalty NOW:
http://www.talkleft.com/archives/005534.html
This is what he said THEN:
http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001540.html
I
s it just me or does it seem that he’s shifted his stance more based on what’ll get him votes, than on what he really believes. I think that if the man wants to get elected he should just stand firm and refuse to compromise his principles, voters would probably respect him more for that.

Suhasini: Um… if you read those links, he supports a Federal moratorium on the death penalty in both cases. I’m failing to see the fabled “flip-flop”…

1. it looks like Kerry flip-flopped on the issue of whether terrorists should be given the death penalty, in the very least. Perhaps you could make the case that in 1996 terrorism wasnt in the same context it is now, and so while the death penalty wasnt appropriate for terrorists then, it is in a post 9/11 world. Now I think this is a plausible argument, I think Kerry’s real reason is to get more votes. Another cynical politician abandoning his ideals most likely, oh well.

2.Ï find it interesting that the same people who care so much about protecting the worst murderers from execution after a lengthy trial, convinction and numerous appeals also have no interest in protecting the lives of innocent unborn children. See- i can turn that right around on you :)

3. Thanks for the good responses all around on this post, this is a tough issue with no clear cut answers, as I see it.

The problem I have with the death penalty is it hasn’t been proven as any kind of effective deterent. So I say let’s chose the punishment that costs taxpayers the least. Reform of the system leads to a greater chance of more innocent people dying. It just seems easier to lock people away.

Since we are all coming clean, Me: social Liberal, fiscal Conservative…guess that makes me a Dem Centrist. Oh, by the way, I support the Death Penalty.

I support it not as a deterrent, but simply punishment for a capital crime.

Misha, I just knew your stat of executions by race, was dead wrong. Thanks for the revelation.

However, as Blacks are only 10% of the population, they make up 34% of death row inmates. Recently, another stat floored me: 18% of the Black male population will be ineligible to vote in November, due to crime convictions.

I will not deny or challenge the societal truths about crime in the Black community, reflected in these stats. However, partly due to race, class and wealth, there is injustice throughout our legal system.

Here in Illinois, we had a Republican Governor place a moratorium on executions, not because he opposed the death penalty, but because the system was broken. Info found here:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=483

It amazed me that for a punishment so severe, due process was riddled with errors, inadequate legal representation, misconduct and faulty appeals process. And, no one gave a damn.

I say rule of law should always make the determination of whether the death penalty should be applicable or not. If the death penalty is revoked in this land because we agree in a majority that it is wrong for the state to be involved in the deliberate act of taking a sentient human life, then that law and not your or my feelings or anyone else’s should have any influence on the applicability of that law, whether it be applicable to an armed robber who kills or to Osama bin Laden. We are a nation governed by rule of law, not rule of human passion. For god’s sake, let us not fall into right and left camps of dissent over this principle - if we do - anarchy shall be barking at our heels before long.

Once imposed, it can never be rescinded. At least in prison you can be let out if found innocent. As the risk to society is quite limited once someone is jailed, the marginal increase in safety gained by killing the crook is minimal. This gain is far outweighed by the slight, though extreme, risk of killing an innocent person. When you weigh the equities, how can any moral person be in favor?
This analysis is possibly inapposite in wartime or when terror is afoot. Possibly because the duty is less to non-citizens or because the risk of terrorism is different than the run of the mill crook. I have yet to noodle it out.

I share Misha’s ambivalence (and apparently a lot of us watchbloggers seem to as well) on this issue.

I do not, for example, on principle oppose the state killing dangerous people. It seems to me that states do have this power, whether it is in waging war, preventing violent crimes, or punishing the worst criminals. I do, however, question the logic behind the death penalty from a practical point of view.

First, it seems arbitrary: I generally distrust prosecutors and juries to make sound judgements about who gets and who does not get the death penalty. Outside of the obvious racial disparity, there seems to also be a simple *random* disparity between who gets the death penalty and who does not. Race is an issue, but so is the private ethics of the prosecutor, the political climate at the time of the trial, the idiosyncrasies of the judge and jury. There is no consistently-followed guideline for its application. The desired effect of the punishment, deterrence, is undermined by this because criminals have good reason to beleive that the law is arbitrary. There is no clear link between crime and punishment.

Ultimately, there are only two convincing arguments for the death penalty:
1) Deterrence
2) Revenge
3) Closure for victims

On the issue of deterrence, I’ve heard numerous arguments that the death penalty simply does not work as a deterrent. Even if these arguments were not statistically compelling, I would tend to believe them, for common sense tells me that a murderer probably doesn’t weigh the options of “life in prison” versus “death” before committing their crime.

I like the idea of reserving the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. It’s probably easy to get a broad agreement that people who deliberately plan to kill lots of people - i.e., terrorists and war criminals - should get this penalty. It may even work as a deterrent, insofar as these are not usually crimes of passion, but rather they are crimes that are deeply contemplated in advance.

But even then there are questions. I remember thinking about how there was no doubt that Timothy McVeigh surely deserved to die. But then I heard a Oklahoma City victim’s family member point out that McVeigh didn’t ever say hardly anything about his crime. He never implicated other people or described in depth what drove him to do it. Now that he’s dead, we may never know if he was trained and ordered by another person or group. The death penalty robs us of potentially useful insight into the minds and methods of evil.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that a person who has psyched themselves up to kill a dozen people in a terrorist attack would have much concern for their own life either, as suicide bombers prove to us almost weekly. So in the end I even deeply doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty on planned crimes.

So it probably doesn’t work for premedited terrorism, and it probably doesn’t work for crimes of passion. It seems to me that the death penalty just can’t work as a deterrent.

What about “Revenge”? (Remember that I have no inherent problem with the state killing people on behalf of its citizens. I just don’t think of human life as something so precious that it cannot *ever* be taken.) I do, however, have a moral issue with revenge, insofar as it seems to be something with no moral justification. Practically, revenge is a technique devoid of logic, and I think it has no place in our penal code. So I reject the “Revenge” argument.

With regards to “Closure”, my impression is that most victims find that closure is not acheived after the death penalty is administered. It seems to me that those victims who hope for closure may in fact be euphemizing their totally understandable thirst for revenge. So for both practical and moral reasons, I don’t buy the “Closure” argument either.

In short, I think that there is nothing inherently *morally* wrong with capital punishment. I do, however, think that there is nothing *logically* right about it. It’s just not useful or practical. It doesn’t seem to work, and there are cases where it does more harm than good.

I also oppose the death penalty on (I can’t think of a better term) “aesthetic” grounds. It seems that, in general, the reduction and removal of the death penalty is a trend that has been going on for a thousand years in the civilized world. Part of me feels that maintaining the death penalty is like we still have witch trials or a flat earth. It just seems medeival and backwards and dumb. It’s like we’re on the wrong side of history.

Furthermore, if America were to renounce the death penalty entirely, we would be able to acheive a moral high ground internationally. The world will see that we are smarter and more civilized than countries like China and Saudi Arabia, where the death penalty is applied willy-nilly.

I oppose the death penalty, but my opposition would probably barely influence my vote for a candidate. Unless the candidate was a callous panderer who used the death penalty as a political stepping stone, or if the candidate seemed to have no concerns whatsoever about the racial disparity of its application or for the crummy trials many of these criminals get. So, for example, President Bush’s callous review of cases in Texas (he never read any of them before signing off on them) and his oblivious denial of potential miscarriages of justice makes me oppose him even more. The simple fact that he’s in favor of the death penalty doesn’t affect my opposition to him, but his complete lack of reflection on the issue certainly does.

-Cf

“Ultimately, there are only two convincing arguments for the death penalty:
1) Deterrence
2) Revenge
3) Closure for victims”
Christopher Fahey

Christopher, I did not take the time to read your entire post, as I was in a hurry. But i DID get a nice chuckle out of this excerpt (hopefully a typo)

Yep, I screwed up. D’oh!

-Cf

I heard an interesting explanation for Kerry’s apparent flip-flop. In the 90s, his opposition to the death penalty for terrorism was based on the fact that most of Europe vehemently opposes capital punishment, and we’d probably not get terrorists extradited here because other countries would refuse to hand over people who might be executed.

He changed his position after 9/11 because he felt that other countries would be more likely to extradite to the US despite capital punishment because of the severity of 9/11.

Just wanted to reiterate that Kerry’s current position is against the death penalty, except for terrorists. So worrys that he couldn’t prosecute the War on Terror shouldn’t be grounded on his death penalty stance.

Sebastian:

I enjoyed that you included the phrase “Kerry’s CUURENT position” (emphasis is mine)in your comments. It shows that one can count on Kerry, at least until the next change in his position, to prosecute the war on terror.

I still fail to see how someone can be AGAINST the death penalty, while FOR it in certain circumstances. That is still being for the death penalty—-it simply sets specific terms for when it should be used.

A little honesty from Kerry would be refreshing.

The death penalty is a great example of a political paradox.

Yes, it is primarily an instrument of revenge. Notice who shows up for an execution? Usually, it is the victim’s relatives and state witnesses. If the public really wanted the death penalty, lethal injections would be televised on the evening news. Our culture really doesn’t like to kill people. Why do inmates get a special last dinner? Who should care what the person eats? Maybe just a public guilty conscience?

The paradox is that liberals are more likely to oppose the death penalty while conservatives will more likely approve. Why is the killing of an unborn fetus just the opposite politically as killing an adult? Liberals embrace abortions while conservatives are right to life. It’s like the burning of the American flag. Liberals say the flag doesn’t mean anything and is just an object. Yet, when someone hoists the Confederate flag, it is mean spirited and a sure fire sign of racism.

Someone help me out here.