Poll: Do you support capital punishment?

[Colleen]

I've wanted to post this poll for some time now, and am compelled to do so by today's Supreme Court ruling. In re Kennedy v. Louisiana, the justices ruled 5 to 4 that capital punishment isn't constitutionally permissible for violent crimes that don't result in the death of the victim. The case specifically pertained to the rape of a child. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy noted, "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." This essentially doesn't deviate from the long-standing Court opinion that capital punishment be reserved for crimes that involve the death of the victim(s).

 

I oppose capital punishment. Having said that, if we are going to apply the death penalty, I don't agree that it should be reserved solely for instances in which the victim was killed.

 

What's your stance on capital punishment?

[Crissy]

Unless and until we can prevent even one innocent man or woman from being executed, I cannot support capital punishment.

[MomofSeven]

but I'm way too emotive to ever come to a conclusion as to what specific crimes warrant it. Off the cuff, I'd say anything that involves babies, children, and or se*ual molestation.

 

Curious to see what the results are.

[nmoira]

I don't think we have the right to take life. We do, however, have the right to protect society by passing true life sentences. I am adamantly against capital punishment no matter the nature of the crime. Aside from vengeance, what is the point? You can't kill anyone unless they're already in custody, so it's not like killing an inmate makes outside society safer. There is also no conclusive proof that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and even if there were, how do you then factor in the worth of the life of the occasional innocent person executed?

[Murphy101]

I believe there are situations where capital punishment is just.

 

HOWEVER, I also believe our system is so flawed in it's disbursement of justice, that it would be imprudent to trust it to not send the wrong person death.

 

For that reason alone, I oppose the legalitzation of it 99% of the time.

 

I believe it should be only when there is no doubt of guilt after all of the facts are presented in a murder case. For example, someone was seen committing the crime and/or admits murder and there is supporting evidence they did it.

 

Believe it or not, there are actually excremely rare cases where those criteria are met. The shaken grounds used to convict some to life/death are really rather shocking.

 

And it is not equal regardless of race or income. You can have the exact same crime/evidence and get very different sentences. That I do not agree with. If it is a just punishment, then it's just for anyone who commits such a crime. Unfortunately juries and judges and DAs do not dispense justice that way. They make deals, they give credit for having a good public image, and lawyers slant information and judges withhold information from juries.

 

So I think there are a few crimes where death is justified for the perpetrator, but I don't trust our system and would rather not risk putting an innocent person to death.

[Aubrey]

I can't say.

 

Logically, yes. Absolutely. It doesn't make sense to me to waste resources maintaining the life of a dangerous criminal or to take the risk of having him/her escape.

 

On the other hand...I sometimes imagine what it must do to the soul of the person who has the job of executioner, & I have almost come to the conclusion that even if we could be CERTAIN that no innocent person would ever be wrongly convicted...the damage to the internal life of the person whose job is to inject the poison, pull the trigger, whatever, would be too great a cost.

 

So I guess maybe that means I'm against it, but... barely. Is that a choice?

 

And I know the argument that if it were *my* child who had suffered the horrible crime, I'd feel differently. To some extent, that may be true, but I think that's one of the blessings of our system: if it's MY child, *I* don't make the decision regarding punishment. It would be too hard.

 

So. How do I vote?

[Crissy]

And I know the argument that if it were *my* child who had suffered the horrible crime, I'd feel differently.

 

I've heard that, too. Thankfully, it wasn't one of my children who suffered.

It was my brother who was murdered. It was shocking, it was violent and it was awful.

I still oppose the death pentalty.

[Aubrey]

I've heard that, too. Thankfully, it wasn't one of my children who suffered.

It was my brother who was murdered. It was shocking, it was violent and it was awful.

I still oppose the death pentalty.

 

Oh, Crissy. I'm so sorry. I'm *so* sorry. I can't imagine.

[3lilreds in NC]

I can't support capital punishment. I used to. It makes sense to *me* that someone would be put to death for killing someone else.

 

But....

 

Romans 12:19 (NIV)

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

 

It's in God's hands. I don't want to take away one second of someone's life when Christ could come in and redeem them. As abhorrent as their crime might be, as sick as what they have done makes me feel, their life IS NOT MINE. I didn't create it and it's not up to me how it ends.

 

I know there are many sick, disgusting, horrible crimes committed for which *I* would like to see people put to death. If it were my child/husband/relative who had been brutally murdered or raped, would I still feel this way? I hope so. I would have a mighty wrestling match inside my soul but it's just not up to me. God knows and He will take care of it.

[battlemaiden]

For the cases of child rape or repeat child molesters I would much prefer chemical or physiological castration. I don't think the death penalty would be appropriate in that situation.

 

Jo

[battlemaiden]

I can't support capital punishment. I used to. It makes sense to *me* that someone would be put to death for killing someone else.

 

But....

 

 

 

Romans 12:19 (NIV)

 

 

 

 

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

 

It's in God's hands. I don't want to take away one second of someone's life when Christ could come in and redeem them. As abhorrent as their crime might be, as sick as what they have done makes me feel, their life IS NOT MINE. I didn't create it and it's not up to me how it ends.

 

I know there are many sick, disgusting, horrible crimes committed for which *I* would like to see people put to death. If it were my child/husband/relative who had been brutally murdered or raped, would I still feel this way? I hope so. I would have a mighty wrestling match inside my soul but it's just not up to me. God knows and He will take care of it.

 

The government bears the sword. They have the responsibily to maintain justice and order in a society (however faulty they may be in carrying out that responsibility). I think the verse you quote is out of context.

 

Jo

[DB in NJ]

You need to add a "sometimes" button.

 

It's such a complex issue, and my feelings on it are just as complex. I go back and forth, depending on the circumstances. I can see both sides and agree with both sides and disagree with both sides.

 

How's that for a straight answer? ;)

[KidsHappen]

I am for the most part opposed to capital punishment certainly for anything less than multiple victim violent crimes, however, if someone was in the process of hurting or trying to hurt a loved one, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger myself. So I guess you could say that I am not ideologically or philosphically oppossed. Most of my concerns are of a practical nature. I also have no problem with idea of castration of repeat sexual offenders or serial killers along with life long confinement.

[Peela]

I wish we would outgrow the whole eye for an eye thing. I can't understand, myself, how a supposedly Christian culture can actually support the killing of anyone as punishment. Kind of goes completely against what Jesus taught, surely. Sure I support putting people away from society, for life even, to protect the innocent, but killing them just seems absolutely barbarious. But then again, so do many things. We think we are civilized, but we are not.

[Philothea]

I think it is just for the state to pass a capital punishment law. I support capital punishment for serious offenders, I don't want to pay for them to sit around in prison for the rest of their lives. Especially when they have committed crimes that give them no right to live. Why should we pay for their free medical care, college education, and cable TV?

 

I think the issue should be left up to states to decide. Though I certainly think that it would be a strong deterrent for people not to commit such unspeakable crimes.

[KidsHappen]

I don't want to pay for them to sit around in prison for the rest of their lives. Especially when they have committed crimes that give them no right to live. Why should we pay for their free medical care, college education, and cable TV?

 

Actually, it cost way more money to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. The legal costs are in the millions and almost always born by the tax payers. It is one of the practical arguments against capital punishment. It is also are good argument as to why prisons should be reserved for serious violent offenders. I certainly to not want to be paying room, board and medical for someone who bought a bag of pot!

[Laurie4b]

I agree, except for the eyewitness being sufficient. Nearly everyone on death row who was freed by the Innocence Project based on DNA was put there by eyewitness testimony. It is too unreliable.

 

Additionally, I will not support capital punishment unless the OT penalty of capital punishment for those who perjure themselves in capital trials is also in place. I don't think that will ever happen. I am afraid there is far too much messing with the evidence by prosecutors and law enforcement (which is a shame to taint the reputation of the many honest people in the criminal justice system.)

[Chris in CA]

Support it, my goodness if the rape of a child doesn't qualify, our country is waayyy off as far as I'm concerned

[nmoira]

 

It is also are good argument as to why prisons should be reserved for serious violent offenders. I certainly to not want to be paying room, board and medical for someone who bought a bag of pot!

:iagree:

[Jackie in NE]

 

I don't want to take away one second of someone's life when Christ could come in and redeem them. As abhorrent as their crime might be, as sick as what they have done makes me feel, their life IS NOT MINE. I didn't create it and it's not up to me how it ends.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Being an accomplished sinner myself, I am in no position to determine the degree of punishment deserved by another. I am only thankful that God does not give me the punishment I deserve, but rather continues to shower me with grace and mercy.

 

Jackie

 

Oh, and I voted "no". :001_smile:

[Karen sn]

Unless and until we can prevent even one innocent man or woman from being executed, I cannot support capital punishment.

 

I agree.

However, if it were my kid - I'd kill the person myself. I know that I would absolutely go insane if anyone EVER harmed my kid. Be she 12 or 62. It would throw me over the thin line of sanity that I already walk so close to.

 

I certainly do not trust in a government of corrupt people to protect or to provide justice of any kind. Seems to me that too many innocent people are behind bars while so many repeat offenders are allowed to walk - and molest, rape, torture, murder, abuse, etc....over and over again.

[Kris]

I used to support it, but I changed my mind a long time ago. It's one of the few things my Sweetie and I disagree on. And the fact innocent people are being released from prison, almost on a daily basis, because of new DNA evidence only solidifies it in my mind.

 

Besides that, I don't think *anyone* has the right to take a human life, and that includes a state employee.

 

I have, fortunately, never been in a position to have to make this kind of decision on a personal basis because of something that has happened to a member of my family or a close friend -- and my heart goes out to you, Crissy. I only hope that if that day ever comes, I'll have the courage of the convictions I hold now.

[Mom to Aly]

I have never understood how you can say--A human being does not have the right to take a life--so I am going to take yours!

 

I think everyone in jail should have to work for their meals and board--just like everyone else. If they do not work, they do not eat, just like everyone else. If they are not able to work, they can apply for help, and get the same budget as anyone else who cannot work. No ac--no cable--no fringe benefits. No one should object, they wouldn't be treated better than anyone else. There are plenty of things they could do to make money, and if they chose not to, and not to eat, that would be there choice.

 

Yes, I am against the death penalty.

[manylilblessings]

I have always philosophically supported the death penalty, but practically not been in favor of it because of the tax burden we bear due to the multiple appeals process. But... a couple of the previous posters have me thinking about my philosophy. "Being an accomplished sinner myself".... those words strike home. I am that... and I am not in a position to judge someone. Yet, our government requires us to judge others as a civic duty. Quandry... pondering.

 

Mom to Aly - I love your work for food idea. Love it...

[Kate CA]

Yes, I do.

[Willow]

I am a Quaker attender.

 

I believe there is that of God in everyone. To kill a person is to kill that which is of God. I believe that taking of life is wrong under ANY circumstances.

 

Willow

[RoughCollie]

I voted that I do not support capital punishment. In reality, I don't care whether other states have the death penalty or not; mine does not. So I speak from that point of view, and although I think death is deserved in death penalty cases, I do not think it is financially prudent.

 

It takes a lot of time and money to wind through the legal process before someone who has received the death penalty is killed.

 

I weigh that money against the space acquired for a future prisoner by putting another one to death, and find that it is not worth the cost.

 

I am firmly for sentences of life with no chance of parole for first degree murderers and for some other crimes. IMO, spending the rest of one's life in prison is worse than being put to death.

 

When a prisoner has a life sentence, the major purpose of imprisonment is achieved, in that the criminal is no longer free to roam the streets and prey on our citizenry.

 

I do not think the death penalty, or any punishment, is much of a deterrent. There are certainly a lot of current prisoners in the U.S., who were convicted of first degree murder, and who never gave a thought to the death penalty before they committed their heinous crimes.

 

In fact, most criminals do not think they will get caught. When they do get caught, they do not want to go to prison and few think they should have to. Yet the recidivism rate is very high. I see no point in giving first degree murderers a second bite at the apple, hence my insistence that life without parole sentences are imperative.

 

There are several types of first degree murderers, from gang members who would just as soon kill you as look at you, to people who are mainly dangerous to their significant others or their children. None of them deserve to be free, ever, whether they are put to death or spend the rest of their days in a maximum security prison.

 

I do not believe God is in everyone. Some people are evil. All first degree murderers are evil, IMO, whether they have been captured and convicted or not. I do not want to discuss "shades" of evil, i.e., whether John Couey is more evil than a psychopathic gang member who kills another psychopathic gang member.

 

This is how Massachusetts defines first degree murder:

 

The unlawful killing of a human being accomplished in one or more of the following modes:

(1) with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought; or

(2) with extreme atrocity or cruelty; or

(3) in the commission or attempted commission of a felony punishable by death or imprisonment for life.

 

A simple explanation of the legal terminology is here: http://www.massmurderdefense.com/pages/murder-1st.html .

 

Yes, these criminals are evil, in my opinion, and should not be free to walk our streets whether that is effectuated by the death penalty or by life in prison with no chance of parole.

[VaKim]

Romans 13

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

[PrairieAir]

I support capital punishment for some very violent crimes which did not result in the death of the victim. There are some crimes in which the perpetrator did not intend to leave the victim alive or did not really care whether the victim survived but by some miracle the victim did survive. I hate to say that a movie has influenced my thinking on this, but I've read of actual crimes that would also fit the bill which I can't remember as well to reference. The movie A Time to Kill is what comes to my mind in thinking about this topic.

[Marie in Oh]

I voted no. I don't know. It has never sat well with me. These are people for whom Christ died. I mean, look at Paul. He was plotting to kill Christ Himself and God changed his heart. It is possible for a hardened criminal to change. Many violent crimes are commintted under the influence of drugs or booze. I am just not sure that it is up to us, and it sure isn't up to our corrupt legal system to figure this out. I lnow there are people sitting in jail right now that have done horrible things. There are also people sitting in jail who are innocent of the crime they are accused of. However, none of us are innocent. All have sinned. Do I deserve death? Yes. But God in his mercy saved me. How then can I say someone deserves to die for what they have done?

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Sometimes I think, "Yes. That person got what they deserved." And then I think to myself, "Dayle, what if you got what you deserved? Where would you be then?" If it wasn't for God's mercy and grace, I would get worse than the death penalty.

 

I really don't know where I stand on this. It's something I don't think I'll resolve on this side of eternity.

[Old Dominion Heather]

I wish we would outgrow the whole eye for an eye thing. I can't understand, myself, how a supposedly Christian culture can actually support the killing of anyone as punishment. Kind of goes completely against what Jesus taught, surely. Sure I support putting people away from society, for life even, to protect the innocent, but killing them just seems absolutely barbarious. But then again, so do many things. We think we are civilized, but we are not.

 

Peela... I thought you might be interested in this quote, though you probably have seen it before. You are correct in thinking that we need to get past this...Christ rejected the whole eye for an eye thing. This is from Matthew, Chapter 5, verses 38-48:

 

An Eye for an Eye

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

 

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

Tall orders! :001_smile: There is disagreement about whether this applies only to individuals or to governments too.

[Kari C in SC]

I've heard that, too. Thankfully, it wasn't one of my children who suffered.

It was my brother who was murdered. It was shocking, it was violent and it was awful.

I still oppose the death pentalty.

 

My sil was murdered extremely violently. Her adopted son will serve 10 years for his crime. Her youngest child will not even be 18 when this killer walks from prison. I supported the death penalty before this crime came into my life and I support it now. I am angry that we know a kid from our neighborhood that served 3 years for selling 10 xanax and driving on a suspended license. Then this killer gets 10 years for stabbing somebody 39 times. The justice makes no sense.

 

ETA - I do not think all criminals deserve the death penalty. I am not even sure this killer does. I DO BELIEVE he needs to be put away for life because he is a danger to society. He still shows no remorse for his crime and that makes him one of the most dangerous kind of people to have walking around.

[Melinda in VT]

Romans 13

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

 

What a fascinating scripture. I completely disagree with it. (I would love to discuss it further, but I won't for fear of de-railing the thread.) Anyway, thanks for posting; I learned something today.

 

(I'm currently re-reading the NT, but I haven't gotten to Romans yet. My religious upbringing focused almost exclusively on the Gospel portion of the NT, so I'm learning a lot.)

 

As for capital punishment, I'm against it, for a combination of reasons expressed by previous posters.

[Old Dominion Heather]

It would be interesting to break the poll down to get an idea of whether those who are opposed also live in non-death penalty states. Virginia just executed someone last night. I think he was the 100th person since it was reinstated 30 years ago. To be honest, I am not sure how I feel about this issue.

 

There are some crimes that I think are spur of the moment "stupid things to do", and often those are the ones that people get the death penalty for. Other crimes, like child rape, have such far reaching consequences and involve people who deliberately plan to cause hurt... torture, really. And those seem worse to me than the "stupid thing" crimes.

[clarkacademy]

I would never want to be responsible to give out a death penalty but then again the whole life in prison thing sucks too. I mean they can go to college for free they do eat pretty well my dad works in a prison so I know this. I see this they eat free live free go to school there are prisons with pools with libraries etc etc. I hate to know that tax dollars pay for this. I do not believe in rehabilitation for violent offenders and I do not believe that a person who can rape and murder a child deserves anything. I agree the whole justice system is bancrupt in every sense. I find it hard to understand that if an officer like my dad is killed odds are his killer will get the death penalty but my little girl could be tortured rapoed killed and her killer could walk free. I love my dad but who can say his life is more than my little girl. I don't think prisons should be so great for those violent offenders. There should be something else for them. I struggled to go to college yet they get it for free. It all seems so wrong to me.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

For the cases of child rape or repeat child molesters I would much prefer chemical or physiological castration./quote]

 

Do you know any stats on the effectiveness? I always thought this too, but it seems I heard/read that these people still act out, no matter what. (Purposely avoiding further discussion of how.) Behind bars is the only way to keep them from offending, save death.

[Ellie]

I oppose capital punishment. Having said that, if we are going to apply the death penalty, I don't agree that it should be reserved solely for instances in which the victim was killed.

 

I'd have to disagree with you there, because I *do* believe it should only be applied in cases where the victim was killed.

[Aubrey]

Actually, it cost way more money to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. The legal costs are in the millions and almost always born by the tax payers. It is one of the practical arguments against capital punishment. It is also are good argument as to why prisons should be reserved for serious violent offenders. I certainly to not want to be paying room, board and medical for someone who bought a bag of pot!

 

Actually, don't you see this as a problem, too? I mean, *if* we're going to execute someone, it sure shouldn't cost *more* than keeping them alive!! It didn't cost *them* anything to hurt their victim(s)!

[LaMere Academy]

I'm for it and in the case you mentioned, I'd definitely be for it. Violent crimes against children should be punishable by death.

[SnowWhite]

I'm against capital punishment.

 

I'm in favor of lifetime imprisonment. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

[bkpan]

I am a Quaker attender.

 

I believe there is that of God in everyone. To kill a person is to kill that which is of God. I believe that taking of life is wrong under ANY circumstances.

 

Willow

 

 

:iagree:

 

Kim

[Colleen]

I don't think we have the right to take life. We do, however, have the right to protect society by passing true life sentences. I am adamantly against capital punishment no matter the nature of the crime.

 

I agree on all counts.

[johnandtinagilbert]

IMO, to use this verse to justify the death penalty is out of context.

 

This area of scripture is to Believers, about the behavior of Believers. When read in whole context, Ch 13 is a continuation from Ch 12 where scripture is telling us how to live in such a way that we can present ourselves blameless, therefore having a better opportunity to minister and share testimony with others. Ch 13 is part of the exhortation that encourages us to follow the law of the land, so we are reputable in our communities. I.e., who's gonna listen to the local drunk, prostitute, gossip, or criminal? If we put ourselves against the law, and become law breakers, then those who follow the law will no longer respect us and we make ourselves less usable for God (in dealing with the law abiding and those who are respecters of the law) If you read to the end of Rom 13, you will see more examples of what we should(n't) do...all with the goal of serving in love.

 

If one reads on to Ch 14, it talks about passing judgment. In the context of this thread, i'd say what is socially appropriate and/or legal in the US is different elsewhere. Would punishment be ok by God's standard for an American, but not a Palestinian? (just picking nations) That does not reflect a judicios, loving Father, IMO

 

So, IMO, these verses (CH 13) were not given for the purpose of telling us to follow the law (or else), but to show us that BY following the law, we make ourselves more usable for more situations by the Lord, not for the purpose to fulfill the law, but for the purpose to better serve God

 

I believe God gives life. it is for him to take away.

 

Humbly,

Tina

"The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and ehatever is not from faith is sin." Rom. 14:22-23

[Colleen]

I considered adding other polling options, but ultimately (as you saw) I went with a simple "Yes" or "No". Not because the issue is simple ~ far from it! But ultimately, one either does or doesn't support capital punishment. If one says, "Well, yes, I do support it, but only in certain circumstances..." ~ then the answer is yes. On the other hand, if the answer is, "I don't know..." ~ as you expressed ~ then the answer is no. I'm enjoying the discussion taking place here, but I wanted the polling options to clearly express a for-or-against response.

[beansprouts]

Sometimes I think, "Yes. That person got what they deserved." And then I think to myself, "Dayle, what if you got what you deserved? Where would you be then?" If it wasn't for God's mercy and grace, I would get worse than the death penalty.

 

I really don't know where I stand on this. It's something I don't think I'll resolve on this side of eternity.

 

I am not about punishment, retribution, or "giving people what they deserve". I am not about finding consequences which equate payment by the criminal for the victim's pain, suffering, and trauma. My views are much more practical than that.

 

The real question is, can this person be rehabilitated. Some crimes are so heinous that the mind that would concieve of them is depraved beyond all human efforts to change it. These people can not ever be a part of society again. Therefore there are only two options: life imprisonment with no possibility of release, or the death penalty.

 

I do not have any moral objection to the death penalty. However, practicality says it just plain does not work. The threat of a death sentance has (AFAIK) not prevented a single crime. The process is extremely expensive. It costs many times more to execute a criminal than it costs to put him in prison for the rest of his life. I think we should ditch the whole process.

 

If it helps you feel better, imprisonment is the "worst possible punishment" for any child offender. In the prison social system they are lower than pond scum.

[beansprouts]

I considered adding other polling options, but ultimately (as you saw) I went with a simple "Yes" or "No". Not because the issue is simple ~ far from it! But ultimately, one either does or doesn't support capital punishment. If one says, "Well, yes, I do support it, but only in certain circumstances..." ~ then the answer is yes. On the other hand, if the answer is, "I don't know..." ~ as you expressed ~ then the answer is no. I'm enjoying the discussion taking place here, but I wanted the polling options to clearly express a for-or-against response.

 

 

I chose "yes" because I have no moral objection to the death penalty. But my complete answer is not that simple.

[Colleen]

You need to add a "sometimes" button. It's such a complex issue, and my feelings on it are just as complex. I go back and forth, depending on the circumstances. I can see both sides and agree with both sides and disagree with both sides. How's that for a straight answer? ;)

 

Of course it's a complex issue. I'm not implying, by offering straight yes-or-no options, that's it's simplistic. I believe if I would have included a "sometimes" option, the majority of people would have chosen that option. I preferred to have the polling cut-and-dried, and allow for the discussion in the actual posts.

[mcconnellboys]

I did not answer because it's just too complex an issue for me to answer with a blanket statement. And I'm going to say some very explicit things about rape later in this post, so please, everyone, don't read it if you think you might faint.

 

If we are truly to follow the commandment not to kill, then we could perhaps put people who commit murder in prison forever and never allow them out under any circumstances(IF we would do that). But then we'd get into the exceptions of the person who was an accomplice, who killed accidentally, in the heat of a moment, and a thousand other exceptions.... It's not always crystal clear when to adjudge someone guilty of "murder". The states have a plethora of differing laws concerning this issue for the very reason that it is just so darn complex.

 

If we truly followed the commandment not to kill we would also never go to war. Could we defend our place in the world if we never, ever, under any circumstances, took up arms? The command not to kill is clear and concise. I would like to follow it. The issues of following it in a nation that is huge and a global power are a lot more complex....

 

I found Alito's dissent of the recent verdict very interesting. In particular, in section II, C2, he speaks of allowing the death penalty in cases of moral depravity. He contrasts an accomplice to a robbery, there when a murder was committed and thus able to be sentenced to death as an accessory, with a serial child rapist, who perhaps tortures his victims, even if he doesn't kill them. Who is more morally depraved and thus more "deserving" of the death penalty? It's a very interesting argument, and if I were a criminal defense attorney anywhere with a client who could be shown to be "less morally depraved", I'd be using it as a way out of the death penalty for that client.

 

He also cites very interesting statistics about what happens to the victims of childhood atrocities as they go through life. Many, many of them remain emotionally disturbed, engage in self-destructive behaviours for the rest of their lives, and even commit suicide. Should we be following such victims for some period of time? If they commit suicide at some point later on should the perpetrators of the crimes that resulted in these behaviours be brought back into court and tried for their murders at that time, since it was their actions that ultimately led those children down the road to those suicides?

 

And where will we draw the lines of moral depravity? Where incest is involved at least, the molested all too often also become molesters, in a cycle of unending perpetuation of grief. If a molester can demonstrate that their actions are the result of self-destructive behaviour caused because they, themselves, were molested, then should they be found innocent? If one is morally depraved, but does not understand oneself to be so, can one be found guilty of such a "crime", anyway?

 

The girl in the case at hand could have died from her rupturing. She was bleeding profusely and was then given crushed Advil or some sort of aspirin product. Luckily, I guess, she threw it up almost immediately or things could have gone worse for her. But perhaps her perpetrator, a step-father, did not really understand that it was morally wrong to use, at times, the children in one's family for one's sexual gratification. Perhaps this was common in the household in which he grew up. There is some indication that he may have done this with this child before (and an adult witness who alleges that he did this with her, when she was a child, too), so perhaps it was an accident that this time, there was such a huge amount of injury. And it seems that he was trying to help, rather than cause further harm, by administering the pain reliever product (although as a prosecutor, I would have been arguing otherwise).

 

Yes, it is disgusting to talk about all this. But it is a necessary part of what occurs when the cases of unique individuals are being adjudicated. Was this perpetrator himself a victim of similar abuses when he was growing up? Did he really understand that what he did was wrong? How wrong was it? Will this victim (who was not allowed to present an impact statement) be able to have children, physically? Will this victim even be able to have normal sex, from a physical standpoint, or will extensive scar tissue prevent that? Will this victim grow up to be a perpetrator, herself? Or will she engage in self-destructive behaviours because of the emotional/mental damage that's been done here (drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc.)? Will she commit suicide? If she does, should this man be brought back to trial then, for ultimately having caused her death? If an accomplice to a robbery can be found guilty of a murder simply because he's there and did nothing to stop it, why can't perpetrators of sexual or other abuses be found guilty of murder for setting up the mental/emotional patterns that will lead to the deaths of their victims, through suicides, if that occurs?

 

Every single case, even if only involving two people - one perpetrator and one victim - has hundreds of unique considerations. I understand that our court systems have to do the best job they can to try to apply our laws to each such unique case. I am afraid that they are, however, going too far and getting to a point of limiting legislative activity. And it is the legislative branch of our government that was set up to make our laws, not the courts.

 

If we need new legislation regarding the death penalty, how and when, or IF it will be applied - and if the Supreme Court will not allow states' individual choices of legislation in that regard to stand - then we may need an amendment to the Constitution to provide for that. I've never thought of federalizing our entire judicial system, but it does seem that it would stop this ping-ponging of new legislation introduced to override Supreme Court decisions, which then get over-ridden by newer Supreme Court decisions. That seems a waste of money and time, to me.

[tibbyl]

However, if it were my kid - I'd kill the person myself. I know that I would absolutely go insane if anyone EVER harmed my kid. Be she 12 or 62.

 

=========================================

You would willingly possibly give up at least a few years incarcerated (or whatever the mandatory minimum is for manslaughter) away from your husband, surviving children, and other beloved family members to seek revenge for the murder of your child? Seriously? And what then if the alleged killer's family felt that they needed to kill you... ad nauseam. Wasn't it Gandhi who said something along lines of "an eye for eye and we will all be blind."

 

Personally, I would not be willing to gamble that I could get off scot free and have the murder considered justifiable homicide. Nor would I count on temporary insanity plea or even a suspended sentence on a manslaughter conviction.

 

What if an innocent person was charged with your child's murder, and then you killed the innocent? That has happened, you know.

 

Nonetheless, I understand that the drive for revenge is hardwired into our brains.

 

And I'm not so noble that I haven't experienced schadenfreude myself on more than a few occasions.