Support for the Death Penalty Remains High at 74%

[Norse]

I agree with you friends,

I'm also an extremely right-wing individual, but i'm against the death penalty simply because no system is perfect, and our judicial system sure as hell isn't. If there was such a thing as a perfect system, I might support the death penalty, but there isn't and there never will be.

[Bonaparte]

see post 14.

Hunting is an activity that sometimes results in the deaths of innocent persons.

The death penalty is an activity that sometimes results in the deaths of innocent persons.

Why would you support one but not the other?

[Carlucci]

Non-Sequitur.

Is the "accidental, faulty, or irresponsible discharge" a willful act?

[Carlucci]

Are you asserting that a totally error-free prosecution and defense of an accused innocent will ALWAYS result in aquittal? What about frame-ups? Compelling but circumstantial evidence?

[m1-lightning]

I'd be willing to do away with the death penalty if the alternative was life without parole if prison was really prison.

Amen to that! Id' take a different stance as well if it wasn't a holiday inn with bars.

[Bonaparte]

Willful or not, the wrong target is sometimes acquired and killed in both activities. In many hunting deaths, the shooter wilfully trains his weapon and wilfully pulls the trigger. Only after he sees what he shot does he realize his error. There is no difference between this and the execution of an innocent man in the judicial system. None.

[Bonaparte]

There is no such thing as an error-free murder trial.

[m1-lightning]

Are you asserting that a totally error-free prosecution and defense of an accused innocent will ALWAYS result in aquittal? What about frame-ups? Compelling but circumstantial evidence?

Video taped murders would be a good example.

[PA Engineer]

The problem is that the death penalty has not been proven to be an effective deterent for crime.

Oh, Really?

Here is a study that says it is a deterent. Link to abstract and online PDF file of paper.

Capital Punishment Deterrant Effect

Maybe in some of your liberal machinations you can at least concede that there is very little repeat crimes amongst death penalty recipients.

[Carlucci]

I hold the state morally responsible for the execution of the innocent man, and you obviously do not. I do not hold the hunter morally responsible (or at least less so) for the death caused by a hunting accident.

I simply cannot equate the execution of innocents with "accidental death".

[Carlucci]

There is no such thing as an error-free murder trial.

Exactly my point. Erroneous court judgements are reversible. Erroneous executions are not.

[rambo316]

I used to be for the death penalty and matter of fact, I still like the thought of giving somebody the ultimate punishment for taking another life but in this day and age where Political Correctness and backwards thinking and black juries the death penalty has become a farce in the application of true Justice.

O.J. Simpson walked and he killed two white people brutally- almost cutting their heads off. Lemrick Nelson stabbed a Jewish man to death because the guy was a Jew and then denied that he ever did it. And then years after, he admits that he did it and he is given a light sentence for time already served. The list goes on and on. But this is the state of the American Justice or Injustice system.

[No Truce With Kings]

"There is no such thing as an error-free murder trial."

And your point is? The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In Texas you not only have to be guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but also be ajudged a future hazard to society beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, there are many, many more safeguards against wrongful conviction with a death penalty case than in a case where the sentence is life without parole. Please list *one*, just *one*, case in Texas where an innocent man was executed since the resumption of executions in the 1980s.

Do you feel it is a kindness to put innocent people in prison until they die of old age? If so, why?

[LibKill]

The problem is that the death penalty has not been proven to be an effective deterent for crime.

That is widely debated, but there are other factors at work here.

1. The "revolving door justice" of 1960 onwards has increased support for the death penalty. The average citizen no longer trusts that dangerous felons will be locked up permanently. Death is permanent. It's a no-brainer. The executed murderer will not kill again.

2. Some of us still believe in punishing crime. There is nothing wrong with that belief, no matter what liberals say.

[McGavin999]

Pretty hard to happen here since most states that have a death penalty require that the crime be heinous and usually committed in conjunction with another brutal crime. There is now also DNA evidence that proves guilt. When there is reasonable question the person is not given the death penalty. There are pretty high standards to be met before a case is even considered for the death penalty.

[Carlucci]

There are pretty high standards to be met before a case is even considered for the death penalty.

Like this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/30/eveningnews/main200710.shtml

Look, this case may well be a slam-dunk and I'm falling victim to the media bias. I'll concede that. But don't fool yourself into thinking that every death sentence is based on incontrovertible proof.

[Bonaparte]

"Erroneous court judgements are reversible."

Guy gets convicted of kidnapping/raping a toddler. He gets 50 years, eligibile for parole in 35. Sits in a cell for 30 before he's exonerated/released on new evidence.

How is he going to get those 30 years of his life back?

Answer: He's not. That sentence is not reversible because he's already served it. He didn't get to raise his kids, practice his profession or take all those vacations to exotic places with his wife (who has long ago divorced him). As I said, it's not reversible. So shall we stop trying people for kidnap and rape?

[Bonaparte]

You got me all wrong. I'm in agreement with most of what you've said. I'm not talking about the BRD standard for conviction. I'm talking about trial errors, a totally different issue. Appeals courts recognize that no trial is error-free. That's why they only reverse convictions if those errors were likely to have resulted in acquittal or significantly reduced sentence had the errors been averted or corrected before conviction and sentencing. Most trial errors are of no consequence, but they do routinely occur. I hope this clears things up.

You ask if I think a life sentence is kindness. No, of course not. It shouldn't be a kindness. It's punishment. Why do so many have trouble understanding that concept?

[Bonaparte]

"But don't fool yourself into thinking that every death sentence is based on incontrovertible proof."

Almost every murder prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. A fact.

[Bonaparte]

I simply cannot equate the execution of innocents with "accidental death".

As careful as all parties in a murder trial may try to be, our judicial system is no more perfect than we are and sometimes the process goes awry, resulting in the death of an innocent man.

As careful as all parties in a hunting trip may try to be, they are all imperfect human beings and can make mistakes resulting in the death of an innocent man.

In neither of the two cases, did anybody want to kill an innocent man.

I already gave you an example of the irreversibility of a simple prison sentence after the defendant has already served substantial time under that sentence. How does society give back 30 years to a man? It can't, no more than it can give back life to an executed man. In neither case, should we abandon our good faith attempt to do justice just because our justice is and always will be flawed?

Each of the men on death row get 10 or 20 years to appeal. Isn't that enough for you?