Death penalty - Your opinion

[Pogo]

OTOH with some of the posts I read I would definitely be in favor of a depth penalty.

 

[George Costanza]

There are a number of reasons to abolish the death penalty. It is not applied evenly. It takes too long for the appeal process. Innocent people can be (and have been) executed.

I am against the death penalty because it is morally wrong. Even if they ironed out all of the wrinkles - applied it evenly and fairly, streamlined the appeal process, got rid of all the cruel and unusual punishment arguments, etc., I would still be opposed to it, simply because it is morally wrong.

It doesn't act as a deterrent, either.

Otherwise, it's Constitutional and best left to the states to decide.

I guess I would say that it should not be "Constitutional" because it is immoral. As is, looks like Texas has had little difficulty deciding what to do with it . . . But then, from what I have seen of Texas politics, the concept of morality (except as defined by Texas of course) seems to be of little concern down that way.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hello guys,
I'm doing a research for school at the moment with the topic "Death penalty in America". The main part of it should be a comparison between german/european and american attitudes.
So here's my question, do you approve or do you deny and why?

I'd highly appreciate if you could post your opinions here.

By the way,
the reason for making a new topic even though it's already on the board is because my teacher mentioned i have to prove that I collected those information by myself.

Hi Charly,

I am an American living in Germany.

In the former West Germany, capital punishment was abolished in 1949 with the ratification of the new German (democratic) Constitution. Capital punishment was abolished in the former East Germany in 1987 - 2 full years before the Wall fell and 3-4 years before reunification.

Every German I have spoken with is vehemently anti-death penalty. They think it is barbaric.

BTW, the death penalty is abolished and banned forever in every European country, save Belarus.

I know many Christians who are Americans and most of them are also Righties, but they also think it is wrong.

I personally am of a split opinion on this. For me, there are some crimes that indeed warrant the death penalty, for instance, mass murder, or the rape and/or murder of a child. The problem that I see in the US is that, because of federalism, the issue is not being handled uniformly, which bogs the system down. It's hard for Capital punishment to be a deterrent when it is not a deterrent in all 50 states.

So, I am mostly not too keen on the death penalty, but concede that there are indeed some crimes so heinious that the only real and just punishment, imo, is the death penalty.

If the guy who had murdered all of those people in Newtown, CT had lived, I would have gladly supported seeing him put to death as punishment for his crime. That is one example I would submit to you.


-Stat

 

[rightwinger]

Hello guys,
I'm doing a research for school at the moment with the topic "Death penalty in America". The main part of it should be a comparison between german/european and american attitudes.
So here's my question, do you approve or do you deny and why?

I'd highly appreciate if you could post your opinions here.

By the way,
the reason for making a new topic even though it's already on the board is because my teacher mentioned i have to prove that I collected those information by myself.

Hi Charly,

I am an American living in Germany.

In the former West Germany, capital punishment was abolished in 1949 with the ratification of the new Germany (democratic) constitution. Capital punishment was abolished in the former East Germany in 1987 - 2 full years before the Wall fell and 3-4 years before reunification.

Every German I have spoken with is vehemently anti-death penalty. They think it is barbaric.

BTW, the death penalty is abolished and banned forever in every European country, save Belarus.

I know many Christians who are Americans and most of them are also Righties, but they also think it is wrong.

I personally am of a split opinion on this. For me, there are some crimes that indeed warrant the death penalty, for instance, mass murder, or the rape and/or murder of a child. The problem that I see in the US is that, because of federalism, the issue is not being handled uniformly, which bogs the system down. It's hard for Capital punishment to be a deterrent when it is not a deterrent in all 50 states.

So, I am mostly not too keen on the death penalty, but concede that there are indeed some crimes so heinious that the only real and just punishment, imo, is the death penalty.

If the guy who had murdered all of those people in Newtown, CT had lived, I would have gladly supported seeing him put to death as punishment for his crime. That is one example I would submit to you.


-Stat

Much like our insistence on maintaining slavery, most of the world looks at us and says WTF?

 

[Disir]

Indeed, if we were to hold a referendum on abolishing the DP in the U.S., it would be roundly rejected by the overall population, as well as the individual populations of every non-socialist state in the union.

Leaving aside the obvious slant of "every non-socialist state in the union" (as if socialism somehow has something to do with the topic), the numbers here aren't showing such a trend. It would have been handy if the OP included a poll but failing that I've counted up responses so far:

DP YES: Delta4Embassy, Disir, Katzndogz, Martybegan, Meathead, DGS49l, Big Black Dog, Jughead, Pennywise (9)

DP NO: Spiderman, Strollingbones, Boedicca, Pogo, Rightwinger, Chickenwing, George Costanza, RKMBrown (8)

Not voting or not fittable into yes or no: C Clayton Jones, NoNukes, Eflatminor, Peterf, JakeStarkey

Not looking like a 'round rejection' so far, or even a square one.

You have that wrong. I'm a DP NO.

 

[Pogo]

Indeed, if we were to hold a referendum on abolishing the DP in the U.S., it would be roundly rejected by the overall population, as well as the individual populations of every non-socialist state in the union.

Leaving aside the obvious slant of "every non-socialist state in the union" (as if socialism somehow has something to do with the topic), the numbers here aren't showing such a trend. It would have been handy if the OP included a poll but failing that I've counted up responses so far:

DP YES: Delta4Embassy, Disir, Katzndogz, Martybegan, Meathead, DGS49l, Big Black Dog, Jughead, Pennywise (9)

DP NO: Spiderman, Strollingbones, Boedicca, Pogo, Rightwinger, Chickenwing, George Costanza, RKMBrown (8)

Not voting or not fittable into yes or no: C Clayton Jones, NoNukes, Eflatminor, Peterf, JakeStarkey

Not looking like a 'round rejection' so far, or even a square one.

You have that wrong. I'm a DP NO.

Very well, perhaps I misunderstood. Corrected list then:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =​

DP YES: Delta4Embassy, Katzndogz, Martybegan, Meathead, DGS49l, Big Black Dog, Jughead, Pennywise (8)

DP NO: Spiderman, Strollingbones, Disir, Boedicca, Pogo, Rightwinger, Chickenwing, George Costanza, RKMBrown (9)

Not voting or not fittable into yes or no: C Clayton Jones, NoNukes, Eflatminor, Peterf, JakeStarkey

 

[whitehall]

It's the 2nd time I saw this post. The US Supreme Court upheld the death penalty and it would take up too much space to try to explain the US Constitution to a German kid alleged to be writing a paper. Look to your own 20th century history in Germany and try to explain how you could justify executing about 20 million Jews before you try to lecture the US about capital punishment.

 

[Steven_R]

Morally, I'm comfortable with certain crimes earning death. That said, I'm not convinced that any government should have the authority to simply kill its own citizens. If the primary function of legitimate government is to secure our rights and any government removing our rights becomes illegitimate, and no right is higher than the right to life, then can any government that takes the right to life of a citizen, even as punishment, still be considered legitimate?

 

[Pogo]

It's the 2nd time I saw this post. The US Supreme Court upheld the death penalty and it would take up too much space to try to explain the US Constitution to a German kid alleged to be writing a paper. Look to your own 20th century history in Germany and try to explain how you could justify executing about 20 million Jews before you try to lecture the US about capital punishment.

To the OP:

On behalf of the rest of us at USMB I apologize for this asshole. He's an hater who lashes out at everybody, presumably because of his own mental state. I also apologize on his behalf, since he obviously lacks the intelligence to understand his own idiocy.

Please rest assured most of us in this country do not think in these xenophobic terms. Whether you're from Germany or not (and I note that you never said you are).

Morons like this ruin much. He in no way represents us.

"Xenophobia: it's what makes America grate"​

 

[Katzndogz]

There are some cases of murder that are in a twisted way understandable. For money, revenge, a crime of passion or accident. It's the ones that kill for enjoyment the William Bonins, Larry Bittakers, Roy Norris e's and Ted Bundy that should be put to death immediately without necessity of appeal. They sully the very air others breathe.

 

[Imperious]

Overall, I am strongly against the ideas behind the death penalty. I think that the whole idea behind killing criminals is counterproductive, and evil. Who are we to dictate whether someone lives their lives, or suddenly dies? Why are we allowed to take someones life, but other's are not? Why are others shunned for murder, if the death penalty is no better?

I think that putting criminals to work is alot more effective then simply killing them, what kind of example is more murder setting for society!?

 

[Meathead]

There are some cases of murder that are in a twisted way understandable. For money, revenge, a crime of passion or accident. It's the ones that kill for enjoyment the William Bonins, Larry Bittakers, Roy Norris e's and Ted Bundy that should be put to death immediately without necessity of appeal. They sully the very air others breathe.

Yet Lawrence "Pliers" Bittaker lives on being supported by the state of California while reveling in his notoriety and no doubt masturbating to his fond memories of torturing 5 young girls to death.

 

[Peterf]

There are a number of reasons to abolish the death penalty. It is not applied evenly. It takes too long for the appeal process. Innocent people can be (and have been) executed.

I am against the death penalty because it is morally wrong. Even if they ironed out all of the wrinkles - applied it evenly and fairly, streamlined the appeal process, got rid of all the cruel and unusual punishment arguments, etc., I would still be opposed to it, simply because it is morally wrong.

It doesn't act as a deterrent, either.

Otherwise, it's Constitutional and best left to the states to decide.

I guess I would say that it should not be "Constitutional" because it is immoral. As is, looks like Texas has had little difficulty deciding what to do with it . . . But then, from what I have seen of Texas politics, the concept of morality (except as defined by Texas of course) seems to be of little concern down that way.

Is very good of you George to take the time to tell us what or is not "moral". I bet you are a bishop - or maybe even the pope - in disguise! I don't suppose you are the reincarnation of JC, you know the Second Coming and all that, or you would have done a bit of water walking by now

 

[Meathead]

There are a number of reasons to abolish the death penalty. It is not applied evenly. It takes too long for the appeal process. Innocent people can be (and have been) executed.

I am against the death penalty because it is morally wrong. Even if they ironed out all of the wrinkles - applied it evenly and fairly, streamlined the appeal process, got rid of all the cruel and unusual punishment arguments, etc., I would still be opposed to it, simply because it is morally wrong.

It doesn't act as a deterrent, either.

Otherwise, it's Constitutional and best left to the states to decide.

I guess I would say that it should not be "Constitutional" because it is immoral. As is, looks like Texas has had little difficulty deciding what to do with it . . . But then, from what I have seen of Texas politics, the concept of morality (except as defined by Texas of course) seems to be of little concern down that way.

Funny, I have a problem with those who presume to dictate morality to others, and yes, that would include hell fire & brimstone preachers.

 

[Steven_R]

Overall, I am strongly against the ideas behind the death penalty. I think that the whole idea behind killing criminals is counterproductive, and evil. Who are we to dictate whether someone lives their lives, or suddenly dies? Why are we allowed to take someones life, but other's are not? Why are others shunned for murder, if the death penalty is no better?

I think that putting criminals to work is alot more effective then simply killing them, what kind of example is more murder setting for society!?

I think the flip side of that argument is that some people remain threats and death removes a threat, permanently. Someone who is in prison for life has nothing to lose, so what does he care if he kills a guard or ten. What if he escapes and kills some more? Was the moral thing to let him live worth it then?

Beyond that, doesn't society as a whole have the ability to say some crimes are so heinous that incarceration just isn't good enough of a punishment? Do we have the right to say some crimes are so offensive to us a whole that we demand payment in blood? Treason puts an entire nation at risk during time of war. Should treason be a crime worthy of death then? Is killing a police officer worth death given that police officers are needed by the community to function?

It's an interesting philosophical question to ponder and one that isn't as simple as yes or no.

 

[Bill Angel]

I think the flip side of that argument is that some people remain threats and death removes a threat, permanently. Someone who is in prison for life has nothing to lose, so what does he care if he kills a guard or ten. What if he escapes and kills some more? Was the moral thing to let him live worth it then?.

An interesting counter example is that of Sheinbein, who avoided a life sentence for murder by fleeing to Israel, but then died in prison in a shootout with guards.

Sheinbein, who was 34, fled from the U.S. to Israel after murdering and dismembering a Maryland man in 1997. He gained Israeli citizenship through his Israeli father shortly before fleeing the U.S.
Sheinbein was tried in Israel in 1999 and sentenced to 24 years for the slaying and dismemberment of 19-year-old Alfredo Enrique Tello, Jr.
Sheinbein was 17 at the time of the killing and could have faced a life sentence in Maryland. His extradition to Maryland was blocked after a yearlong battle between Israel and the United States over an Israeli law that prohibited it.

See
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/samuel-sheinbein-killing-american-had-smuggled-gun-israeli-police-say/

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's the 2nd time I saw this post. The US Supreme Court upheld the death penalty and it would take up too much space to try to explain the US Constitution to a German kid alleged to be writing a paper. Look to your own 20th century history in Germany and try to explain how you could justify executing about 20 million Jews before you try to lecture the US about capital punishment.

There are a number of problems with your posting.

First, we don't know whether Charly is German or American. He is brand new, with all of one posting to his name and his profile gives no information as to his whereabouts. Also, his English is quite correct and very "clean", which is more than I can say about your writing.

Second, if he is from Germany and is a student, then that means he could not have possibly been born during the NAZI era from 1933-1945, could not possibly have partaken in any of the atrocities of his forefathers and is therefore completely innocent vis-a-vis Germany's past. You and I as Americans should already know that guilt by association is not legally tenable. Why did you even go there? Are you really that stupid, or just plain old butthurt?

Third, he was not trying to lecture anyone. He clearly wrote that he is doing a paper on the subject and was asking for input. Where is the lecturing in that? Damn, so many Righties here in USMB are perpetually mad about something or other. Must really suck to be yoiu.

Fourth, 20 million Jews were not murdered under the Nazi-regime. The best estimates are from 6-7 million, plus 5 million righteous non-jews, including Roma, gays, the handicapped, other religious minorities and political prisoners, most of them of German descent. That makes for 11 million who perished in the NAZI genocide from 1933-1945.

Stalin killed 25 million of his own people before, during and after WWII. So, excluding war dead in both the Atlantic and Pacific fronts, we are talking about 36 million people murdered a the hands of not just one, but two brutal, inhuman dictators. If yer gonna get so anal-retentive about this, the least you can do is to get your facts straight.

And for the record, I am an American living in Germany, and yes, I am a Jew.

Nothing that this kid is doing here by creating this thread is wrong.

And the only person acting like a dick is YOU. Color me surprised.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Overall, I am strongly against the ideas behind the death penalty. I think that the whole idea behind killing criminals is counterproductive, and evil. Who are we to dictate whether someone lives their lives, or suddenly dies? Why are we allowed to take someones life, but other's are not? Why are others shunned for murder, if the death penalty is no better?

I think that putting criminals to work is alot more effective then simply killing them, what kind of example is more murder setting for society!?

I think the flip side of that argument is that some people remain threats and death removes a threat, permanently. Someone who is in prison for life has nothing to lose, so what does he care if he kills a guard or ten. What if he escapes and kills some more? Was the moral thing to let him live worth it then?

Beyond that, doesn't society as a whole have the ability to say some crimes are so heinous that incarceration just isn't good enough of a punishment? Do we have the right to say some crimes are so offensive to us a whole that we demand payment in blood? Treason puts an entire nation at risk during time of war. Should treason be a crime worthy of death then? Is killing a police officer worth death given that police officers are needed by the community to function?

It's an interesting philosophical question to ponder and one that isn't as simple as yes or no.

Interesting argument, and well written. I would think it should be up to the governed to decide - nationally - what to do about this. In the days of our forefathers, duels with pistols were the mode of the day, and almost always resulted in the death of one party, sometimes both. So, it is clear that our founding fathers assumed that the death penalty in some form was probably going to be a part of a justice system in the forming.

I am a father and have the protective sense that I bet every parent here feels. I feel most strongly that our children, the defenseless among us, deserve that protection and any cretin who rapes and/or murders a child should be put to death. He should have a speedy trial and if found guilty, should be killed the very next day. THAT is a deterrence I can live with.

In many countries, treason has been reason for a death penalty.

And of course, murder itself.

I agree with you, it's a complicated issue, one of the many where I separate myelf from what is considered traditional Liberal thought. I do believe that absolute evil exists and we cannot allow it to have a foothold in our society.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are a number of reasons to abolish the death penalty. It is not applied evenly. It takes too long for the appeal process. Innocent people can be (and have been) executed.

I am against the death penalty because it is morally wrong. Even if they ironed out all of the wrinkles - applied it evenly and fairly, streamlined the appeal process, got rid of all the cruel and unusual punishment arguments, etc., I would still be opposed to it, simply because it is morally wrong.

It doesn't act as a deterrent, either.

Otherwise, it's Constitutional and best left to the states to decide.

I guess I would say that it should not be "Constitutional" because it is immoral. As is, looks like Texas has had little difficulty deciding what to do with it . . . But then, from what I have seen of Texas politics, the concept of morality (except as defined by Texas of course) seems to be of little concern down that way.

One is at liberty to make a moral argument against the death penalty at the ballot box, but in a court of law that would prove more problematic.

 

[Pogo]

There are some cases of murder that are in a twisted way understandable. For money, revenge, a crime of passion or accident. It's the ones that kill for enjoyment the William Bonins, Larry Bittakers, Roy Norris e's and Ted Bundy that should be put to death immediately without necessity of appeal. They sully the very air others breathe.

What about one who, let's say, shoots pot smokers in the face?