Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

It's in the news a lot lately. I used to be in favor of capital punishment, but now I think I'm pretty opposed to it. Has anyone else changed their mind on this one over time?

Costs way to much to get a capital conviction and the justice system is not perfect by any means.

There are times I am in favor - but too many issues in general. I would be happy with life-in-prison-no-chance-for-parole

If you aren't in Texas, by the time you exhaust your appeals it can be 15+ yrs until your execution which for some equals a life sentence. I was once on a jury where we convicted a guy for murder and recommended lethal injection and he's still around today and I've never felt a moment's remorse for voting that way. After seeing how long it takes despite how horrific his crimes I'm not sure if my stance has maybe softened a bit.

One thing I really don't get are the concurrent life sentences or consecutive life sentences.

It should be used MORE. And none of this stretching it out for 20 years...fuck that shit. 1 year MAX and then done.

hank scorpio wrote:Costs way to much to get a capital conviction and the justice system is not perfect by any means.

This, then throw in the possibility of a wrong conviction and that about sums it up.

Trouble with Texas is they are going about it too damn slowly, there is still millions of Texans to kill off.

I've always been opposed. Mainly because of cost but also because I don't believe we should take another life. But I also believe that life in prison should be much more difficult for murderers than it is, i.e. no TV, no visitors, no privileges, etc. Their life should be a living hell.

grizzaholic wrote:It should be used MORE. And none of this stretching it out for 20 years...**** that ****. 1 year MAX and then done.

Agreed that it's too stretched out - there should be a maximum number of appeals allowed. Furthermore, as a public deterrent the executions should be televised. If people are opposed to putting it on an over-the-air channel make it pay-per-view.

Never understood people who are pro-life but in favor of the death penalty, or pro-choice but against the death penalty.

I don't shed tears when cop killers or baby killers or the OK City bomber or the DC sniper (experienced that one first hand) are executed, but:

Fundamentally since I'm pro-life I'm against the death penalty.
Pragmatically, if even 1 innocent person is executed that's too many.
Spiritually, where do you draw the line between a person who can redeem/rehabilitate themselves and a mad dog that you put down?

I say replace the death penalty with a cell at ADX Florence...

I don't recall if I was ever really for it, but I'm decidedly against it. But I'm all in favor of life sentences that include hard labor. Constitution only bars "cruel and unusual punishments" - the "and" is the key - don't make cruel punishments unusual (i.e. use them more frequently) and it passes Constitutional muster. Time to break out those pick axes and start chipping away at those boulders in the yard. For the next 80 years or so.

I'm for it in the case of egregious crimes where the perp was caught red-handed (i.e., Jeffrey Dahlmer types)...you know, if a guy gets into a shootout with 6 cops and kills 3 before he's wounded and taken into custody...cops burst in on a guy caught in the act of sexually molesting a little girl...that sort of thing. In that scenario there should be a very limited appeals process and the execution should be timely. In my opinon, the 20+ year appeals process is cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself.

Rob Iola wrote:Never understood people who are pro-life but in favor of the death penalty, or pro-choice but against the death penalty.

I think you can explain it like this. The majority of people are people you're not going to find out demonstrating on one side of the issue or the other.

Someone can say they're pro-life in the aspect that if they got pregnant or got someone pregnant that they could never abort a kill a fetus/baby that would be born & grow into a human being if nothing was done to stop it.

On the other hand, if someone is being executed: A: it's not that individual that is making the decision themsleves, and B: you're not talking about an innocent baby, you're talking about someone that committed or was found guilty of a pre-meditated murder(s).

Not going to say that is going to sway people nor was it meant to, as religious, abortion & politics conversations can be pointless sometimes, but that's my take.

Rob Iola wrote:Never understood people who are pro-life but in favor of the death penalty, or pro-choice but against the death penalty.

I don't shed tears when cop killers or baby killers or the OK City bomber or the DC sniper (experienced that one first hand) are executed, but:

Fundamentally since I'm pro-life I'm against the death penalty.
Pragmatically, if even 1 innocent person is executed that's too many.
Spiritually, where do you draw the line between a person who can redeem/rehabilitate themselves and a mad dog that you put down?

I say replace the death penalty with a cell at ADX Florence...

I understand and respect your principled position, Rob, but I disagree that anti-abortion and pro-death penalty are mutually exclusive. The position is not really so hard to understand. Anti-abortion (pro-life) supports innocent life, and pro-death penalty condemns guilty actions.

Innocence and guilt.

That being said, your point about the possibility of an innocent person being executed is well taken. It is the only reason I have some doubts about the death penalty.

bluehenbillk wrote:

Rob Iola wrote:Never understood people who are pro-life but in favor of the death penalty, or pro-choice but against the death penalty.

I think you can explain it like this. The majority of people are people you're not going to find out demonstrating on one side of the issue or the other.

Someone can say they're pro-life in the aspect that if they got pregnant or got someone pregnant that they could never abort a kill a fetus/baby that would be born & grow into a human being if nothing was done to stop it.

On the other hand, if someone is being executed: A: it's not that individual that is making the decision themsleves, and B: you're not talking about an innocent baby, you're talking about someone that committed or was found guilty of a pre-meditated murder(s).

Not going to say that is going to sway people nor was it meant to, as religious, abortion & politics conversations can be pointless sometimes, but that's my take.

Yeah - in my mind that makes more sense than pro-choice folks being against the death penalty. I guess I'm factoring in the spiritual angle - if you're pro-life because you're Christian and go by "thou shalt not kill", then why wouldn't it also apply to capital punishment.

But I'm not trying to hijack this into yet another abortion thread.

I don't know which would be worse. Being executed after 1 year when you were innocent of the crime or living in a prison, possibly doing hard labor as some people suggest, for 60 years when you were innocent of the crime.

native wrote:Anti-abortion (pro-life) supports innocent life, and pro-death penalty condemns guilty actions.

Innocence and guilt.

That was my position.

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm for it in the case of egregious crimes where the perp was caught red-handed (i.e., Jeffrey Dahlmer types)...you know, if a guy gets into a shootout with 6 cops and kills 3 before he's wounded and taken into custody...cops burst in on a guy caught in the act of sexually molesting a little girl...that sort of thing. In that scenario there should be a very limited appeals process and the execution should be timely. In my opinon, the 20+ year appeals process is cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself.

What about a metally challenged person who doesn't know what he's doing?

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm for it in the case of egregious crimes where the perp was caught red-handed (i.e., Jeffrey Dahlmer types)...you know, if a guy gets into a shootout with 6 cops and kills 3 before he's wounded and taken into custody...cops burst in on a guy caught in the act of sexually molesting a little girl...that sort of thing. In that scenario there should be a very limited appeals process and the execution should be timely. In my opinon, the 20+ year appeals process is cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself.

What about a metally challenged person who doesn't know what he's doing?

SO? Who gives a fuck. He did it and there are actions. This mentally challenged person defense is bullshit.

grizzaholic wrote:

89Hen wrote: What about a metally challenged person who doesn't know what he's doing?

SO? Who gives a fuck. He did it and there are actions. This mentally challenged person defense is bullshit.

grizzaholic wrote:SO? Who gives a fuck. He did it and there are actions. This mentally challenged person defense is bullshit.

So you'd be in favor of giving a severly diabled person the chair.

dbackjon wrote:There are times I am in favor - but too many issues in general. I would be happy with life-in-prison-no-chance-for-parole

I'm not happy with paying for some scumbag to live a shitty life b/c he murdered/raped/plundered/etc... If it's a heinous crime like Rape, arson,murder or rape (catch the reference?) then you should probably die. And none of this, 20 years in jail then we kill you by running up the light bill with electrocution. No. You are sentenced, you get 1 appeal. If it fails, then you die in a week. 3 guys, 3 rifles, 1 bullet.

Also, decriminalize drug possesion and get those people out of jail. Save room for the real assholes if we're going to lock people up.

dbackjon wrote:There are times I am in favor - but too many issues in general. I would be happy with life-in-prison-no-chance-for-parole

Exactly. My biggest complaint is that we let people out that should not be out. A few years ago I read about a guy who was on death row, they commuted the sentence and the guy eventually got parole.

Heck, Charles Manson has had parole hearings. What a waste of time.

Lock them up for life with no chance of getting out and give them the bare minimum to stay alive. No TV, radio, weights etc. If they behave they can have books.

BlueHen86 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:There are times I am in favor - but too many issues in general. I would be happy with life-in-prison-no-chance-for-parole

Exactly. My biggest complaint is that we let people out that should not be out. A few years ago I read about a guy who was on death row, they commuted the sentence and the guy eventually got parole.

Heck, Charles Manson has had parole hearings. What a waste of time.

Lock them up for life with no chance of getting out and give them the bare minimum to stay alive. No TV, radio, weights etc. If they behave they can have books.

True.

89Hen wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:SO? Who gives a fuck. He did it and there are actions. This mentally challenged person defense is bullshit.

So you'd be in favor of giving a severly diabled person the chair.

Personally, I don't give two fucks. You get the death penalty, you die. SIMPLE. But bunny huggers like you wouldn't let that fly.

AZGrizFan wrote:I'm for it in the case of egregious crimes where the perp was caught red-handed (i.e., Jeffrey Dahlmer types)...you know, if a guy gets into a shootout with 6 cops and kills 3 before he's wounded and taken into custody...cops burst in on a guy caught in the act of sexually molesting a little girl...that sort of thing. In that scenario there should be a very limited appeals process and the execution should be timely. In my opinon, the 20+ year appeals process is cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself.

The standard to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt". If we're going to have the death penalty the standard should be beyond any doubt. I also wouldn't trust the decision to a typical jury. Let the jury decide on guilt or innocence, but let a panel of judges review the evidence and make the decision on whether or not to execute.