Until juries are made perfect, I’ll be against the death penalty. I’d rather support 1000 murderers for life in prison than execute one person by error. Certain crimes should be punishable by mandatory life prison terms without parole, my own state of Michigan does just that. However, if a prisoner freely admits his guilt and decides that death is preferable to life in prison, then I see no reason not to accomodate them.
I’m morally in favor of the death penalty. However, in the real world I’m very leery of the death penalty because our justice system, as well as the justice system of every nation on the planet, is flawed.
I like the idea of scientific evidence being required for a DP sentence.
In the United States approximately 38 (maybe soon to be 39) state’s have death penalty laws on the books. The problem with this number, and as a result the “more crimes in DP states” is easily explained.
For one, New York happens to have a death penalty law on the book. New York never executes anyone, but they still count in that 38 figure.
Same for roughly 20+ of the states. So these figures don’t differentiate between state’s that HAVE the death penalty and state’s that actually USE the death penalty.
Texas-Virginia-Florida represent the triad of DP states. They account for probably more that 80% of all executions in the United States. Texas probably accounts for almost half.
All of the deep south has the DP, and also the deep south is more economically regressive than the North. And I’ve always maintained that crime rates are a directly related to 1) level of urbanization (increases crime), and 2) poverty rate (increases crime.)
Nope. I have to ask for the cites you mentioned
There’s no majority support, or even a vocal minority, in favor of the death penalty in western Europe. Granted, you will find people at the new far-right movement favoring executing some criminals. And you will find that citizens in former communist East Europe are less opposed to this punishment than those in the west.
I even grant you that if you ask europeans “if they ever could think of a situation where death is the just punishment”, many will answer yes, but I can assure you, they will not vote it back on the books if they got a chance to do so. The assumption that Europe doesn’t have the death penalty because of the opinions of the political establishment is wrong.
Leaving that aside, there is no country - not most countries - in Europe who has the death penalty. In fact, there isn’t even a country in Greater Europe (that is Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, etc) who has the death penalty, with the exception of a couple who is currently in the process of abolishing it.
Second, even if the death penalty has been outlawed fairly late in some countries, like France in 1981, most of those countries hadn’t executed anyone for decades.
Just by way of pointles detail, I want to remark that I was pretty sure I recalled media coverage of a guillotine execution in France pretty late on. In fct, it turns out to have been last used in Spetember 1977, which, to be strictly fair, is a bit later than I thought I remembered.
I stand corrected. It’s a lot later than I remembered.
And on second thought I don’t think Belarus is a member of the Council of Europe, so they might still have it on the books.
Hmm - old age and memory loss creeping up on both of us, I fear. 
I ought to clarify, of course, that that 1977 case was the last one in France.
I’m pretty sure that study said that there’s at least 50% support among polled people in Britain, and I suspect that number is not distinct from anywhere else in western Europe. But of course, the point is that it snot a very important isue to them.
I see a contradiction here.
America is not “relatively isolated” from other nations, nor is it racially and culturally homogenous. It possesses a highly diverse society relative to nations which have dropped the death penalty. And religious fundamentalism is nowhere near pervasive enough to explain consistent support for capital punishment in America.
I’m pretty sure that if you ask the questions “could you imagine a crime where death is the right punishment”, then yes, you may poll high some places in Europe. But that’s a skewed poll, not like the question: “Are you in favor of reinstating the death penalty for murder?”
Let me put it this way: Several European countries abolished the death penalty in their criminal justice law, or simply ceased executions, before they allowed women to vote, and before the labor movement (the late 18th century socialists) came into power in various countries.
When that is said, many countries kept the death penalty as part of military law up until fairly recently. Looking at European history you will find countries whose only executions in the last hundred years were of nazis following WWII.
A complete list of the death penalty worldwide, including year of abolishion and latest execution for those who don’t have it anymore, is available at:
I’m opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. The penalty of death is inflicted when we already have somebody safetly in custody. At that point, it is not necessary to kill them to prevent them from harming other innocent people. What purpose does it serve? Deterring potential murderers, and revenge.
I’ve seen no conclusive evidence that the death penalty has any more deterrant effect than life in prison. I don’t think any potential murderer thinks “woah… if they catch me and have enough evidence to convict me there’s a chance I might be sentenced to death! I guess I won’t murder her then. If it were life in prison without parole than it’d be a different story!”
Then there’s revenge. The “eye for an eye” mentality. But I think we as a society need to rise above that to maintain the moral high ground. To paraphrase Gandhi, an eye for an eye will only serve to make everyone blind. To me, it basically says “We’re going to kill you to show you how bad it is to kill people!” This is no more acceptable than raping a rapist because raping is bad. Or breaking someones arm because breaking other peoples arms is bad. Just because they did it doesn’t make it ok for us to do it to them.
I have been in favor of the death penalty in the past, even to the extent of advocating widening its application to include forceable rape and even repeat violent offenses (three violent crimes=habitually violent criminal). But recent cases in which persons on death row were found innocent by the application of DNA evidence, heretofore unavailable, make me wonder how many innocent people have really been executed in this country. Consequently, I have changed my mind.
I have no moral compunction at seeing a guilty person removed in the most permanent way. Timothy McVeigh, for example, deserved to be executed. But in his case, he had confessed and even asked to be put to death. It occurs to me, however, that mentally unbalanced people often confess to crimes they didn’t commit because they have a nurotic need to be punished. With that in mind, I could still accept execution for murderers who confess, but only if there were abundant physical evidence to support their confession.
The standard of reasonable doubt must have caused more than a few murderers to be released, but that standard is still not high enough to prevent killing of the innocent. Execution, after all, is final, no matter what evidence of innocense may turn up later.
I realize that once in this forum I advocated executing someone for destroying artwork. I must have been sitting on a tack. Certainly I was a jerk, and lucky not to be banned. I now take it back and repent.
The problem isn’t really the jury, but rather both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Some prosecutors withhold evidence, or do other things that can be corrected if the convicted murderer is in prison. Some defense attorneys are incompetent. Sometimes prosecutors use the death penalty as a leverage to plea bargain. Someone innocent is more likely to go to trial than someone guilty who might be happy at getting off easy.
I have no moral qualms about the death penalty, except that to be in favor of it you must consider the government to be honest, competent, and nearly 100% effective. Since I don’t consider it any of these things all the time, I’m not sure. If we could only use it in cases where the crime was especially heinous, and we were certain, fine, but that does not seem to be possible in real life.
I’m not a Christian, but…
‘“Vengence is Mine”, sayeth the Lord’
‘Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.’
I would have liked for him to have been alive for the WTC attacks.
Sorry, but an “eye for an eye” would only make half of those whom commit crimes half blind, the rest of us would be just find …
… just fine … :o
I’m a social liberal but I personally don’t have any problems with the death penalty where justified (IMO, someone generally murdered one or more others without a legally accepted reason). If you terminate someone else’s life and are convicted of the crime, why shouldn’t you face an equally strong penalty?
The problem I have with the death penalty as it is administered in today’s world is that I don’t think it acts as an adequate deterrent. This is because death is made too easy. Injections and pills are simply too clean and easy. Like the current war, much of the public doesn’t want to see what real death looks like and in executions, we don’t even want to see the murderer suffer undue pain. I think that if executions were gruesome, public events, with lots of blood and guts and perhaps some torture foreplay thrown in, then the death penalty would work as a deterrent a lot better than it does now.
Go ahead, call me a Neanderthal, but I think it would work. And this “reality” show would probably get high Nielsen ratings! Now who would advertise on such a show? Hmmm. 
Uh, yeah. That’s why we have laws and to maintain control we can elect lawmakers who will reflect our values. Europe has laws to so I would imagine they believe they have the power to decide what people who break their laws deserve.
Marc
I am opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances. And as long as penal and judicial systems fight efforts to establish (with DNA testing) the guilt or innocence of those already executed , we will never know for certain how often we have ourselves put innocent women and men to death.
scr4, I don’t know if there is an actual majority, but certainly many Americans think that we should have the power to decide matters of life and death. I don’t understand it. And I don’t understand the thirst for revenge.
As best I can tell, this word “values” refers to beliefs and morals, not about views on the economy or other major political issues. I think this idea of “values” as an election issue is uniquely American and, again, a result of - and indication of - how big a role Christianity plays in America.
I don’t know too much about the European system, but criminal law is not necessarily about what people “deserve.” Other motives include deterrence, protection of the society, rehabilitation of the criminal and payback of a debt to society. None of these has anything to do with “values” and “justice,” at least not in the sence American conservatives use those words.