quick poll
Mood: pensive
Music: Upscale - "Rockin' Robin"
Posted on 2005-06-21 13:11:00
Tags: death penalty poll
Words: 19

(del.icio.us evangelization will resume after this post)

I was just interested in what people thought, so here's the poll:

8 comments

Comment from winocas:
2005-06-21T14:25:14+00:00
Wait... what about the other option... like killing more people just for the hell of it? It's not one I'd pick, but to be fair, it has to be in there too.

Comment from gregstoll:
2005-06-21T14:33:23+00:00
Umm..."good point".

Comment from onefishclappin:
2005-06-21T14:26:11+00:00
Ok, I'm not voting... I'm 1/2 way between "Yes, but only in an ideal world if we could be absolutely sure the person is guilty." and "No, not under any circumstances."

I think that if there's a case where 1) guilt is absolute 2) the crime was sufficently horrible, premeditated, liable to happen again 3) the ability to keep the person for repeating their act is uncertain (unable to properly detain them), then I can see using the death penalty.

But in current American society (where we can effectively physically restrain those who are a menace to our society), I don't think it should be carried out.

Comment from djedi:
2005-06-21T14:42:36+00:00
Actually that's the official Catholic position. If guilt is virtually certain and there is uncertainty about the ability to restrain such a person from carrying out such acts again, then it's acceptable. However, in modern society we can pretty effectively restrain such people indefinitely (and at lower cost, surprisingly, I've read than the death penalty involves) and since we have reasonable doubts about the lack of racism in the system and quality of defense many of these suspects receive that the death penalty isn't needed and is in fact morally questionable.

Comment from wildrice13:
2005-06-22T12:06:36+00:00
Really? They say it costs less to restrain them than it does to kill them? That would be nice if true, but I somehow can't bring myself to believe it. In that case I would be against the death penalty.

Can it be? I'm actually in line with the Catholic position on this one? Wow...

Comment from gregstoll:
2005-06-22T13:15:59+00:00
I've read that as well - has to do with all of the appeals and stuff like that that have to happen before the state can execute someone. Maybe I'll try to find a citation somewhere...

Comment from djedi:
2005-06-22T13:32:22+00:00
Yeah, "they" in that sentence was various reporters, editors and authors. Many prisoners do a moderate amount of work and prison maintenance costs aren't incredibly high. Lawyer fees and judge salaries involved in various appeals (all death penalty cases get at least one appeal if not more) can really add up fast. Plus, usually it takes a good decade or more before they are executed anyway - so we are already feeding them and taking care of them. Add to that the fact that people on death row have to be kept in an incredibly maximum security prison "since they have nothing to lose" which costs more than the usual high security prison.

Comment from onefishclappin:
2005-06-22T15:36:50+00:00
Yeah, I'll chime in a say that I've heard that same fact as well. This ain't ol' west justice anymore - can't just string 'em up when you get the conviction.
Actually, if I remember correctly, there are states (CA, NY?) which have the death pentalty, but hardly ever actually execute the convicted (like 2 deaths in 30 years) or something. I'm just hoping that Texas implements the "life without parole" option soon. And sticks to it...

This backup was done by LJBackup.