"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Gandhi said that and he's right, you don't fight fire with fire; people are still human, our upbringing, our lives shape us or messed us up. So what's the solution? Now you have messed up people doing bad things; so you kill them?

If killing is wrong, then killing is wrong... even government-sanctioned murder. Personally, I don't trust the government enough to trust them with a decision like that. They are just wrong too much.

"If killing is wrong, then killing is wrong... even government-sanctioned murder."

So you are opposed to the government killing a mass murderer? What if the government (police) had intervened in the middle of his murderous rampage with lethal force?

Is killing still wrong?

Is he related to Lous?

Bdeezine, please learn the difference between "killing" and "murder". The death penalty is a punishment befitting the crime of murder.

Johnnycash: What if the government (police) had intervened in the middle of his murderous rampage with lethal force?

Of course, c'mon now, Johnny. Stopping the commission of a crime is a little different than sentencing someone to death. You can do better than this.

From a lot of earlier posts I've read on here, its the same people who constantly thrash those in power that now somehow TRUST the government with putting people to death. These are the same elected officials who have shown their ineptitude on a daily basis. At least I am consistent with my mistrust.

CaptGene: If anyone needs help with definitions, it's you. Killing refers to ending life, as in a tornado can kill. Earthquakes kill. Murder is the conscious act of ending another's life. Sentencing one to death is murder, not killing. Shooting someone who is on a murderous rampage is killing.

Check out the Innocence Project

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

303 innocent people wrongly convicted, and those are just the ones which had the good luck to have their cases reheard or evidence re-examined. Oftentimes, once a conviction is entered, there is no chance at any re-opening of the case. Wrongfully convicted and new evidence (as in DNA) could prove your innocence? Too bad, you've already been convicted. Next case!

From that website, 18 people have been sentenced to death and later had their convictions overturned due to DNA evidence. How many did we kill before DNA who were innocent? How many others are now on death row who are innocent but can't get a rehearing?

Not to mention crooked and corrupt prosecutors, judges, cops and elected officials. Think there aren't corrupt cops out there who might plant evidence or make up evidence, particularly in, let's say, the south, if you're a minority suspect? And prosecutors who hide exculpatory evidence? Or judges who make bad decisions from the bench or conduct trials poorly, either "accidentally" or on purpose?

As Bdeezine said...all we hear from the right is how government sucks at everything it does. EXCEPT, apparently, for determining with 100% correctness who should be killed by the state. In that case, they're absolutely perfect and never make mistakes.

So then by your definition the officer that kills the murderer in the commission of a crime has done wrong, after all, the cop makes a split second decision to sentence that person to death.

Dear Rob Kerchner, keep your LTE's coming - they're always spot on and you know you're right when the extreme left wingers here start whining. Good job, Rob!

"Murder is the conscious act of ending another's life. Sentencing one to death is murder, not killing."

On what planet?

Murder is the unlawful killing of someone.

By your definition, uniformed American soldiers who killed Nazis in pillboxes on the beaches of Normandy were murderers.

If you're going to engage in a debate over this issue, you. Should at least have some idea of the differences between killing and murder.

Maybe the anti-death penalty people can explain why it makes sense to keep alive someone who we will never release back into society because of heinous acts they have done to others?
Why not just kill them (way more humanely than their victims) and move on, allowing the family of the victims to get some justice and hopefully, peace.
You need to realize that criminals like that thrive in prison. Look up "Lawrence "Pliers" Bittaker".

bluto~ here in CA it makes financial sense "to keep someone who we will never release back into society because of heinous acts they have done to others." Prop 34, had it passed, would have saved CA millions of dollars. We have spent approx $4 billion to execute 13 people since 1978. The death penalty costs CA $184 million dollars per year MORE than a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

It doesn't work. It's time to throw in the towel- spend the savings on maybe more police and investigators, crime prevention, education...

Yes, the death penalty does not work because our ridiculous legal system allows these dregs of society to linger forever at tax payers expense, hence we lose the threat of death to other wannabe crimninals. We need a law that restricts death row inmates to live there a maximum of 4 years.

"""As Bdeezine said...all we hear from the right is how government sucks at everything it does."""

I've told you guys 1,000,000,000,000,000 times. Don't exaggerate!

Nice to know that TRS, Old Reliable, Capt. Gene and Bluto have a renewed faith in the government. I think that's really sweet.

"hence we lose the threat of death to other wannabe crimninals. "

Talk to just about anyone in the law enforcement and justice system, and you'll quickly find that deterrence is, in large part, a myth. That's because no criminal commits a crime thinking they'll get caught and punished (or they wouldn't do it). They almost universally believe they'll get away with it, whatever they're doing.

Couple that with the fact that a large percentage of homicides are committed as part of some other criminal action, or during a domestic disturbance, etc...I doubt that speeding up the execution process would have much, if any, impact on the homicide rate.

I'm sure we'll now see statistics about states which execute people more quickly having lower homicide rates...

Anybody out there remember Richard Ramirez, aka "The Night Stalker"? He was found guilty of 13 counts of murder, 5 attempted murders, 11 sexual assaults and 14 burglaries. Anybody remember when??? September 20, 1989.

After 24 years he is still on death row. Is there any room for common sense in this debate?

Putting people to death doesn't cost the state the large sums of money, it's the never-ending string of appeals that the judges allow to continue that ends up costing us so much. Why IS the Night Stalker still alive???? There is no justifiable reason for it. None. And before you try to argue that, put yourself in the shoes of one of his many victims.

Frankly, I don't care if the death penalty deters the murderer or not; if they're going to commit murder then they aren't making rational decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis in the first place. What i care about is punishing these murderer once they're caught, and as I said earlier, the death penalty is a punishment befitting the crime of murder, in fact, it's the only appropriate punishment.

Per Stevoreno's logic, why have prisons; why have the death penalty; no crime too heinous to deserve death. I suppose legalizing pot & prostitution is just fine too. No wonder society is messed up...

Legalizing marijuana and prostitution is fine with me. Might actually free up the jails for real criminals.

Nice strawman, OR. I said I oppose the death penalty because the system is fallible, and killing an innocent person is unacceptable to me. Since we can't bring people back to life, the risk is too high.

Apparently, you're okay with the occasional dead innocent person, though, as long as your lust for revenge is satisfied.

I was pointing out that the deterrence argument for the death penalty is flawed, not that we shouldn't punish people for crimes.

And yes, I think we should legalize marijuana and prostitution (for the first, we sort of already have, for small amounts in California, and for the second, you might wish to check out Nevada and the legalized prostitution there...seems to work okay for them).

I'm not a left winger OR, but I do have a couple questions for you.

1. Has the state every made a mistake in condemning someone to death?
2. Has the state every made a mistake in carrying out a death sentence?
3. Do we, here in CA, employ the death sentence?
4. How much would we save if we didn't "employ" it?

Questions 3 and 4 are just questions based upon the political landscape but 1 and 2 are real concerns. There is no question the state HAS condemned someone to death who didn't do the crime. There is no question that the state HAS carried out such mistakes.

Since this is clearly not acceptable and since we are wasting so much money on top of it, lets just cut it out. Is anyone's life really so much worse because Manson got life and will serve life instead of being put to death? I have no problem putting someone like Manson to death and in fact I would be happy to pull the trigger, but there are cases where we made a mistake and we can't have that under any circumstances.

Careful, Dumbounded. When you think independently on these message boards or disagree, you get slapped with a "lefty" moniker. People on here love to label and compartmentalize. It's lazy but requires a lot less mental exercise. It's so much easier to blindly vilify whoever doesn't agree. So here's hoping you are not a Commy Pinko.

I know BD, I get into this all the time with my wife and Dad. I ask them a simple question: Has the state every made a mistake by wrongly convicting someone and wongly putting someone to death?

The answer is so obviously yes and since that should be unnaceptable to anyone with a soul, we should do away with it. Not only that but we don't do it anyway so why piss away the money that we don't have?

You can answer those questions yourself, Dumb... but clearly it makes no sense to keep Charlie Mansion alive for 41 Years now!

Is Manson being dead more important than one person mistakenly executed? Sorry, it's not to me. I personally cannot fathom the thought of anyone being put to death, especially by the state, by mistake.

If I could be a 100% sure, then I would favor executions. Sadly, the evidence says that we ARE NOT a 100% accurate.

So OR, is Manson being dead more important than an innocent being put to death by mistake? Incredibly, some people I've asked this question have said yes.

Hey Dumb, are you aware of anyone executed via California's death penalty who was later proven innocent?

By the way, you already said Manson should be executed and that you would do it yourself.

stevehw:
I agree about the death penalty. The government is wrong too often.
Life in prison for first degree murder is OK by me. No death penalty.

No teenagers charged as adults anymore,they have even tried to charge kids 12 as adults.

Give back to the Judges and the Jury the ability to decide if parole is an option.

It is funny, but I used to be for the death penalty but I have lost faith
in much of the judicial system in the past 20 years.

No I'm not OR but the primary reason for that is that we DON'T put anyone to death in CA. We have 500 or 600 death row inmates and they cost a fortune while we go about pretending like we're going to put them to death. You and I both know this wont happen in CA.

That being said, other states can and have put people to death. Again, my question is simple:

Does one person being wrongly put to death justify having a death penalty? Has the state, (I use "state" as a word meaning any government not necessarily our state), ever condemned the wrong person? Has the state ever carried out a death sentence and been wrong about it?

While I rarely agree with Steve, his info is accurate. You should check it out.

Technically, Manson didn't murder anyone.

Technically, Manson ordered those murders... why else has he been in prison for 41 years.

Dumb, you have no knowledge of a wrongful death of a death row inmate, so your point is completely meaningless. Name one person anywhere in America who died via the death penalty who was later proven innocent.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

Given the number of people *on death row* who have had convictions overturned in recent years due to DNA evidence, do you honestly believe no innocent person has ever been executed in the U.S.?

No civilized countries still use the Death Penalty. Just the crazy-azzed theocracies.

Stevehw: is correct. And I am a republican, not a liberal. Many people through "project innocence" have been proven innocent that were on death row and are now free. They are working through the cases but it is a slow process. I am sure many others sitting there now on death row are innocent and waiting their turn for "project innocence" to be able to get to their case.

And that is just death row. How many others not sentenced to death are in the same boat. Unable to afford the DNA tests to prove their innocence?
How awful to sit in prison for something you did not do and watch your life
tick away.

We are all guilty of taking part in this if we don't do something to support an overhaul of the corrupt system in place now. Or will you wait until someone you know is innocent before you care?
Doing away with the death penalty is the first step.

Anyone have a name of a death row inmate put to death and then later found innocent? Anyone... ?

READ THE LINK STEVE PROVIDED!

Sheesh OR, you spout all the time how messed up the government is but you assume they are 100% correct in every case since the start of time where death penalties are concerned? Respond to logic OR. We don't put people to death in CA. We never will other than maybe a one off here and there. We spend 100's of millions on them over and above what a lifer costs. Lets just end the stupidity and move along with our life.

Those 600 people all deserve to die and I'm reasonably convinved that all 600 of them are guilty, but being reasonbly convinced isn't good enough. The only benefit of all of them being put to death tomorrow would be a cost savings. Otherwise, I don't care about them.

OR is demonstrating once again a characteristic trait of the "modern" conservative...

I got mine...F you!

He really doesn't care much if a few innocent people are imprisoned or executed, as long as he isn't directly affected by it. Not *his* family or friends, so therefore...who cares? Certainly not him.

How very persuasive of you Steve. Am I too a "modern conservative"?

Why not try to convince him? I don't think "I got mine..F you" is a very convincing arguement. Some people feel that way for a reason, my dad and wife included. Perhaps there are people you know that feel that way too? Would your retort to how they feel be "I got mine...F you"?

If they feel that it's okay to kill or imprison innocent people as long as it doesn't affect them or their family/friends, then yes, I'd say that's *exactly* their attitude.

Hey Stevoreno... how's that abortion workin' out for ya? 50 million innocent babies killed since Roe V. Wade, but that's perfectly fine, eh...

Yes, because they're not *babies*.

Here's an example of what you're calling a "baby":

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/10.html

Notice, as well, that OR doesn't deny his position..."I got mine...F you!"...when it comes to executing innocent people.

So it's not okay to terminate a 1-day-old pregnancy when the "baby" is a single celled organism, but it's perfectly fine to kill adults who are innocent of the crime they'vefor which they've been convicted.

oldreliable: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

Have innocent inmates ever been executed?

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,200 people executed since 1976 may have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence once the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. (see possible cases of those executed who might have been innocent).

Recently, the case of Cameron Willingham has been in the news. He was convicted of murdering his three children by arson in a 1991 house fire. He was executed in 2004. A new report from a national arson expert, prepared for the Texas Forensic Science Commission, has concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was seriously flawed and could not support a finding of arson.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the Texas Forensic Science Commission has received a report from a nationally known fire scientist that casts doubt on the guilt of Cameron Todd Willingham (pictured) who was executed in Texas in February 2004. Craig Beyler of Hughes Associates conducted a review for the Commission of the evidence used to convict Willingham of murder by arson, which led to his death sentence. Beyler concluded the Texas fire investigators had no basis to rule that a deadly house fire that killed Willingham's children was an arson. His report mirrors what other renowned experts have found over the past several years and is one step in a more thorough review being conducted by the Science Commission. Experts for the Chicago Tribune and the Innocence Project in New York have similarly concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories in calling the fire an arson.

Beyler's report said the Texas investigators failed to consider other potential causes of the fire and contradicted reports from eyewitnesses at the scene. The Forensic Science Commission will now seek a response from the state fire marshall and write its own report.

The link also provides info on many other situations if you really are interested in. Usually you seem reasonable so maybe if you research some of this you will see it is not that we don't want justice, it is that we
are trying to prevent a travesty.

The topics include at deathpenaltyinfo.org include:
Released from death row (partial innocence)

Executed despite doubts of guilt

Causes of wrongful convictions

National registry of Exonerations (details on known exonerations for all crimes not just death enalty crimes)

Willlingham's case is what caused me to change my mind. Texas is in such a big friggin hurry to execute people and looked what happened!

I know. He lost his kids then his life. I hope he was a believer and they are together right now.

Hey Stevoreno, calm down. You support abortion (killing of babies) and I do not. As for the death penalty... I favor it! Death row inmates have full legal services to protect their rights and after a given time that they're not proven guilty, off to the electric chair or whatever. Adios...

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it; in America we still have this freedom, even you Stevo.

OR, will you please at least look at this?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

I hear you and I understand your opinion, but don't close your mind to learning something new. I read this and it completely changed my mind. In my opinion, and I could be wrong, we killed a man who was innocent. Prove to me and everyone that you at least have an open mind and are open to differing points of views.

So what if project innocence does not exonerate a death row inmate, what if their research only cements their guilt, would you have a problem with the death penalty then?

I guess saying a fetus isn't a baby is how the pro-taking-innocent-life-anti-taking-murderers-lives crowd avoids feeling guilty about their blood lust.

No, because absolute certainty can never be achieved.

Blood lust? Which side of this debate wants kill people for revenge? And no, being pro-choice does NOT mean we are "pro-abortion" or have "blood lust". Shees.

"""Yes, because they're not *babies*."""

Steve, is the embryo you show in your link not human? If not, why abort it? Everyone posting on this thread was once that embryo.

Even the most hardened of criminal, committing the most heinous of murder, must be set free if there is "reasonable doubt". Is there no room for "reasonable doubt" for the most innocent and vulnerable among us?

stevehw: I agree with you that we can't take a chance on killing an innocent person just to punish the guilty. Even the courts in some states have seen that their system is so inept and corrupt that they have ordered the suspension of the death penalty. That should give pause to even the most ardent supporter of the death penalty.

But as for killing babies no matter what stage of life, that is wrong too.
They are a human life at a certain stage. If we decide in our heart that the early stage of a human life is not valid then what is to keep you from deciding in your heart that a life in its final stages is not valid?

I know you can argue with any point we come up with. The one you can't argue with is that I base my belief on the instruction booklet from the creator which says that "he knew us when we were in the womb". The bible teaches all life is sacred. I don't have to go further than that.

Bravo, Whataplace, BRAVO!

"But as for killing babies no matter what stage of life, that is wrong too... I base my belief on the instruction booklet from the creator which says that "he knew us when we were in the womb". The bible teaches all life is sacred. I don't have to go further than that."

That's fine...if that's your religious belief, then by all means, you should not have an abortion. But you are attempting to force YOUR religion on OTHER PEOPLE by telling them what is "right" and "wrong" based on your bible. There are other religions out there which belief abortions can be acceptable. Not even all christian religions agree on this, and Jesus said exactly nothing about it, as well.

Yours is not the only religion, you know. I'm sure you *want* it to be the only one, but it's not, so in the meantime, how about you not try to impose yours on others?

Stevehw: the problem is that if we believe the babies are being murdered by abortion then we have an obligation to stop it if we can the same way we would not allow you to kill your elderly parents, yourself, or some other person you deem not be entitled to life. We will continue to try to protect
babies at all stages of life.

Your belief is based on religion. Therefore, you are trying to impose your religion on others.

If you were muslim, we'd call you a jihadist.

stevehw: If you mean someone who struggles to forward a view of life based on belief of God, yes. As did the founding fathers.

If you mean a terrorist using violence then no.

I use my voice, my vote, and my support of alternative options for women who wish to keep their babies.

Good for you. Now, what do you do when confronted with a woman who makes a choice with which you disagree, and chooses not to keep her zygote?

Guess what Stevo, I believe abortion is completely wrong and it has nothing to do with religion.

Drive on, Whataplace!

Steve...

Zygote, embryo, fetus....you keep avoiding my question. Whatever name you choose, can you deny this is human? If it is NOT human, why abort it? If it IS human, how is this not taking a human life?

Don't hide behind the "religious belief" argument. We're talking science and biology now. Please answer the question.

I never said it wasn't "human". Every cell in a human being's body (not counting bacteria, etc.), is "human".

Calling a zygote a "baby" is just a transparent attempt to color the discussion, though.

My appendix is "human", but we don't have a problem taking it out ("killing it"). Is this a baby?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blastocyst.JPG

No. The scientific term is "blastocyst". Calling early developmental stage organisms "babies" taints the argument by appealing to emotion, rather than to reality.

And that's the real difference here. Nobody wants to kill "babies", but we differ as to the point in fetal development where termination is acceptable because of the nature of the organism. Some of us believe that abortion of early-stage embryos is acceptable (depending on what "early" means...does it have a neural system that can feel pain, for example), while others feel that a single-celled organism has some special characteristics that must be protected.

I have a hard time believing that just because two cells merged and joined DNA that makes it anything special, UNTIL it has developed into something more.

If every fertilized egg is a "baby", what do you propose to do about all the spontaneous abortions? Should we hold funerals for them, for example?

Right steve, and using the term "organism" to describe nascent life is not done to color the discussion at all. What a crock.

"""Calling a zygote a "baby" is just a transparent attempt to color the discussion, though."""

Just as the term "zygote" attempts to color the discussion, Steve. Most abortions are performed in the sixth week. I encourage you to choose any link you wish to see a photo of a six week old fetus and tell me this isn't a baby.

Aw, look at that cute little baby:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/c5/90/c59045fa65cf4399c9121b1265f97306.jpg

Oops...that was a cat...here's a cute little 6-week old baby fetus

http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/The-Gender-of-a-Child-Determined-at-6-Weeks-of-Pregnancy-2.jpg

Hmmm...I'm having a hard time telling them apart...

Stevo is in denial... again.

"Just as the term "zygote" attempts to color the discussion"

No, that'a a technical, biological definition. You avoid it because it puts the debate into the scientific realm and away from your religious-based views.

Hey Stevo, when is it unacceptable to abort a fetus?

"""Hmmm...I'm having a hard time telling them apart..."""

Let me help you. The one you're defending killing is the human.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/09/17251878-man-wrongly-imprisoned-in-murder-case-wins-132-million-in-civil-rights-lawsuit?chromedomain=usnews

Hey Stevo, when is it unacceptable to abort a fetus?

I don't understand how all these people that run around advocating for "Less Govenrment!" are the same people that want the govenment to incarcerate people for a weed and/or prostitution. They are the also the same people that want the government to step in and not allow you to abort an un-born child..... annndddd they are the same people that want the government to step in and kill people for certain crimes. Which is it guys? Do you really want less government? Or do you just want everything your way?

Also, our founding fathers didn't care about your religion. It bugs the heck out of me hearing people claim that "Our forefathers founded this land based on religion/Christian values." That statement is a LIE! This country was founded by citizens that wanted to escape religious persecution of old Europe. It was founded on the belief that you can worship, or not worship, whatever religion you choose. The idea was to have common law aside from ANY religion.

So Shredman prefers a lawless America, eh. Sheesh...

He just said "common law aside from any religion".

O.R. What's moral about bombing cities? Is an American fetus worth the same as a Waziristani school kid? Do you support retroactive abortion, aka "capital punishment"? What does the Bible say about ultimate judgement? Who died and made you...?