Agreed. Maybe he needs to have dinner with Mark Lunsford!
Not a problem. He is out after the next election.
This would be my issue if I was on a jury. Frankly, "beyond a reasonable doubt" wouldn't be enough for me to recommend a death penalty. I'd have to be next to certain, which is next to impossible to prove.
Abolitionist? They're now comparing the death penalty to slavery. They won't be happy until all the law abiders are dead and all the criminals are free.
I agree with him. I'm against the death penalty. I think its unnecessary in modern society and it just further adds to a cool view towards life in general. I'm not going around championing its abolition or anything and I think other issues are much more important, but I would prefer life without parole as the standard.
I hope he's just doing it for political effect. The death penalty is under attack. We don't need the staunchest conservatives turning against it.
Of course, I don't have any problem with tightening it up to make sure that innocent people don't accidentally get executed. That's the last thing we want to happen, particularly since it would be very difficult to stop repeal of the death penalty if that happened. But the notion that we should simply take some classes of criminals who are clearly guilty and exempt them from the death penalty does not appeal to me.
Pathetic.
I'm for death penalty. Yet, i think it should be reserved for cases such as serial killers whose possibility to be rehabilitated is almost zero.
Don't agree. While I still support the death penalty, I have reconsidered it too. I don't believe that re-thinking something as serious as the death penalty is a sign of weakness.
The only problem with the death penalty is the time it takes to get it carried out.
-"I agree with the pope that in the civilized world ... the application of the death penalty should be limited.-
In a civilized world we wouldn't have to deal with killers and rapists, but we aren't civilized, not really, so off with their heads, I say.
The ONLY way I would change my mind against the death penalty would be if they were given life without ANY possiblility of parole AND that HARD LABOR was MANDATED WITH NO AMENITIES...NO TV no BOOKS etc etc.
That being said I am all for the means of death for all death row inmates to be changed to the Terri Shaivo method.
Living in Wisconsin, I never gave it too much thought (we don't have it here). I always assumed I was for it. But, in the past couple of years, I have been thinking of it more and more. I have hesitation when I see that generally, if you are a rich person, you are spared the death penalty, but if you can't afford good representation you are more likely to get it. DNA evidence becoming more prevalent has caused some reconsideration also.
One case that stuck out in my mind was the OJ Simpson case. Although he was ultimately acquitted (which I don't agree with), I will always remember the prosecution announcing that they weren't even pursuing the death penalty because they figured it would be harder to get a conviction if the death penalty was on the table. To me that was blatantly unfair. I think that we should have a set of laws that say if you commit such and such a murder, and you are convicted you get the death penalty. It should be across the board. Anything so arbitrarily used can not be fair. And for me that is a moral problem.
I will never change my opinion of the death penalty in cases of mass murder, and I will feel comfort when I see someone like the child molester Couley put to death, but something must be done.
I've had my own reservations about the death penalty, though I'd never object to introducing scum like Couey to some of his fellow prisoners. I'm sure that "death penalty process" wouldn't take nearly as long.
Instead he should just be gung-ho when it comes to issues of life and death. As ridiculous as it gets...