Posted on 03/25/2006 4:12:16 AM PST by 13Sisters76
Over time, I have come to oppose the death penalty (intellectually), but not for the reasons one might think...
First- it is never applied fairly. If it were, rich jerks like the Melendez brothers would be on death row instead of reading fan mail.
Second- the perps would get one appeal and then the morgue.
Third- they would NEVER get such a peaceful death as that offered by the needle. Bring back Old Sparky. They should face, at least, SOME of the pain and terror they afforded their victims.
Fourth- repeat child molesters and rapists should be on the list. These people cannot be "rehabilitated". They offer NOTHING of any worth to the society. They are less than subhuman and not worth our pity or time. Burn 'em.
There's only one good reason for not executing a child molester who hasn't killed his victim, and a very good one--the risk of execution if he kills his victim might deter him from killing the victim. For that reason, and that reason alone, I don't favor executing child molesters who haven't killed their victims. Jailing them for the rest of their lives, OTOH, is just fine.
I can nearly, but not quite, understand why some people object to capital punishment. ...
I'm a conservative but I object to capital punishment based on my place in reality. And it has nothing to do with any mistranslation of the Bible. I know the proper translation says "thou shall not murder.
And I am more convinced of my position since I joined FR less than a year ago.
I am against the death penalty and always will be until science, the courts and law enforcement officials can guarantee that an innocent will never be accidentally executed by our legal system.
That may never happen. So I suggest we join the civilized world and start working on how we are going to make a life prison sentence less desirable than the death penalty.
Many of us claim to be "pro life". Sometimes being pro life means being able to stomach allowing the most heinous of us to live because our desire to protect the innocent is the greater good.
This is not surprising in a society that tolerates the existence of disgusting organizations such as NAMBLA.
I agree.There was a time,in some states,when rape was a capital crime.I think the same might have been true of kidnapping.
In any case like that,if the penalty is death then the perp has a very strong incentive to kill his victim.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
I can see why parents of the molested children would kill the perps. if in the same situation I know I'd go after someone who I knew harmed my child. Consequences be damned.
As for the death penalty overall, I'm for it and so would many opponents if they or their families were horribly victimized.
Tax the shite out of them!
So you oppose the application of the death penalty, not the death penalty itself?
I understand that argument, but I think capitol punishment would save more kids than it hurt, and thus is preferable.
The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Lock them away forever, but no death penalty.
Plain and simple. Done, over gone. Never to hurt a child again. Makes sense to me!
If we had executions of child molesters 20 years ago, the McMartins, The Amiraults, and Kelly Michaels would all be dead.
The only problem is they wear all innocent.
Since child molestation is an area where emotion often trumps the facts, I oppose execution for child molesters. I think you'd have innocent people being put to death.
How about having a death penalty for just flat out murder first?
Then decide what other crimes to (re)expand it to.
Torture them first and then kill them slowly.
I disagree with your requirement for 100% risk free application of the death penalty. The death penalty has saved thousands of innocent lives in America alone by deterring criminals from murder and effectively eliminating murders who commit murder. To eliminate the death penalty until you are 100% sure in all cases that the legal system is perfect would result in the deaths of 1,000's, just like we saw in the late 60's, 70's and 80's. Victims are also innocent in most cases, and they will die if you require 100% assurance. Life has risks.
--and for the vicious bloody-handed types who post on these threads, my wife was once on a jury trial of a man who was accused of "child molestation" in a divorce case--took about fifteen minutes to aquit him--
Why add the risk of a malfunction in the legal system that might put me to death when it is supposed to protect me? A life sentence in a no-frills work camp prison is deterrence enough for me.
Why? Because the death penatly is a deterrant, much as the left likes to say it isn't. Executing criminals saves innocent lives and the statistices are quite astounding. I'm in favor of a stong appeals systems, and after conviction reviews of evidence just to be sure. But, I disagree with the concept that the "state" taking an innocent life is so bad that we let a 1,000 crimnals kill without fear lf losing their own life. The state refusing to do what is reasonably within its power to reduce murder, is also "taking inccocent lives".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.