[xzins]

I'm surprised at Mark Fuhrman. Anti death penalty??

[I still care]

I saw a crime show the other day (true life)that the family was devastated the murderer did not get the death penalty. That is argument number one for me.

He got life in prison. (This man was very obviously guilty of multiple, heinous murder.)

He was released on parole some 25 years later. That is argument number 2.

There are some crimes even 25 years are not enough for.

[2timothy3.16]

The Holy Bible, the Word of God, clearly teaches that there are some crimes that are so bad that society needs to rid themselves of the perpertrators of such crimes by executing them.

What we as a society must do is work to make the system fair and honest enough so that fewer inncoent men and women are convicted.

[Sam Cree]

I've never believed in it either. In fact the 5th commandment prohibits it. However, after 9/11 I may be ready to change my mind.

I believe, though, that Fuhrman's primary objection is his belief that innocent men are being executed.

[cyborg]

I disagree with Mark Fuhrman BUT I value his opinion as someone in law enforcement over a kneejerk civilian with no experience.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

When affirmative action reaches into the forensics lab and produces abominations like Joyce Gilchrist, certainty of guilt is impossible, making the death penalty immoral.

[xzins]

Sometimes we find opportunities.

[mtbopfuyn]

Who the heck cares what Furman has to say about anything? I will agree though that executions should be public, not sanitized. When sickos see what will happen to them, maybe it will save a few innocent victim's lives.

[Sloth]

Good response in there about the value of life, but I'd defend 'vengeance' as a perfectly good reason on its own.

[Born Conservative]

I posted an article today on the SCOTUS hearing a case in which a mass murderer's death penalty was thrown out because of improper instructions to the jury; the guidlines for the instructions were made AFTER the trial.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/992872/posts

[B Knotts]

I saw him talk about this a while back. He's not anti-death penalty. He's anti-death-penalty-as-it-is-currently-administered. He does not have faith in the compentency or honesty of the prosecutors, investigators, forensic pathologists, etc., who are supposed to ensure that only the guilty face the ultimate penalty.

After reading about some of the sloppy work being done in the criminal justice system, I cannot disagree with him.

[Mr. Jeeves]

I no longer have enough faith in government to trust them with carrying out the death penalty in a just manner. The concept I accept and agree with, it's just that there are not enough moral people in government in these times to trust with the administration of the ultimate punishment.

[The Great RJ]

If anything is to be posted on the Internet it should be the murder crime scene photos. People need to see things like the face frozen in terror on the little girl who was raped and murdered by some pervert or the mutilated and decomposing bodies left by some serial killer. Seeing that they would have the "stomach" to watch an execution--just like many victim's families choose to do.

[JudgemAll]

"Every murder is “heinous, atrocious and cruel.” By executing the innocent we have commited an act just as “heinous, atrocious and cruel”ourselves.

What utter BS ... equating a gratuitous crime with aim to destroy the truth with that of the painstaking death penalty process which has noble duel and truth finding role.

The duel between a criminal and the courts in arguments cannot be compared to a heinous crime. This a hole has obviously a liberal agenda.

[P-Marlowe]

If we don’t have the stomach to watch executions, we shouldn’t be performing them.

I agree with that. Frankly Fuhrman's opinion at least is rational. Most people who argue against the death penalty are areguing in favor of the perpetrator's right to live even if he spent his whole life killing and torturing children. Fuhrma's concern is in regard to the question of guilt.

Frankly there should be a different standard of proof before we give someone the death penalty and Fuhrman appears to be open to that, but he doesn't express it. Before we execute a criminal the proof should not only be "beyond a reasonable doubt" but the evidence should preclude the possibility that anyone other then the defendant could be guilty. In other words there should be a finding that it would have been impossible that the defendant did not commit the crime. Perhaps a secondary standard that the jury would have to reach in a death penatly case, something like, "no legitimate or actual possibility of innocence".

Some death penalty cases are really borderline in the evidence department and the heinousness of the crime often poisons the jurors minds against the defendant to the point that they wish to punish somebody and the defendant then becomes the target of their wrath.

I think Fuhrman has gone too far by suggesting that the death penalty should be abolished, but then his arguments at least have the appearancer of legitimacy.

[waterstraat]

cops that lie on the witness stand in murder trials, who commit perjury, and take the fifth ammendment when asked about if they lied on the witness stand, should not be in favor of the death penalty.

[thoughtomator]

The counter to Fuhrman sounds a lot more like an anti-abortion argument than an anti-death penalty argument.

The anti-death-penalty argument is simple, to me. What government can really be trusted with the power to put its citizens to death? A government which believes it can put a citizen to death in one situation will find a way to justify doing the same in a different situation (e.g. the Waco catastrophe).

[Tribune7]

I respect Fuhrman's position (and other anti-death penalty types, although note that Fuhrman does reserve death for certain crimes.)

But what about those who commit a particularly cruel murder, are spared, then kill again in prison or after serving 20 years of their "life" sentence?

[bmwcyle]

Killing is never pretty but to save society it is sometimes needed. Mark is a good person and a nice guy. It would turn anyone's insides.

[TexasCajun]

Well, Mark, at least you succeeded in screwing up the O.J. investigation, that's one less death-penality case you have to fret over!

[Zevonismymuse]

For many of the same reasons stated by Furman, I stopped being pro-death penalty several years ago. The primary reason I am opposed to it is that I find the idea of a state executioner repugnant. I hate civil servants in general and certainly think they are the least competent among us.

The only death penalty I believe in is the Ellie Nessler.....when a victim's family pulls our a gun and blows the brains out of someone who is certainly guilty. Too bad she blew her own case by being on dope.

My mother used to say, "If anyone hurt my children I would ring their neck with my bare hands and I would defy a jury to convict me!"