Pendulum begins swing away from death penalty

[Tiger Al 0]

It started when Rick Santorum, a conservative Republican senator from Pennsylvania, announced two weeks ago that he was questioning his once unyielding support for the death penalty.

Then Sen. Sam Brownback, an equally conservative Kansas Republican, chimed in, saying capital punishment contradicts the efforts to establish a "culture of life," a phrase that became prominent during the controversy over Terri Schiavo's fate.

Neither lawmaker has suggested that the United States abandon the death penalty altogether -- it should still be reserved for the "most horrific and heinous of crimes," Santorum said.

But the apparent change of heart from two of its unequivocal supporters illustrates a broader tendency.

"While I still believe that the death penalty has some value, I have seen that there are serious questions about its use, such as possible wrongful convictions," said Santorum, through a spokeswoman.

"Whereas before I was an unquestioning supporter, now I am inclined to urge more caution," added Santorum, who in 1994 voted against a proposal to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment.

Brownback was even bolder.

"If we're trying to establish a culture of life, it's difficult to have the state sponsoring executions," he told U.S. News & World Report this month. He also suggested that taxpayer funding for abortions and capital punishment should be eliminated.

Santorum, who is Catholic, first expressed his change of heart late last month, after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops began a campaign to end the death penalty in the United States on the heels of a sharp decline in support for capital punishment among America's Catholics.

Among America's evangelical Christians, support has dwindled from 82 percent in 1996 to 59 percent in 2004, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life -- although influential conservative evangelical groups, such as Colorado-based Focus on the Family, continue to back executions.

LINK

I'll have to check, but I suspect these two are probably up for re-election in 2006.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I'd say that's accurate. I'm not as much of a hardcore supporter of it as I was a few years ago. Most of the change in my heart on it would be attributed to the convictions that have been overturned because of DNA evidence and such. Arguments such as "it costs less..." or "thou shalt not kill..." don't really move me. I don't think that the execution of a murderer is anything other than deserved justice. But I have a huge problem with the possibility that innocent people have been executed. If we can't fix the system to eliminate wrongful executions altogether, then I don't trust that power in the hands of the state any longer. And if getting rid of the death penalty will elevate the notion of a "culture of life" to the point where we can get rid of or at least severely restrict abortions, then that is a good thing as well.

[Tiger Al 0]

Most of the change in my heart on it would be attributed to the convictions that have been overturned because of DNA evidence and such.

Dag!!! I thought maybe I was finally getting through!

[CCTAU 3,341]

Fry'em all. Of all the people on death row today, NONE of them were arrested at Wednesday night prayer meeting out of the blue. In the history of the world there have been many people executed because of the bad situations they have put themselves in. Too many people see the DNA evidence of a few people on death row as exonorating them and creating an innocent person. When in actuallity they were never really innocent, just maybe not guilty of the crime they were on death row for. There is a difference. And for the few who are truly innocent of the charges, they probably should have thought of the consequences before they lived the life they did.

[Tiger Al 0]

Fry'em all. Of all the people on death row today, NONE of them were arrested at Wednesday night prayer meeting out of the blue. In the history of the world there have been many people executed because of the bad situations they have put themselves in. Too many people see the DNA evidence of a few people on death row as exonorating them and creating an innocent person. When in actuallity they were never really innocent, just maybe not guilty of the crime they were on death row for. There is a difference. And for the few who are truly innocent of the charges, they probably should have thought of the consequences before they lived the life they did.

155369[/snapback]

And if she wasn't asking to be raped then she shouldn't have worn that belly button ring.

[CCTAU 3,341]

Fry'em all. Of all the people on death row today, NONE of them were arrested at Wednesday night prayer meeting out of the blue. In the history of the world there have been many people executed because of the bad situations they have put themselves in. Too many people see the DNA evidence of a few people on death row as exonorating them and creating an innocent person. When in actuallity they were never really innocent, just maybe not guilty of the crime they were on death row for. There is a difference. And for the few who are truly innocent of the charges, they probably should have thought of the consequences before they lived the life they did.

155369[/snapback]

And if she wasn't asking to be raped then she shouldn't have worn that belly button ring.

155380[/snapback]

I bet if that's all it took not to get raped, she would have gladly taken it out. What we do and wear, how we act, and what situations we put ourselves in all create the future we could or could not have. My advice is don't do anything or be anywhere that would make you questionable.

After the rape, it doesn't really matter why, just that it happened.

But yet like most of what you said in this thread, this has no bearing on whether or not to fry'em.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Fry'em all. Of all the people on death row today, NONE of them were arrested at Wednesday night prayer meeting out of the blue. In the history of the world there have been many people executed because of the bad situations they have put themselves in. Too many people see the DNA evidence of a few people on death row as exonorating them and creating an innocent person. When in actuallity they were never really innocent, just maybe not guilty of the crime they were on death row for. There is a difference. And for the few who are truly innocent of the charges, they probably should have thought of the consequences before they lived the life they did.

155369[/snapback]

This is one of the more ignorant things I've seen in this forum in some time. You have no basis in fact to make statements like:

"When in actuallity they were never really innocent, just maybe not guilty of the crime they were on death row for. There is a difference."

"And for the few who are truly innocent of the charges, they probably should have thought of the consequences before they lived the life they did."

If we're going to execute at all, civilized people in a democratic republic do not execute people for running with a bad crowd, a life lived badly, or for crimes we think they probably did but we can't even begin to prove.

Please tell me you were just trying to push some buttons and be funny.

[Tiger Al 0]

And for the few who are truly innocent of the charges, they probably should have thought of the consequences before they lived the life they did.

Fry'em all. Of all the people on death row today, NONE of them were arrested at Wednesday night prayer meeting out of the blue. In the history of the world there have been many people executed because of the bad situations they have put themselves in. Too many people see the DNA evidence of a few people on death row as exonorating them and creating an innocent person. When in actuallity they were never really innocent, just maybe not guilty of the crime they were on death row for. There is a difference. And for the few who are truly innocent of the charges, they probably should have thought of the consequences before they lived the life they did.

155369[/snapback]

And if she wasn't asking to be raped then she shouldn't have worn that belly button ring.

155380[/snapback]

I bet if that's all it took not to get raped, she would have gladly taken it out. What we do and wear, how we act, and what situations we put ourselves in all create the future we could or could not have. My advice is don't do anything or be anywhere that would make you questionable.

After the rape, it doesn't really matter why, just that it happened.

But yet like most of what you said in this thread, this has no bearing on whether or not to fry'em.

155387[/snapback]

So I should just be happy to live my life knowing that sooner or later I'll come into contact with someone who dislikes (or REALLY likes) something about me so much that they would do me harm and it will be my responsibility?

Uh oh, I'd better not buy those shoes because someone may think they look gay and drag me with their truck and I'll be responsible. I'd probably better re-think going to that church because someone might disagree with its beliefs and decide to blow it up and I should've known better. If I date a black girl, what if some redneck from Prattville doesn't like it and causes me trouble at the mall. If I put a Powell/Rice 2008 sticker on my bumper some looney liberal may run me off the road in a fit of rage so I'd probably better not put it on there. Of course, he may be in a rage because I'm driving a truck that isn't "green" enough for him so maybe I should think of those consequences and buy a hybrid instead of what I want. I need money and I have some in my account but I might get robbed by a crackhead or abducted and raped by a homosexual if I use an ATM so I'd better leave my car in the parking lot. Oh wait, if its broken into, that's my fault, too.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

If I date a black girl, what if some redneck from Prattville doesn't like it and causes me trouble at the mall.

Is CCTAU from Prattville?

[CCTAU 3,341]

If I date a black girl, what if some redneck from Prattville doesn't like it and causes me trouble at the mall.

Is CCTAU from Prattville?

155409[/snapback]

Depends on which mall you go to. And I doubt a black girl would even have you...stubby!

The point is that we are all responsible for our actions or percieved actions. If you want to live in your own little perfect world (back to that 50 gallon drum again) go ahead. But I know that if I go to certain downtown Atlanta areas at night, I may not make it back. Would that be my fault? In part, yes.

Legal and not legal don't mean squat when your ass is dead or getting the shaft. The old saying is if you don't want t get burnt, don't play with matches. You go ahead and save all the innocent. I'll just worry about keeping me and mine out of harms way.

[Tiger Al 0]

Depends on which mall you go to. And I doubt a black girl would even have you...stubby!

The point is that we are all responsible for our actions or percieved actions. If you want to live in your own little perfect world (back to that 50 gallon drum again) go ahead. But I know that if I go to certain downtown Atlanta areas at night, I may not make it back. Would that be my fault? In part, yes.

Legal and not legal don't mean squat when your ass is dead or getting the shaft. The old saying is if you don't want t get burnt, don't play with matches. You go ahead and save all the innocent. I'll just worry about keeping me and mine out of harms way.

155647[/snapback]

I understand about not putting yourself in dangerous situations. But, before you said:

"And for the few who are truly innocent of the charges, they probably should have thought of the consequences before they lived the life they did."

What consequences should someone who is "truly innocent" have thought of? That was my point with my illustrations earlier. What "matches" did they play with to get "burnt?" Or, is it because they somehow made it to death row that makes them guilty of something, anything, even if they are "truly innocent?"

I guess it's really better to kill one "truly innocent" man than to let 99 guilty ones go "free," if you consider a lifetime in prison as "freedom."

[CCTAU 3,341]

I guess it's really better to kill one "truly innocent" man than to let 99 guilty ones go "free," if you consider a lifetime in prison as "freedom."

Sure as heck would keep crime down. It does in other countries. If everyone was afraid that they would get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, especially your "truly innocent" folks, then maybe people would think BEFORE they act.

Btu alas, in the liberal world even the criminals are ALWAYS victims......

[Tiger Al 0]

I guess it's really better to kill one "truly innocent" man than to let 99 guilty ones go "free," if you consider a lifetime in prison as "freedom."

Sure as heck would keep crime down. It does in other countries. If everyone was afraid that they would get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, especially your "truly innocent" folks, then maybe people would think BEFORE they act.

Btu alas, in the liberal world even the criminals are ALWAYS victims......

155736[/snapback]

Wow...I think I'll just sit back and see how your conservative, America-loving buddies handle this.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I guess it's really better to kill one "truly innocent" man than to let 99 guilty ones go "free," if you consider a lifetime in prison as "freedom."

Sure as heck would keep crime down. It does in other countries.

That's not a justification unless you're a monster.

If everyone was afraid that they would get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, especially your "truly innocent" folks, then maybe people would think BEFORE they act.

Btu alas, in the liberal world even the criminals are ALWAYS victims......

155736[/snapback]

I notice you didn't address any of the examples that Al that carried your line of thinking out to its logical conclusions. We don't do things this way, nor should we. And we haven't even addressed situations where a person gets framed by another.

Bottom line: making sure we kill all the criminals by overstepping and snagging a few innocents in the web is nuts. Sure, I could kill all the weeds in my yard using Roundup on the whole thing. But I'd rather not kill the actual grass too. So, I use products that kill weeds while not harming the grass. And the few weeds that are similar enough to grass not to be affected by the weedkiller get specific attention by me pulling it.

[CCTAU 3,341]

I guess it's really better to kill one "truly innocent" man than to let 99 guilty ones go "free," if you consider a lifetime in prison as "freedom."

Sure as heck would keep crime down. It does in other countries.

That's not a justification unless you're a monster.

If everyone was afraid that they would get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, especially your "truly innocent" folks, then maybe people would think BEFORE they act.

Btu alas, in the liberal world even the criminals are ALWAYS victims......

155736[/snapback]

I notice you didn't address any of the examples that Al that carried your line of thinking out to its logical conclusions. We don't do things this way, nor should we. And we haven't even addressed situations where a person gets framed by another.

Bottom line: making sure we kill all the criminals by overstepping and snagging a few innocents in the web is nuts. Sure, I could kill all the weeds in my yard using Roundup on the whole thing. But I'd rather not kill the actual grass too. So, I use products that kill weeds while not harming the grass. And the few weeds that are similar enough to grass not to be affected by the weedkiller get specific attention by me pulling it.

155756[/snapback]

But many people successfully control their weeds by using round-up as a spot agent and in the process kill a few blades of grass.But overall the elimination of weeds is considered to be a success. Find another example, please. We are in the situation we are in in this country because we have made the criminal the victim. When it happens to you, you'll change your tune. Then when you think they have the right guy, you'll want him dead.

I'm with Texas on this one. If you have at least three eye witnesses to a capital crime, you go straight to the front of the line.

BTW. ALL criminals on death row are INNOCENT...according to them.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

But many people successfully control their weeds by using round-up as a spot agent and in the process kill a few blades of grass.But overall the elimination of weeds is considered to be a success. Find another example, please.

Why should I? I showed how many people take care not to kill something as measly as grass to get rid of weeds. You just illustrated the ludicrous nature of your position by equating the killing of a few blades of grass with killing a few innocent people.

We are in the situation we are in in this country because we have made the criminal the victim. When it happens to you, you'll change your tune. Then when you think they have the right guy, you'll want him dead.

I'm not arguing with your first sentence. It's the rest of it that's disgusting. I'm against the killing of innocent human beings just to hold on to the notion of the death penalty.

I'm with Texas on this one. If you have at least three eye witnesses to a capital crime, you go straight to the front of the line.

I'd still allow some time to make sure that the eyewitnesses are on the up and up. But not as long as we currently wait. And BTW, I'm only advocating that the death penalty be administered properly, as in multiple eyewitnesses, DNA evidence and the like. Circumstantial cases or ones with weak physical evidence don't qualify. Now, if we can't seem to get that straight and keep executing innocent people, THEN I'd be in favor of getting rid of it or at least putting a moratorium on it until can fix it.

BTW. ALL criminals on death row are INNOCENT...according to them.

155774[/snapback]

I don't care if death row inmates think they are big blue bananas with X-ray vision. It doesn't make it true. That has nothing to do with the fact that truly innocent people have been or would have been executed without the advent of DNA technology and the time for people to research it and get it right.

[CCTAU 3,341]

But many people successfully control their weeds by using round-up as a spot agent and in the process kill a few blades of grass.But overall the elimination of weeds is considered to be a success. Find another example, please.

Why should I? I showed how many people take care not to kill something as measly as grass to get rid of weeds. You just illustrated the ludicrous nature of your position by equating the killing of a few blades of grass with killing a few innocent people.

We are in the situation we are in in this country because we have made the criminal the victim. When it happens to you, you'll change your tune. Then when you think they have the right guy, you'll want him dead.

I'm not arguing with your first sentence. It's the rest of it that's disgusting. I'm against the killing of innocent human beings just to hold on to the notion of the death penalty.

I'm with Texas on this one. If you have at least three eye witnesses to a capital crime, you go straight to the front of the line.

I'd still allow some time to make sure that the eyewitnesses are on the up and up. But not as long as we currently wait. And BTW, I'm only advocating that the death penalty be administered properly, as in multiple eyewitnesses, DNA evidence and the like. Circumstantial cases or ones with weak physical evidence don't qualify. Now, if we can't seem to get that straight and keep executing innocent people, THEN I'd be in favor of getting rid of it or at least putting a moratorium on it until can fix it.

BTW. ALL criminals on death row are INNOCENT...according to them.

155774[/snapback]

I don't care if death row inmates think they are big blue bananas with X-ray vision. It doesn't make it true. That has nothing to do with the fact that truly innocent people have been or would have been executed without the advent of DNA technology and the time for people to research it and get it right.

155780[/snapback]

Well now that they have access to all this new technology, what will be the excuse 20 years from now when they are still on death row and this technology is gone? What will be the new excuse for these new "victims?"

Right now, just as in the past, its not great, but its all we have. Like I said, if it happens to you or yours, all that sainthood will fly right out the window. Not trying to be disgusting, just realistic. Unfortunately nobody likes true reality these days.

[Auburn85 432]

How dare we executed Timothy McVeigh

How dare we executed Ted Bundy

But, Lee Malvo, Charles Manson Susan Smith, Eric Rudolph will live, and it'll be 20 years from now when and if Scott Peterson is executed

And now, in most cases, using the insanity plea is a given .

[Tiger Al 0]

How dare we executed Timothy McVeigh

How dare we executed Ted Bundy

But, Lee Malvo, Charles Manson Susan Smith, Eric Rudolph will live, and it'll be 20 years from now when and if Scott Peterson is executed

And now, in most cases,  using the insanity plea is a given .

155878[/snapback]

A given, huh? Of the seven people you listed, only Lee Boyd Malvo entered a plea of not guilty by mental insufficiency and his wasn't a typical insanity plea. He claimed that because of his youth and other factors he had been brainwashed.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

How dare we executed Timothy McVeigh

How dare we executed Ted Bundy

But, Lee Malvo, Charles Manson Susan Smith, Eric Rudolph will live, and it'll be 20 years from now when and if Scott Peterson is executed

And now, in most cases,  using the insanity plea is a given .

155878[/snapback]

A given, huh? Of the seven people you listed, only Lee Boyd Malvo entered a plea of not guilty by mental insufficiency and his wasn't a typical insanity plea. He claimed that because of his youth and other factors he had been brainwashed.

155887[/snapback]

I've wondered who else may have assisted McVeigh. One thing seems sure. He'll never tell us.

[Tiger Al 0]

Well now that they have access to all this new technology, what will be the excuse 20 years from now when they are still on death row and this technology is gone?

Where will this technology be going?

Right now, just as in the past, its not great, but its all we have.

No, it isn't all we have. We have life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The person is permanantly removed from society and no longer poses a threat.

Like I said, if it happens to you or yours, all that sainthood will fly right out the window.

You're fearmongering and trying to play on man's weakness for vengeance as your argument.

[AUloggerhead 2,252]

I'd say that's accurate.  I'm not as much of a hardcore supporter of it as I was a few years ago.  Most of the change in my heart on it would be attributed to the convictions that have been overturned because of DNA evidence and such.  Arguments such as "it costs less..." or "thou shalt not kill..." don't really move me.  I don't think that the execution of a murderer is anything other than deserved justice.  But I have a huge problem with the possibility that innocent people have been executed.  If we can't fix the system to eliminate wrongful executions altogether, then I don't trust that power in the hands of the state any longer.  And if getting rid of the death penalty will elevate the notion of a "culture of life" to the point where we can get rid of or at least severely restrict abortions, then that is a good thing as well.

155206[/snapback]

I think your last sentence there is wishful thinking. I doubt the pro-choice crowd will ever make the same "culture of life" connection as a result of abolishing the death penalty. But this is nothing more than a tangent to the real issue.

The basic premise of questioning all death penalty sentences because of the latent application of DNA technology in some cases which resulted in the condemned to be set free is the real issue. It's sensationalistic when it happens but I would avoid making a blanket policy to abolish the death penalty because of this. Every case needs to be treated independently.

Let's keep in mind the OJ trial. This same DNA evidence where the prosecution's DNA expert testified that the chance of the DNA collected at the crime scene had a 1 in 7 billion chance of not being OJ's (at the time, the world's population was about 6 billion.) The irony here is that the DNA evidence in that trial was ignored by the jury. Wrongful executions are bad -- no question. How do you feel about wrongful acquittals? After all, if it's possible for a court to wrongfully convict someone, doesn't that mean the possiblity also exists to wrongfully acquit someone too? I mean, what are the odds the scales of justice tilt in one & only one direction?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I think your last sentence there is wishful thinking.  I doubt the pro-choice crowd will ever make the same "culture of life" connection as a result of abolishing the death penalty.  But this is nothing more than a tangent to the real issue. 

It may be wishful thinking. That's one reason I started that sentence with an "if." It's not the main reason I'd be convinced to support a moratorium on the DP anyway, just a hoped for side effect.

The basic premise of questioning all death penalty sentences because of the latent application of DNA technology in some cases which resulted in the condemned to be set free is the real issue.  It's sensationalistic when it happens but I would avoid making a blanket policy to abolish the death penalty because of this.  Every case needs to be treated independently.

Well, initially, I would propose a temporary moratorium on it to give us time to sort through the current cases and see if things like DNA evidence would give us more information. It would also give us time to address the issues surrounding disparities between poor defendants vs rich defendants in sentencing and convictions. This is a final solution that once done wrong, cannot be fixed. We need to make sure we get it right.

Let's keep in mind the OJ trial.  This same DNA evidence where the prosecution's DNA expert testified that the chance of the DNA collected at the crime scene had a 1 in 7 billion chance of not being OJ's (at the time, the world's population was about 6 billion.)  The irony here is that the DNA evidence in that trial was ignored by the jury.  Wrongful executions are bad -- no question.  How do you feel about wrongful acquittals?  After all, if it's possible for a court to wrongfully convict someone, doesn't that mean the possiblity also exists to wrongfully acquit someone too?  I mean, what are the odds the scales of justice tilt in one & only one direction?

155900[/snapback]

The OJ case illustrates my point precisely. If OJ had been some poor nothing, he'd likely have been convicted and should have been, IMO. But that's the problem. Some think the disparity is about race. I think it's about wealth. Wealthy defendants can hire the best attorneys in the land to defend them. A good defense costs money. Poor defendants get whatever scrub the public defenders office can spare. The best attorneys aren't willing, most of the time, to live on a public defenders salary and resources.

Now to your second question: wrongful acquittals. I hate them. But I find wrongful convictions many times more egregious than an acquittal and wrongful executions completely unacceptable. In fact, this is how our system was orignally set up to work. The person is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is not on the accused to prove their innocence, but on the prosecution to prove their guilt. Almost every law and procedure in our Constitution was set up to tilt toward the defendant in order to prevent the State from using the law to persecute people. I think that's the right way to go.

Frankly, it doesn't bother me that much to have a person spend life in prison without parole as an alternative to execution. Do I still think the DP is a viable sentence in the most heinous cases? Yes. But I'm no longer comfortable with a system this broken. It needs to be fixed or the sentence itself needs to be done away with.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

The best attorneys aren't willing, most of the time, to live on a public defenders salary and resources.

In jurisdictions with public defenders, most who serve in that capacity are dedicated, although underfunded and overworked, public servants. I do know that about 12-15 years ago in Alabama, attorneys were generally appointed to such cases, most not wanting them-- some not even with much experience as defense attorneys-- and given $1000 to try a capital murder case. I imagine each of OJs attorney earned about that much each hour. The disparity in the quality of "justice" is immense.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Death penalty cases need to be held to a higher standard - in terms of DNA and other scientific evidence. But it does not need to be removed as a punishment. If someone hurt Katie, and DNA said he did it, then I would personally push the button. Key word - DNA. These days, they can get DNA from a 5 bajillion year old dinosaur bone - don't tell me that the DNA evidence that is shown is court is not a sound basis for the death penalty.

I always laugh at how many people on death row that claim they are innocent stop talking very quickly when they are offered a DNA re-test with today's testing methods, which become more and more technologically advanced every day. If I were innocent, you damn right I would be screaming for DNA testing to prove it.

I also submit that if OJ were tried today, he would be found guilty - back then DNA testing was a totally new thing, and no one really understood it. So Cochran tried the "Baffle them with BS" defense, and it worked. Today's juries are more sophisticated in that EVERYONE knows that DNA is yours and yours alone, just like a fingerprint.