The problem with the being against the Death Penalty

[Caliga]

I don't trust government with the power of judicial killing.  I don't trust them with the power to declare war, either, but that's not something you can take away from a single government, so I live with that.

+1

[Ed Anger]

An express lane should be put in for executions. And make 'em painful and messy.

[dps]

I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder.  That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception.  I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.

And executions should be public.

[Jaron]

The man described in the OP NEEDED to die.

[Viking]

And then there is the case of the guy who was found guilty of murder after testifying while OD'ing (or at least, so says the doctor, he didn't seem to mind) on Rufies, just to remind you why you are against it in the first place.

(can't find an article in english)

Why would a guy take Rufies?

to deal with the stress of confessing to murder it seems..

[Admiral Yi]

As I was driving home yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that read "Don't kill on my behalf.  No death penalty."

Made me think that would be a good thing to put in wills: if you're ever murdered you don't want the perp executed.

[The Brain]

As I was driving home yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that read "Don't kill on my behalf.  No death penalty."

Made me think that would be a good thing to put in wills: if you're ever murdered you don't want the perp executed.

Can I put in my will: all gays will be executed?

[Barrister]

As I was driving home yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that read "Don't kill on my behalf.  No death penalty."

Made me think that would be a good thing to put in wills: if you're ever murdered you don't want the perp executed.

Can I put in my will: all gays will be executed?

It will be: void for public policy.

[viper37]

I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder.  That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception.  I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.

And executions should be public.

like this guy here, clearly subject to an upstanding legal process:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/88667567.html

the problem with requiring a higher standard of proof is why?
You don't do that for any other crime.  The verdict is achieved, then the sentence is pronounced according to the crime as reported.  Judges have guidelines from the law and previous trials, i.e. minimum 10 years, max 15 years, etc, etc, but it's not attributed given the opinion of the judge on the strongness of the case.

And assume you do require an higher standard, what will happen then?
A DA wants a conviction, so he'll go for a life sentence instead of a dp case if he doesn't feel he has sufficient evidence, and then the defense will know the case is weak and insists on that during trial, and both parties will be more favorable to plea bargain resulting in lighter sentences.

[dps]

I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder.  That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception.  I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.

And executions should be public.

like this guy here, clearly subject to an upstanding legal process:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/88667567.html

the problem with requiring a higher standard of proof is why?
You don't do that for any other crime.  The verdict is achieved, then the sentence is pronounced according to the crime as reported.  Judges have guidelines from the law and previous trials, i.e. minimum 10 years, max 15 years, etc, etc, but it's not attributed given the opinion of the judge on the strongness of the case.

And assume you do require an higher standard, what will happen then?
A DA wants a conviction, so he'll go for a life sentence instead of a dp case if he doesn't feel he has sufficient evidence, and then the defense will know the case is weak and insists on that during trial, and both parties will be more favorable to plea bargain resulting in lighter sentences.

Well, to start with, IMO the prosecutor's office shouldn't be making a decision to "go for a life sentence" instead of the death penalty, at least not before a verdict is rendered. 

[Neil]

A prosecutor has a moral obligation to go for the death penalty, even in cases when the death penalty is not warranted, or in countries where the death penalty is unlawful.

[grumbler]

I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder.  That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception.  I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.

And executions should be public.

Suppose there is a case with enough evidence to convict of premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt (the current standard) but not enough to convict according to your new, higher standard.  The result is acquittal?  That doesn't seem right.

[The Brain]

I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder.  That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception.  I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.

And executions should be public.

Suppose there is a case with enough evidence to convict of premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt (the current standard) but not enough to convict according to your new, higher standard.  The result is acquittal?  That doesn't seem right.

Strawman.

[Agelastus]

I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder.  That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception.  I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.

And executions should be public.

Suppose there is a case with enough evidence to convict of premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt (the current standard) but not enough to convict according to your new, higher standard.  The result is acquittal?  That doesn't seem right.

Grumbler, aren't you conflating penalty with verdict here and thus misrepresenting what dps has said?



Anyway, although our reasons differ, I know we both oppose the death penalty, so I'm not really trying to pick a fight here. However, I thought some states did set a higher standard of proof for imposing the death penalty over that for imposing a life sentence once conviction has been achieved? I've got Texas in my head for some reason regarding this.

[Razgovory]

No, he's not.