The death penalty

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Within the last couple of days, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the execution of juvenile killers is unconstitutional.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a ruling that marked a change in "national standards," a divided Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that the execution of juvenile killers is unconstitutional.

The 5-4 decision tosses out the death sentence of a Missouri man who was 17-years-old when he murdered a St. Louis area woman in 1993.

Writing for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy found the punishment was unconstitutionally cruel under the Eighth Amendment.

"When a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity."

Supporting Kennedy were justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

The ruling means the death sentences of some 70 death row inmates who were under 18 at the time of their crimes will be invalid. States in the future will not be allowed to seek the death penalty for minors.

It got me to thinking that I had never seen this topic come up in this group. I am curious as to how you feel about the death penalty, both in regards to minors and adults. I know it can be an inflammattory topic but I have hope that it will remain civil here.

I'll start. I'm against the death penalty, no matter the age. The main reason I feel this way is because there have been too many cases where an innocent man has been sentenced to death only to be found innocent later. I don't have numbers on how many times this has occurred but, for me, once is too many times anyway. Years ago, I saw a film called "The Thin Blue Line" about a man in Texas who was very close to being executed, when the man who actually committed the crime (murdering a police officer) confessed. The innocent man, Randall Addams I believe, was just walking down a street one night and matched a description. Simple as that.

There have been other similar cases. The idea of being wrong as to whether someone is guilty or not, is bad enough. With the death penalty though, the error is not correctable. As long as the system isn't foolproof, I don't believe in taking the chance of being wrong.

So at the risk of opening a can of worms, what are your thoughts?

[blueerica]

Actually, I remember having a conversation about the death penalty back on Fab, perhaps the first incarnation of that board.

I'm out of time in the computer lab, but perhaps tonight I'll log back in and post my thoughts about the dear ol' death penalty.

[Gemini Cricket]

I was undecided on this in the past. I've done some soul searching on this topic. Now, I'm against it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm against it for the reason you gave, MBC. On top of that, because of the nature of it, a lengthy appeals process is a requirement. You simply cannot sentence someone to death until you give ample opportunity to be as sure as possible that it's the right decission. As such, it fails to be an effective deterrent. The punishment is too far removed from the crime.

[mousepod]

I am one big wussy fence-sitter on this issue. On one hand, I work in a jail among many violent convicts - and I've seen "restorative justice" close-up. The prevailing feeling among the directors of programs here (both offender programs and victim programs) is very anti-death penalty. I admit that I'm a born skeptic, but a good skeptic looks at both sides of the issue, and I do see their point.

On the other hand, when I hear some of the descriptions of heinous crimes (none of which I'll repeat here) and it's absolutely clear who committed them, my instant reaction is that the offender should not be allowed to live. I know it's a very animalistic reaction on my part, but I can't deny it's there.

I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make these decisions, though my ambivalence would probably keep me on a jury (such irony).

[Prudence]

It somewhat depends on what theory of punishment holds more sway for me at the time. As far as deterrents go, it doesn't seem to be much of one. But if one's most inclined toward isolating evildoers, it is the ultimate isolation. But I think ultimately I come down against because of the irrevocability (is that a word?) of it. You can never give someone back years of their life spent behind bars, but at least you can restore their future. There's not much restoration after the death penalty is enforced.

Plus some do-gooder part of me wants to hold out the hope of reformation until the very end.

[Nephythys]

I will never ever ever be able to grasp the mindset that frets about an innocent man being executed on death row, yet wholeheartedly supports a so-called woman's right to choose which means the death of a totally innocent life. (yes- let's quibble about "life"- not)

So much for respecting life....

and yes, I support the death penalty, and now I am going to try to stay out of this. (and hope no one gives me personal grief for it- this post is by no means meant to be personal)

[wendybeth]

Having known several people who were murdered, I tend to come down on the pro-death penalty side. I am also pro-choice, not that that was the subject here.

[lizziebith]

I'm against the death penalty for many of the reasons listed above, plus, I'm very uncomfortable with any government having life-or-death power over its citizens.

I've always acknowledged that the survivors of murder victims have a legitimate claim to some sort of revenge (however distasteful that seems in the abstract). But I've felt that the death penalty is not the right route because it isn't direct. If family members of victims were pulling the switch or doing the injection, then the death penalty would be far more defensible, but I bet few family members COULD do that...which begs the question: would you be pro-death penalty if you had to "pull the trigger" yourself? Or is it only O.K. if someone else does the dirty work...I've thought of the death penalty before as "murder by proxy" on the part of survivors.

But to take the other side of that argument: is it fair to ask people who'd never normally be inclined to murder to be the killers of a killer?

Maybe we should be asking that question of family members...because it really highlights the act in question.

Finally, if someone (God/dess forbid) murdered my child, I would not leave it up to the government. If I had compelling evidence as to the identity of the killer, I'd actually buy a gun and hunt that sucker down. Which opens up a whole can of worms about vigilante justice, and why we have due process, appeals, etc.

Well, this is a complex issue...and I just wanted to convey some of my (obviously) confused thoughts on it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by lizziebith

I'm very uncomfortable with any government having life-or-death power over its citizens.

Neph, there's your answer in a nutshell, at least for me. Abortion is a matter of personal choice, death penalty is a matter of government weilding its power to kill. The government shouldn't have a right to determine a woman's personal choice about abortion, but I have a right to determine the government's actions towards possibly innocent people.