Talk:Capital Punishment

This is not a popular position in this state.--Jdjonsson 20:14, 1 December 2005 (MST)

NC may have been 1000th but Utah was first.

I agree that this is not a popular position in Utah, but we should ask ourselves what the death penalty is giving us. I submit that it is a natural tendency to want to extract vengence, but our system is not fool proof. If the standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, then put someone away. The problem is when reasonable doubt leads to a future test showing that person was innocent. Of all the people on death row, how many are innocent of the crime? WHo gets to make that call with absolute certainty.

I would guess that there aren't many innocent people on death row (if any). You are correct, however, that this is hard to test.

I submit that it is far cheaper to keep people locked up than put them to death. In my mind, we have other issues such as the revolving door that is parole. My theory is that the term of your sentence assumes good behavior. If you screw up inside, then time starts getting added to your sentence. There should be no such thing as early release (nor mandatory minimum sentences). I suspect if people realized they would have to serve no less than their sentence, that would serve as more of a deterrent for crime. Then again, for the number of prisions we would have to build, I hope no one minds paying more taxes for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.60.22.24 (talk • contribs). 15:59, 2 December 2005 (MST)

If we work on drug policy reform, we can reduce the harm that drug abuse causes, and reduce prison use at the same time, so swelling prisons doesn't have to be a deterrant to death penalty reform. Dilvie 03:59, 28 December 2005 (MST)

More Utah friendly opposiiton to Capital Punishment

Your current wording may sound a bit "too liberal" to me. I suggest using the stronger openning sentence

The death penalty has failed as a deterrent for violent crime.

And immediately backing it up with that famous quote of some retiring justice who supported the d.p. saying he had been proven wrong, and would have liked to revisit the decision. Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyarlathotep (talk • contribs). 09:59, 10 January 2006 (MST)

Also, you might come out stronger if you focused on the juvenile death penalty, which Hatch may support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyarlathotep (talk • contribs). 10:02, 10 January 2006 (MST)

Proof of claim about innocents being executed

I certainly agree that, from a logical and statistical point of view, one can assert that innocent people have been executed but I believe it is factual that no one has yet proven that. I.e. that if discussing capital punishment with a supporter of the practice, there is not a case out there one can use as the example. [Though there are several investigations right now that hope to be able to do that, most recently in Virginia] -gbinal

What about forgiveness?

I would like to see some reference to the possible rehabilitation of even 100% guilty criminals, and the impossibilty of rehabilitation implicit in cases where the criminal is put to death before fully comprehending the effect of their actions. Just because someone is unrepentant at the moment, that does not mean there is no hope that situation will change.

I don't think vengence is a reasonable motive for punishment. Here is how I see it: Murderers are obviously dangerous, and people are influenced by those they associate with. It is true that someone who has little or no regard for the lives of others could be reformed; however I also think it is likely (especially in our prison system) that they would influence other inmates in a very negative way (our prison system sometimes seems to be self-supporting). This makes me question the logic that 'life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty' (legal fees from appeals seem to be the driving factor here). Monitarily, this is certainly true, but are we looking at all of the costs?

For a state full of those who claim to have the emulation of Jesus Christ as their life's mission, many of us seem unwilling to take his injunctions for mercy and forgiveness to heart. I would like to see you address this discrepancy, Mr. Ashdown. In fact, I'd like to see you cite your faith as the motive for your position on ANY issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BHayes (talk • contribs). 16:19, 27 February 2006 (MST)

First of all, Pete has cited how his faith has guided him to declare as the Democratic candidate in his description of Party Affiliation. However, I object to that question because you are asking for a de facto religious test for the office. Is the fact that you (among others, of course) are applying this test better than the government administering it?--Brett 21:18, 28 February 2006 (MST)

Lately, many politicians have been using faith not as the reason for their decisions, but the excuse. It greatly concerns me to see some who believe they are divinely inspired, dictating policy as the hand of God. They use faith as their shield against criticism in the face of much needed debate. I want to reach decisions on policy based on facts, constituent need, and my personal beliefs, in that order.--pashdown 09:04, 1 March 2006 (MST)

Are you still Mormon? I didn't really see it made clear on your site. Because as I recall, personal revelation is a big part of Mormonism. When your constituency asks you to justify something, I think Utah would be the most understanding of "God told me to", but if that's all you have to justify it with, would you or would you make up something? Or would you ignore the revelation? Things always turn out for the best when God's will is executed; would you sacrifice the good of the nation because you don't have the balls to admit your reasoning? I wonder if Benson or Smoot or other Mormon GA-politicians have something to say about this. I've never read the complete Smoot hearings. I need to do that sometime. Have you read them? The parts I have read are very good. You should do it if you haven't. : ) Cookiecaper 10:54, 6 May 2006 (MDT)

Also, do you not consider your religious beliefs to be facts? It's clear that Mormonism advocates capital punishment for murder. See http://scriptures.lds.org/gsc/cptlpnsh and other places. I can understand your concerns about killing innocent people, and truly that's an important concern. There's nothing wrong with putting more safeguards in place to prevent the execution of innocents; however, as this doesn't seem to be a gross problem, and our current system works fairly well, why is the complete eradication of captial punishment necessary? I'm not trying to troll, I'm just asking some questions. Cookiecaper 11:11, 6 May 2006 (MDT)

The scriptures stated contradict Exodus 20:13. Scriptural debate aside, the difference between Iran and America is that our leaders are to base their decisions on what is best for the people and not the scriptural text of a single religion. I do not pretend to be a channel for God's hand, nor will I ever, an all-powerful diety doesn't need my personal help in executing their will. Unless God wants to hold a joint press conference with me, then I'll consider that decision correct. Once again, my decisions on policy based on facts, constituent need, and my personal beliefs, I view a single government-sponsored death of an innocent to be a gross problem. Does it have to be your family member before you decide otherwise?--pashdown 09:55, 8 May 2006 (MDT)

I disagree that Mr. Ashdown cited HIS faith as part of why he chose the Democratic Party. He cited a LDS author who chose the Democratic party because they are kinder to the poor. I have personally known a great number of atheists who have chosen their party affiliation depending on which they perceive to be kinder to the poor (all Democrats, of course) and Mr. Ashdown does not draw a direct correlation between his own faith and his feelings for the poor. Also, the "no religious test" clause prohibits such a test as a means of determining qualification for an office. Of course Mr. Ashdown qualifies, using the legal definition of that term. But when choosing who I will personally vote for it is no less responsible for me to choose based on religion than it is for you (or anyone) to choose based on who seems more trustworthy. Bhayes 11:23, 6 April 2006 (MST)

The No religious test clause means that the government cannot apply religious tests when seating someone. Private individuals can vote on whatever reasoning they want to apply, including religious reasoning. Cookiecaper 11:14, 6 May 2006 (MDT)

Granted, but I argue that religion shouldn't be the sole reason nor the sole excuse. A leader in a country of disparate beliefs needs to take all of them into account.--pashdown 09:55, 8 May 2006 (MDT)

death penalty

Death penalty not a deterrent? How many of those executed have ever committed another crime?

A deterrent is normally considered in regards to the living considering a crime. How many lifers have committed another crime outside the prison?--pashdown 20:48, 19 March 2006 (MST)

That is an interesting question. There are a number of people who are sentenced to life but have their sentences shortened. I think it is possible that some of these people have committed crimes after getting out. As for the death penalty as a deterrent, it would seem that the fact that most people escape the death penalty (and the fact that it takes so long to be applied) undermines it as a deterrent. Therefore I would claim that we cannot evaluate the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent in general from our system.

Not a deterrent, BUT ...

Capital punishment should never be repealed. That might seem odd, coming from someone who believes in God, and forgiving others their sins, as I would want mine to be forgiven.

But having been the victim of a violent crime in 1988 changed my perspective forever. I escaped from death and have performed at least a hundred hours of research, trying to understand how anyone can commit horrendous crime against women, children and the elderly.

What I have learned is that there are different kinds of murder and abuse, and thank God that the aberrations are just a small percent of all the crimes committed.

I agree that capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent for most criminals, but it does accomplish one very important thing. It prevents the most perverted, anti-social predators from ever committing a crime again.

Sadly, a life sentence no longer means that a perpetrator will spend life in prison. There are certain criminals who will murder people after they've subjected them to unspeakable cruelty and the fact is that this type of criminal enjoys what he is doing and there can be no rehabilitation - because this is the way their mind works. These are the criminals who have a sense of entitlement and they enjoy hurting people and they treat them as objects.

The recent execution of Tookie Williams in California is a prime example. National Review's Rich Lowry--who, like me, wants for Mr. Williams--has penned a vivid description of what Mr. Williams did to end up on Death Row.

Williams committed his first murder while robbing a 7-Eleven with three associates in 1979. Williams ordered Albert Owens into a storage room in the back of the store. He made him lie down, then fired two rounds into his back. The barrel of the gun was so close to Owens that the pathologist said one of the wounds was "a near contact wound." Owens had offered no resistance, and Williams later mimicked the dying Owens with gurgling sounds. The robbery netted $120, or $30 per robber.

Two weeks later, Williams robbed a motel of $100, murdering three people. He shot 76-year-old Yen-I Yang twice at close range. He shot Yang’s 63-year-old wife, Tsai-Shai Yang, in the face. He shot their 43-year-old daughter once in the back and once in the abdomen.

Nice guy.

One of the policemen who responded said “The way the bodies were arranged…you could see that they were cowering.” The murders were so shocking that tips flooded in. People said that Williams was bragging about killing the Yangs. He reportedly referred to the victims as “Buddhaheads. The daughter left behind five children to mourn her. Oh and half her face was missing from the shotgun blast that killed her. Tookie made off with about $98 cash from the hotel till.

What if you could prevent the murder of Polly Klaas who disappeared on 10/1/93 when Richard Allen Davis took her from her own bedroom while she having a sleep over with her friends. Two months later, her remains were removed from beneath planks of ply wood. Davis' was a habitual offender who confessed to police that he was smoking hash the night he abducted and murdered Polly Hannah Klaas.

What if you could go back time and prevent the murder of Samantha Runnion - a 5 year old girl who was snatched kicking and screaming outside her Stanton, California, home on July 15, 2001 and then sexually assaulted and killed. Her body was discovered less than 24 hours after her disappearance, some 50 miles from her home. If you could bring either of these little girls back and prevent the horrors that were perpetrated on them, wouldn’t the death penalty be worth it?

The day after the funeral for Samantha Runnion, her mother, Erin Runnion expressed anger toward the jury that had let Alejandro Avila walk free when he was on trial for a previous charge of molesting two young girls. 

Erin Runnion said, "I blame every juror who let him go, every juror who sat on that trial and believed this man over those little girls, I will never understand. And that is why he was out. And that is why his sickness was allowed to do this." Manipulation, Domination, and Control are the watchwords for psychopathic murderers. These are people who know that raping and murdering is wrong, but they do it anyway because they enjoy it.

A leading authority on sadistic murderers, and leading psychiatrist Stanton Samenow has stated that “Rehabilitation as it has been practiced cannot possibly be effective because it is based on a misconception. To rehabilitate is to restore to a former constructive capacity or condition. There is nothing to which to rehabilitate a criminal. There is no earlier condition of being responsible to which to restore him.

“People who work with murderers and sex offenders – people who have committed these offenses again and again and again…people who do these things get caught, but they only get caught for a fraction of what they’ve done. To turn these kinds of people back into society knowing that they enjoy hurting and killing other people is unconscionable.”

And that’s what the death penalty accomplishes – it keeps the most depraved and sick predators away from you and the people you love.

Capital punishment for capital crime should never be viewed as a deterrent.

Some people have committed an act so outrageous and heinous that they should never be given the chance to return to society. While they live, they have a chance. Laws can be created or modified, rulings can be overturned, etc.

The fact that a ruling can be overturned is an arguement against the death penalty..

As for incorrectly being convicted, personally, I'd rather die than live in prison with that kind of reputation. If I didn't end up as somebody's girlfriend I'd end up getting cruelly and painfully murdered. Or else I would survive by becoming the type of person I was accused of being and then you have another criminal where you had none before.

The right to suicide if convicted is a separate issue from the death penalty. --Wthrower 17:53, 18 July 2006 (MDT)

EDIT: Hmm ... after re-reading I realized this is a forum where you can clarify your position. I would love to see someone take a moderate stance. "The death penalty is necessary only under the following circumstances ..." rather than either a flat denial or acceptance. Does that drag this back on topic? :>

Is there a "moderate" position on killing someone? Perhaps chopping off a limb instead? No, I either think you're for capital punishment or you're not. I'm against it for the reasons stated.--pashdown 09:20, 3 April 2006 (MDT)

One could argue that current law is already a moderate position. It is somewhere between complete acceptance of the death penalty for all crimes, and no death penalty for any crime. Maybe the "moderate stance" you would love to see is something between current law and complete elimination of the death penalty, but what is the justification for such a change? Certainly not your personal desire. --Wthrower 18:20, 18 July 2006 (MDT)

The cost, the lack of deterrent, and the irreversability of the death penalty are my motivations for elimination.--pashdown 09:42, 19 July 2006 (MDT)

Thanks for the concise restatement. I actually understood those reasons. You stated them very clearly. I was addressing the person wishing for a "moderate" position. The only value I see a "moderate" position is in creating the perception of compromise while moving closer to eliminating the death penalty. I prefer your honest approach of stating your ideals. You may have to compromise when changing laws, but not when stating your position (unless you want to play the dishonest political game of a typical political candidates, and lose the interest of people with strong ideals). What I'm trying to say is... thanks for clearly stating your positions and embracing productive controversy. (Also, good job avoiding non-productive controversy.) --Wthrower 15:28, 19 July 2006 (MDT)

The Mysterious Russian Federation

The Russian Federation's murder rate is mentioned in the article, but their position on capital punishment is excluded. Supporters of the death penalty will likely assume that the Russian Federation has no death penalty, so omission of that fact can be perceived as evasive or deceptive. If the Russian Federation has a death penalty, mentioning that fact would strengthen the assertion that capital punishment is not an effective deterrant. If they do not have a death penalty, I'd prefer to see that fact dealt with rather than avoided. --Wthrower 17:53, 18 July 2006 (MDT)