Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

In the several months I have spent visiting UHH, I have found the most popular, polarizing, and controversial topic to be gun control. While I don't remember it being brought up here, I suspect the Death Penalty to be equally controversial with most hoggers leaning strongly one way or another as is the case with guns. Unlike most, I take a middle ground. IMHO, the biggest flaw with the death penalty in the USA is the inconsistent manner in which it is applied from state to state. In "Hang em High" Texas, an offender with no history of violence, convicted of a "garden variety" homicide may face execution, sometimes in the face of doubt regarding pre-meditation, mental competency, or even actual guilt. At the same time, in the "Bleeding Heartland" of America (most of New England and the Upper Midwest), those convicted of multiple killings, torture, baby killing, etc. get sentenced to room, board, and medical care for life. My suggestion is to try capital cases in a Federal court with uniform statutes for all 50 states. I would also suggest an optional third verdict in capital cases; Guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. If it keeps one guilty person from going free or one innocent off death row, it will be worth it, even if it goes against the general principles of American justice. Any thoughts, hoggers?

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

Forgot to mention, that the verdict, Guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, would allow the offender to be sentenced to life without parole, but would disqualify him/her for the death penalty

Robert Graybeal Loc: Myrtle Beach

This idea came from someone else's mind, But I like it:

Put the convicted felons on an escape proof island,
feed them well,
give them the best medical care,
make them excerise,
keep them healthy.

When some law abiding person has a need for a kidney, or heart, or cornia, GO GET ONE!

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

An understandable reaction and suggestion on your part, Graybeal, but as a physician, I can't go along with it. It is against medical ethics for a doctor to perform a procedure on a patient against his wishes, even if the patient is a P.O.S. serial killer. The Nazi doctors did the same, for the "crime" of being a Jew, Gypsy, homosexual, or communist

sarge69 Loc: Ft Myers, FL

I think in a similar manner for the death penalty for taking another persons life.

Guilty without reasonable doubt ?

Execution within a month by hanging. To be televised live with explicit warnings. Should fit in a commercial time frame.

Guilty with doubt?

A 4 foot x 6 foot room with a 6inch by 2 inch slat for a window. One hour a week out in the courtyard for fresh air.
No gym, no TV - oatmeal and water for breakfast.
No library, no computer - water and a balogna sandwish for lunch.
Supper - Maybe meat & boiled potatos.

Let's let criminals serve their time without the luxury they tried to; or did, deprived someone else of.

Sarge69

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

I don't personally see a need for a death penalty. If we just get the offender out of society there should be no need of killing him/her. We could easily afford the expense if we would quit locking up people for simple drug use. By that I mean personal drug use with no associated crimes. Myself, I don't partake of drugs, but a friend of mine waited over a year to serve an 8 year sentence for possession of marijuana because the prisons are overcrowded. Outside of his conviction, Gary is a good citizen: works everyday, brings a paycheck home to his wife and child, and consumes expendable and durable goods. He should be given community service and a fine. No need for him to take up prison space.
The death penalty is just...too...final, and leaves no room for error.
I do, however, believe in state's rights, and would NOT like to see the federal government take charge of yet another matter of which it is increasingly being proven incapable of handling.

photobuf Loc: Mississippi

Kill all the murderers, pedophiles, rapist and serial killers and let God sort it out later. Just me thinking. :-)

Gnslngr

If you spend any time at all talking to lawyers, judges, and jurors you realize very quickly that the system is not capable of certainty. If you cannot be certain of guilt you should never take a life.

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

Which is exactly why I suggested the verdict, Guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt; a viable alternative to sending an innocent to death row or a guilty one free

Gnslngr

Unfortunately your suggestion is unconstitutional. In order to be found guilty of a criminal offense in this country, the constitution requires that the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt at all, the defendant walks.

susie-q-tip Loc: Mississippi/Texas

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Although I, personally support the death penalty, I also know that it doesn't reduce the murder rate and that it truly is just legal revenge. I also know that it is decidely an Un-Christian thing to do as I'm sure Jesus would certainly refer me to the 5th Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill.
I also take issue with the writer's new crime of "Guilty but not beyond a reasonable doubt". Under the law, if there is reasonable doubt, then you are not guilty.
Some of the sugggestions here are simply torture and that's not what civilized societies should be doing.
The one objection that I truly have for the death penalty is our history of having executed innocent people that we can never get back. Doesn't happen often, but what if it's you?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Actually, I'm in favor of a new kind of appeals court that examines two facts. Is there sufficient evidence to determine that the convicted individual commited the murder beyond any doubt, and did he/she receive a fair trail, with all possible constitutional challenges considered. Passing these litmus tests, the individual should be passed on to an early execution date.

Gnslngr

Why bother with guilt? Scalia does not have a problem executing the innocent:

“This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.”

SteveR Loc: Michigan

That's another question not touched by my thought. Mine specifically referred to those who were guilty without doubt. Those who a preponderence of evidence indicated to be the perpetrator.