Kerry & the Death Penalty
When people talk about the Kerry’s “flip-flops”, the one substantive argument is how Kerry changed his mind about the death penalty after 9/11. His position now is to oppose the death penalty in all cases except terrorism. Personally, I think this position is odd (if it’s okay for terrorists, why not for child killers and mass murderers?), but my death penalty views aren’t exactly set in stone either. I think the problems that conservatives have with this aren’t that it’s seen as see-sawing on the issue, but that opposing the death penalty is seen as a sign of weakness.
But if you’re pro-death penalty, I’d think that the anti-DP views of someone who’s actually killed people (as I presume Kerry did in Vietnam) should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. Especially since the alternative is the pro-DP views of a guy who’s never gotten closer to killing someone than mocking death row inmates on the eve of their executions (though, to be fair, we still don’t know all the fact behind his drunk driving record).
16 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m basically in favor of the death penalty. In theory, though not in its current practice in too many situations.
I do not personally have a problem with the ultimate penalty for what I would consider particularly heinous examples of the ultimate crime.
But there are significant inequalities in its application and seemingly too many innocent people convicted and sentenced to death.
This is of course a completely bogus Presidential issue, since the President has no impact or jurisdiction of any sort on this issue. I guess he can use his bully pulpit to express preferences, or it can be a standard by which to judge a candidate… But I really want this issue to go away since it doesn’t reflect well on Kerry in matching up with the electorate, and I want actual, important, pertinant issues to be addressed. But that’s apparently just me.
With those things in mind, the only role on the national level should be the imposition of a moratorium on the death penalty until those issues are remedied. If that means a review of DNA evidence of every person waiting on a death row, than make it happen.
Capital Punishment cases need to be iron-clad, absolutely certain. Defendants need to have the best possible defense available. If a DA is going after the death penalty it should be incumbent upon the state to be sure the defendant is provided the best available public, if not private, defense. That should be part of the cost of taking these cases to the limit. I don’t ever want to hear about the kind of crap that goes on in Texas with capitol case public defenders sleeping during trials. Abominable. Even the most hard-core hang ‘em high types should be outraged about shit like that. Bush should be ashamed of his behavior as Governor, not proud.
This terrorism-only deal is a big problem for me. First, the nature of these trials, tribunals, and procedures to be followed by the government in these cases are not nearly transparent enough and does not follow the same burdens of proof or rights to defendants for me or any fair-minded person to be convinced of absolute guilt. I simply do not trust the government, especially this Administration, on this issue. We will see stretches made to define things as terrorism, and the process followed thereafter cannot be trusted, and the punishment cannot be undone. I understand Kerry’s analogy about war, but self-defense just won’t always apply to each individual case, just as pre-emption is a flawed policy.
Secondly, I just honestly believe there are more crimes than terrorism that rise to the level of the death penalty in my opinion. Like the child-killer, serial killer you mention, plus cop-killers…
I beleive that for the vast majority of homicides the death penalty does not make a deterrent impact, as they are crimes of passion or impulse. But in cases of premeditation, killing during commision of other crimes and certain instances it does. And for certain particularly heinous murders, I don’t care about deterrence
There are a lot of good points against the death penalty, and part of me wishes I could swing to the other side of this issue. But at this point, if I know the person is guilty, knowingly and willfully committed a horrendous act on another person, and will never be rehabilitated or released from prison, I can live with their death on my conscience.
Comment by Mr. Furious — March 10, 2004 @ 8:37 pm
Isn’t the death penalty a state matter, anyway? Why is a President’s (or Presidential candidate’s) opinion on it considered so important?
Comment by Ruth — March 10, 2004 @ 9:26 pm
A President’s view is important because more than anything else, the President is the national agenda-setter. Witness the debate over gay marriage. The President has no real role in the adoption of a Constitutional amendment, but when the President puts something on the table, it gets passed around to everyone.
Comment by Earnest — March 11, 2004 @ 6:20 am
Interesting. Is it largely symbolic, though? I mean, especially at this point of an electoral campaign, is any actual change expected to come about, or is it more about saying, “This is representative my values and opinions” for voters to align themselves with? Or is it even more superficial than that, and it’s more about stirring up latent attitudes (and perhaps even prejudices) in voters to endear them towards a particular candidate?
Comment by Ruth — March 11, 2004 @ 8:29 am
umm… ther IS a federal death penalty system. the man now sitiing in office has signed two death warrants since he took office.
it IS a federal issue.
and i don’t even see the debate about it. you can’t argue its in self defense, and if your not claiming self defense, killing is absolutly wrong. once you cross the threshhold of saying “well, it’s okay to kill someone IF…” then all executions become possible.
if you believe personally someone deserves the death penalty in certain situations, that’s fine. believe what you want. but, we shouldnt allow the government to say its okay to kill its own citizens over ANY circumstances.
the rest of the industrialized free world has accepted this. im not sure why we havent yet.
Comment by josh — March 11, 2004 @ 8:34 am
If you accept that a government’s primary purpose is to protect its citizens, then you can make a case for the death penalty, arguing that its essential to protect citizens from its most harmful members.
Comment by Earnest — March 11, 2004 @ 9:46 am
But am I really any safer if you execture someone than if you put them away for life? Now contrast that with the amount of saftey I loose because I could be wrongly executed of a crime I didn’t committ. I don’t think the death penalty makes me any safer.
Comment by Andrew — March 11, 2004 @ 10:05 am
Wouldn’t we all like to see a world without war? How can we ever hope to get there if we still sanction taking life unnecessarily?
Where will we be as humans, if we decide that living without taking life is a pipe dream, an impossibilty?
Our morals as a nation fluctuate with the size of our pocket books and the heat of our anger.
Comment by Stephen — March 11, 2004 @ 12:07 pm
i agree with steve-o here, but i see it a little less as idealism and more so as a prctical reality that once the state takes a life, it can no longer claim the moral authority to say killing is wrong. the state has the responsability of protecting its citizens, not the moral authority to take lives of its own.
Comment by josh — March 11, 2004 @ 12:56 pm
First off, I would only like to see a world without war if people would stop doing the things that sometimes make war necessary. Second, even if only marginally, I think you are less safe if a ruthless murderer is put away for life instead of executed. Killing is not inherently wrong, but murder *is* legally wrong.
Comment by Earnest — March 11, 2004 @ 5:31 pm
Earnest, you really believe that killing is not inherently wrong? We can make twinkies that have a shelf life of twenty years but we can’t construct a society in which people don’t have to kill each other? Haven’t you heard, live by the sword die by the sword, blood begets blood?
We don’t have peace because we don’t believe in it. People believe in death and vengence. I believe people can be more than that. I believe the calling to be more has been on the lips of prophets of all religions for millenia. You can’t answer the call to be more than a self serving autonimous cell and not give up something.
Look around and tell me, are women treated as equals in our society? Are African Americans, latinos and hispanics treated as equals? Are children honored as our future, or shunted aside as extensions of our lives? Ask yourself these questions and then tell me, what do we as a society know about justice that we can claim the right to start wars and put people to death!
Comment by Stephen — March 12, 2004 @ 6:46 am
Man has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property (or the pursuit of happiness). If you can relieve man of one of those items, then you can relieve them of all. We, as a society, determine what warrants the relief of any of those items. I mean, say we as a society decide that all murders were to be rewarded with the death penalty. That would be moot if people would just stop murdering. So do you blame the statute or the criminal? I recommend keeping the statutes and working on building a less murderous society.
Comment by Earnest — March 12, 2004 @ 7:15 am
But what if the death penalty leads to a murderous society? Justifications for killing, only make it easier for some people to justify their own acts of killing.
Comment by Andrew — March 12, 2004 @ 7:23 am
andrew and stephen make eloquent observations.
the state has the right to take liberty and property, so why not life? well, earnest, all i can say is look at the irresponsible, disproportionate and arbitrary use of the government’s power to take away liberty and property, well, i think that’s all the case we need to say they shouldnt have the power to take it to the level of also choosing who lives and who dies.
Comment by josh — March 12, 2004 @ 9:36 am
I don’t think we will ever see a time where we think that all killing is bad. Many people would choose to be able to mercifully kill a terminally ill person. Many people would choose to be able to kill an unborn person. I think it would be difficult to form a consensus where we decide that all killing, no matter how merciful, no matter the purpose, is bad. Would those kinds of justifications for killing spur people to commit murder, giving them the justifications they seek? If so, we should be just as adamantly opposed to those killings as we are to the death penalty. I am consistent though. I think abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty all should be tools society should have the option to avail itself of.
Comment by Earnest — March 13, 2004 @ 12:00 pm
then i am very sorry you cannot see the difference between a terminally ill patient voluntarily ending it all and the state setting up a system to kill one of its own citizens (in a cage).
but there totally is! are you insinuating because you cannot see the difference between euthanasia and capital punishment that liberals opposed to the death penalty are inconsistant? well, then i have no way of making any progress in this discussion. hope you never wind up in the chair, earnest, cuz there’s far too many in this country on the side of “fry em” than there are those who would stand up for your life.
Comment by josh — March 15, 2004 @ 7:56 am