Should California restart the death penalty?

Home » Opinion » Poll

Monday, April 21, 2008

Comment

The Supreme Court ruled this week that Kentucky's use of lethal injection lethal injection -- similar to what is used in California and other states for execution of death row inmates -- does not violate the constitution.

With this ruling, do you think the state should move to restart its execution of death row inmates via lethal injection?

Add your thoughts here.

93 comment(s)

JustMy$.02 wrote on Apr 18, 2008 11:40 AM:

" As far as Im concerned you could take a man like Richard Alan Davis (after what he did to that petaluma girl) out back beat him with a blunt object until he dies.

If you want to be more humane and use lethal injection, thats fine as well.

Just my $.02 "

4gnapan wrote on Apr 18, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Stoning works too..

Due process must be allowed, because we never want to send the wrong person to the end of the line, but the faster we're rid of this scum, the better. "

Dwayne wrote on Apr 18, 2008 2:24 PM:

" China does it with a bullet behind the left ear, right after the sentencing with no appeals. Then the family is billed for the bullet. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 18, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Restart? Why did it end? I keep asking, who is this ACLU that incessantly misinterprets our Constitution?
Contrary to the propaganda, executions do not cost more than life imprisonment.
What exists now is the hue and cry of "mass killings" as opposed to cleaning house. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 18, 2008 2:29 PM:

" I had opportunity to spend time with Mr. Davis. His crimes culminated and surpassed what finally brought him to justice.

If he is not on death row, he should be; as well as other sociopaths who took another person's life. "

psychochik wrote on Apr 18, 2008 3:39 PM:

" One word, YES ! "

steph wrote on Apr 18, 2008 5:35 PM:

" I don't think the state should be in the business of killing. I find no comfort in sharing company with the likes of China. Life in prison is fine by me. That said, I do not know, and I hope I never know the taste of bitter anger over the loss of a loved one at the hands of a killer or child molester. I can appreciate that this might color my judgement. "

steph wrote on Apr 18, 2008 5:36 PM:

" I also want add to the below comment that it is not so much that I feel sorrow for the convicted, as that I feel fear of a government that kills. "

Kevin wrote on Apr 18, 2008 6:48 PM:

" Absolutely. The recidivism rate after execution is ZERO... "

nodpinca wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:25 PM:

" No! I don't want to kill someone, but if we have executions, that will be the case...I am, we are the government. Our community has experienced the impact of life in prison without parole versus a death penalty. The murderer is no longer a reference in our community. He is gone and has no power to keep opening the wounds of the victims' relatives. Their mourning is private. If we decide to execute all those on death row, are we ready to have an execution every day for over two years? That is how long it would take to clear San Quentin. We have lost millions of dollars (yes, the death penalty costs more than life in prison without parole--two trial are required at the beginning) in our state that could be better used for education and victims' services in the pursuit of vengeance disguised as justice. "

NapaCitizen wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:36 PM:

" I believe that killing people is the wrong way to teach people that killing people is wrong.

It says "Thou shalt not kill" period. Not "Thou shalt only kill those that have done wrong...."

I'm beginning to wonder about the vindictiveness in the Napa blogshere....
"

Rocketman wrote on Apr 19, 2008 6:33 AM:

" Dwayne................I couldn't have said it better..........actually, Justmy$.02 had it right too.......... "

a teacher wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:08 AM:

" With the advent of DNA evidence, too many people on death row have turned out to be innocent. The possibility of killing an innocent person is enough to stop executions. "

Robin MacRae wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:27 AM:

" NO! The death penalty has no place in a civilized society. "

fmmt47 wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Allow me to provide NapaCitizen with an accurate Biblical translation of the verse he and many others have often quoted. "Thou shalt not kill" correctly translated is really "Thou shalt not murder".

Child killers such as Richard Allen Davis sit in prison getting three squares a day, medical treatment, and free legal representation at taxpayers expense-why? With no hope of rehabilitation (which our prison system has failed miserably to do) why should he be allowed to live?

This person brutally murdered an innocent young girl then displayed the traits of a sick psyhcopath by laughing at and continually insulting her grieving family during court proceedings.

Jesus himself made it very clear on what type of punishment should be afforded those who harm children-"Tie a millstone around their neck and throw them into the ocean". Uh,I think that would kill them.

So, whats the holdup? "

JimClark wrote on Apr 19, 2008 12:00 PM:

" The State should not be in the business of "killing" The state is obligated to eliminate those miscreants who kill others.

In this morning’s Chicago Sun-Times, there where several shootings. No mention was made of "gang" relations, as these shootings seemed to be random. Yet they occurred over less than 12 hours. My question is, who were earning their membership?

The “global warming” sham is no different than the misnomer that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.

Again, politics is the illegitimate child of Philosophy. Y’all need to get beyond the politics. Even the “ancient” philosophers of Greece understood what they experienced and took time to put it into words for those of us who live this very day. Public education? Is that some kind of oxymoron?
"

a teacher wrote on Apr 19, 2008 3:50 PM:

" I love how JimClark managed to start a rant against Global Warming and Public Education in the comments about Capital Punishment. Classic! "

Dwayne wrote on Apr 19, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Charles Manson would love to be pen pals with some of you bloggers. Maybe even a personal visit, just to see how he's gettin' along these days. "

wowquebonita wrote on Apr 19, 2008 4:38 PM:

" lol I totally agree with Kevin! "

wowquebonita wrote on Apr 19, 2008 4:48 PM:

" We house these montsers in prisons where they are housed, fed, medically attended to, schooled, and all of the amenities prison has to offer; all of this ladies and gentlemen at our expense, tax payer expense. People on death row usually commit heinous crimes, they aren't sent to death row just because a judge felt like it. Hmmm maybe they should be put in an arena with lions or tigers like the Romans did back in the old days. They could be hung, shot once in between the eyes, tortured like they did their victims, set on fire, uhmm be used as science experiments :) just food for thought....
"

Tim wrote on Apr 19, 2008 6:08 PM:

" If we value something highly, we are usually willing to pay a high price for it. But if we consider it to be cheap we pay little or nothing for it.

Punishment for crime has generally been viewed this way also. The criminal is supposed to pay for his crime in proportion to it's seriousness, usually by fine or imprisonment.

Modern day philosophy ignores this equal- value relationship when it comes to the taking of life. Attention shifts from the victims life to that of the murderer.

Suddenly the guilty murderers life becomes highly valued, at the cost of the victim and their family.

People who say that the "State" is legalizing murder when putting to death murderers are just wrong and avoiding the real issue.

"Murder" itself is a legal term for unlawful killing, just as "stealing" denotes unlawful taking. If a policeman takes a criminals gun, it cannot be called "stealing". Neither can a lawful execution, by definition be called "murder".

As I said earlier the value we put on something is usually indicated by the price we are willing to pay for it.

Should the value of an innocent murder victim's life be reduced to that of mere stolen property by a jail term? While the murderer is free to hurt others in the jail system while imprisoned?

The death penalty puts the highest possible value on innocent life by demanding the ultimate price be payed. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Apr 19, 2008 8:28 PM:

" I have mixed feelings about capital punishment. It sends a message that killing solves problems. I would like to see some murder rate statistics in countries who consistently use capital punishment. Does it deter crime?

There are certainly evil people out there wandering around. I would rather pour resources into finding out what makes people evil to begin with. If it's some type of brain chemistry problem, such as what you might see in serial killers, can we identify what it is and identify at risk people while they are still young, before they commit atrocities?

I believe a day will come where we can change the circuitry of the brain to prevent such deviant behavior. I hope so anyway.
That would be the civilized approach.

One thing is certain; until we find answers, dangerous people should be removed from society. I do not mind that they spend their lives in a cramped cell. We have no obligation to making their lives cozy while in prison. But I think in the prison system, guards try and control a violent population by rewarding them with TV time etc. Those on death row should remain locked up, forever, in tiny cubicles without any rewards. The rest of their time spent on this Earth should be miserable enough that they might consider lethal injection as an option. We should give them the option of taking a lethal injection if that's what they want. Let it be their choice so it doesn't cost taxpayers a fortune. The key is setting up a system where those who murder and torture are not allowed to become part of the regular prison system population. They should feel miserable and isolated without crossing a torture line. "

nodpinca wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:28 PM:

" There are studies available that show executions are not a deterrent and when there are executions, the murder rate goes up. As to victims' families...there are many organizations whose voices are getting stronger every day that say executions are not the way to honor family members, will not bring them back and money spent on executions could be better used on education and victims' services.
There is also the issue of how the rest of the world sees us. The US is 5th in the world in the number of executions in 2007. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are before us. We five countries are 88% of all known executions.
To get back the our state, at a commission hearing in Sacramento this January on the death penalty, our Justice of the Supreme Court said our system is broken.
Reading most of these blogs, it seems many of you want the death penalty, want veneance, but are not willing to look at the reality of the situation. You want others to do the dirty work. The dirty work is yours and you pay for it. There is recitivism after a death penalty. Since there are no services for the children of the executed and ties to the rest of their families are broken by shame, I think there is pretty much an assurance that their anger will be worked out through more violence.
Finally, please, please take the time to look at what the ramifications of the death penalty mean to California and our country. "

Paddy wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:41 PM:

" One more attempt. I'm afraid we won't really hear an accurate rendition of Napa's feeling toward this with the Register so heavily moderating who's posts make it....
I'm absoltely in favor of the Death Penalty and the Bible dictates it's reasonable punishment for those who takes another person's life. "A life for a life, and eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth...."
Culling the "heard" of psychopaths is always a good thing (and I don't want to foot the bill for room and board). "

steph wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:05 PM:

" What minimum proof should we need to ensure that someone is not killed for a crime he or she did not commit? How do we as a society say "sorry" to the family of someone wrongfully killed by a death penalty sentence? "

steph wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:07 PM:

" I agree with vocal that our prisons are a mess and are a form of cruel and inhumane punishment, where rehabilitation is not a priority. (I'm pretty leery of a brave new world where people can have their brains rewired....) I think prisoners should be given plenty of opportunity to be productive--work should be mandatory for prisoners (and welfare recipients.) "

leavintown wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:24 AM:

" It shouldn't even be about death row inmates. It should be about anyone that is convicted of a serious crime. If it is a murder, then they should give the victims family first "shot" at punishing the murder. Whatever and however it may be. If it is a drug dealer, they should be killed by drug overdose. If they are child molesters, they should be killed by the family of the child. You get the picture. I am all for an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Life in prison shouldn't mean three square meals paid for by you and I. We would save a ton of money by just "cleaning" out all the bad people in the state. "

jwk wrote on Apr 20, 2008 10:05 AM:

" As the Bible says "An Eye for an EYE". Give them what they deserve and start yesterday.Televise it. Sell popcorn and souvenirs. Turn it into a postive situation. Use the proceeds for a "Victims and their Families Funds" and/or Law enforcement programs. Just Look at the Reality show crap that people watch on T.V. now. Even if it won't completely deter future criminal actions, it may clean up the streets in some areas, clean up the prisons & help with the inmate over population problem, save us Millions of dollars a year in tax payer money incarcerating them. "

Paddy wrote on Apr 20, 2008 10:21 AM:

" This is a justice system that has served this country very well for a very long time. It may not be perfect but is the best in the world.

If 99.5% of victims receive justice for a criminally inflicted wrong than I believe we continue to follow the rule of law (and bible) by putting to death those tried in court and found guilty of murder. If an error is made than we continue to address those imperfections (how can anything be perfect). But it's unfair to everyone, victims, potential victims and honest citizens alike, to stop putting to death those who have committed heinous acts on others.
This is an easy call. "

109823 wrote on Apr 20, 2008 10:55 AM:

" Our prisons are cruel and inhumane? Gee Steph where does it say that they have to be the Hilton? Do our prisons need to be an upgrade to the way of life of these criminals? As for the original stopping of the executions nationwide, it was because the lethal injections caused too much pain to the inmate!!! I'm sure that all murders make sure that their victims are quite comfortable before they snuff out their lives. Bring back the executions and hurry up we're running out of rooms. "

Dwayne wrote on Apr 20, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Taken in context, 'an eye for an eye...', is a restriction, not a mandate, and is one of the most misunderstood comments in the Bible. It means that the punishment should not outweigh the crime. "

steph wrote on Apr 20, 2008 4:09 PM:

" 90210--or whatever your number is, I think you should read more about our prisons and just what a cesspool of rape and other humiliations they are. They're a place where people are made harder and more cruel and less fit for release back to society. Not everyone is there for committing murder. Even if they are, do you really advocate torture of another human being for the rest of their miserable lives? I don't. I don't think Jesus would, either. "

steph wrote on Apr 20, 2008 4:20 PM:

" And, don't get me wrong, either. I'm not for making prison soft and easy. I rather adore the techniques of Joe Arpaio (with a few noted mishandlings). But stronger inmates should not be allowed to assault weaker inmates, for first example. Inmates should have to attend classes that teach civics, morality, trades, etc., and they should have to work to pay for their keep. I'm with most of you that I think they have too many "rights" and not enough responsibility. I do believe it is immoral for a society to allow people to be attacked in prisons, however. Would you want your wayward son or daughter or nephew attacked and changed for the worse in prison? I shudder at the thought. I don't wish that on anyone. Richard Allen Davis should be in solitary confinement for the rest of his sad life, and he should not receive any form of life-extending medical treatments. That's my opinion. No death penalty. Keep the government out of the business of killing. Let's not become like China or Saudi Arabia. Yeeh! "

109823 wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:27 PM:

" Steff or whatever your name is. I've actually been behind the walls of San Quentin and Vacaville Correction, have friends that work at both facilities. I think that I have more insite into what goes on in the prison systems than yourself. I really don't need you to clarify any of it. My feelings stand to support the death penalty and I hope it's reinstated soon for the poor families that need closure to their individual cases. "

nodpinca wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:43 PM:

" Reading the blogger comments regarding the death penalty was scary and sad. One man spoke of culling the herd as if we were animals. Another writer wrote his or her willingness to go without due process ( essentially do away with our Constitution) by putting a bullet in an accused person's head and charging the family for the bullet. It was suggested twice that our society return to the ancient past by bringing back the Roman Colluseum where Christians were clawed and tortured to death all in the name of entertainment. One writer suggested YOU, not the writer, can beat a human with a blunt insturment. Finally, one wanted to join Irag, Iran and Afganistan in the practice of stoning.
I had a hard time believing these bloggers are aware we live in the 21st century.
Finally, I feel these people's pain. Each has a reason they have cut themselves off from the sense of what it is to be human. "

Paddy wrote on Apr 20, 2008 11:19 PM:

" Yes nodpinca we are animals. To be exact:
Kingdom - Animalia
Phylum - Chordata
Subphylum - Vertebrata
Class - Mammalia
Order - Primates
Family - Hominidae
Genus - Homo
Species - sapiens

....Dwayne the passage of an "eye for an eye" seems pretty clear:

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

-- Exodus 21: 23-25 (KJV)

Humans try to find their way on this world using whatever tools God has given them. We've removed ourselves from our origins nodpinca and you've forgotten our origins. The Bible is a wonderful reference to allow us to find our way....
The death penalty is but an arm of humanity to cleanse the gene pool. It's about saving the innocent, not coeing the killers.
"

JimClark wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:15 AM:

" a teacher: Your assaults are not arguments. They lack something that you don’t seem to perceive. DNA may also convict a murderer, correct?
I wish I could go back to the years when I ranted. I’m too old for that now. Global warming, capital punishment and public education are very much linked, as they don’t allow a student to have their own thoughts on issues. It is very sad that propaganda is the instruction these days. If you want to lecture me, you had better know that I will attempt to reason with you. If not, you should have a much better argument. Look up argument in the dictionary that should be on your desk. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:22 AM:

" By the way ateacher. I'm right out here. I don't use a nom de plume. To know me is to love, dislike or hate me; at least you know who I am. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Apr 21, 2008 12:03 PM:

" Paddy your comment, "The death penalty is but an arm of humanity to cleanse the gene pool. " concerns me. It sounds a little like Hitler. And then you justify some of your other comments using the bible. It appears similar to the views of extreme Muslims.

Trust me, we don't want to cross that line. In your lifetime, you better hope your child, grandchild or great grandchild never become one of those on death row.

I don't have any relatives who are in the prison system and I will admit it's hard for me to identify with. But with all of your talk about "eye for an eye" (which is often a mentality that triggers an impulsive murderous act), you may very well carry the genes for murder. So, be careful what you wish for. "

funnyme wrote on Apr 21, 2008 12:09 PM:

" NVR, you challenge us witht a very controversial question, we post our comments that happen no to be "politically correct" at all so you can censor them and give the false illusion that the majority are against the death penalty. Makes me wonder... "

funnyme wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:00 PM:

" Attempt Number Three...

It is scary to know that I am walking around among people who believe a CONVICTED CRIMINAL has the right to continue living and that their victims and their families should just "deal with it" in a peaceful way for the rest of their lives and generations to come (No hard feelings).

Life for a life, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth "to fit the crime" sounds PERFECT to me. By this definition Alan Davis should be "put to rest" by now, but instead he is getting room and board at my expense and his victims' expense? I am sure you all have "comfort" words Mr. Klaas every time he files his income tax return knowing that a portion of it is being spent on the very one who killed his little girl...

Bring the DEATH PENALTY back...and organize "Field Trips" for the children at the Juvenal Halls all over California to witness their bright future or to choose to re-wire their brains, now, that will send the PERFECT MESSAGE or set the PERFECT EXAMPLE.
"

Paddy wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:31 PM:

" Vocal-de-local....

I'm far as far from Hitler as I am from Fundamentalist Muslims as I am from being a lemur.
I stand behind my comments and provide my children with the values and discipline that I would pray will keep them from spending even a single day in prison. However, if they do wrong than I expect that they would pay the price, whatever it may be, for their misdeed. They do today.
Perhaps my comments on the gene pool are a bit harsh. I'm sure few criminals are criminals because of their genetic makeup. But nothing replaces a healthy upbringing and a clear understanding of what is right, wrong, or psychotic behavior.

"

Dwayne wrote on Apr 21, 2008 2:11 PM:

" Once again, funnyme, please read the Bible's, "...an eye for en eye..." in context.

It's a limitation on punishment, not a directive. It's a very common misunderstanding, not subject to interpretation when taken in context. It merely means that you don't kill someone for stealing your toaster.

Richard Allen Davis? Yep, he should be toast by now. A death penalty is meaningless when inmates sit on death row for 20+ years. "

lalo1382 wrote on Apr 21, 2008 2:58 PM:

" we should just do it like back then, take them to the back and shoot em' in the head! quick, cheap and easy! "

nvchell wrote on Apr 21, 2008 3:49 PM:

" I think we should save money and time and use the shooting range. Let the victim kill the criminal. Also once a ruling has been made, the person should be killed within a year. "

funnyme wrote on Apr 21, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Dwayne,
I understand what "An eye for an eye" means in context (to fit the crime). I don't want anybody executed for stealing my toaster (the truth is when someone broke my car's window to steal my stereo I felt that person should have gotten his/her hands cut off...a little extreme? Perhaps...) but a punishment that equals the pain endure by the victim of that particular crime while the crime was commited. I am pretty sure it would be a deterrant.
I will leave The Bible alone, but insteaad think about punishments that will fit the crime. For instance, what would you want for that guy who was arrested on 104 counts of child molestation? What about the drunk driver who cut both legs off of M. Clark? The woman who forgot her baby in the back of the car and "toasted" to death? In these cases I can think of 104 things to do with the first guy, and more than two things to do with the second and third one.
Instant gratification? Yes! Just like they did with Saddam Hussein: He was found guilty and hung immediately not 20 years later.
I agree with that. "

aszmidt wrote on Apr 21, 2008 8:19 PM:

" I’m not sure I am comfortable with killing anyone as a punishment for a crime. I don’t feel that lowering ourselves to the level of killer is a good thing. Being painted with the same brush as China, Iran, Saudi and Pakistan is a little troublesome for me. There is too much killing in this world already. How is killing another wayward sole going to make it any better?

All of you that are quoting the Bible as justification for killing anyone are so far off base it isn’t even funny. It is a sin to take a life. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was a man who was extremely tolerant and always looked for the good in people no matter how bad they may seem. He always felt that the opportunity should be given to mend one’s ways. There are countless stories in the bible that support this. The prodigal son being one of my favorites or Ninety-nine plus one is another. Jesus the son of man has come to save that which was lost. Not to put a bullet in their head.
"

NVGal wrote on Apr 21, 2008 8:52 PM:

" To me it is deeply satisfing that someone like a Ted Bundy ceases to exist, so yes, California needs to continue with the death penalty. I watched the execution of Wanda Jean Allen yesterday, a documetary that follows her up to the days of her execution. She murder two women, but yet her story continues to be told, most likely in an effort to get the death penalty reversed. She is living well beyond her exectution date, yet she is a murderer. Those who are rightfully convicted of crimes that result in the death penalty need to cease to exist, no interviews, no TV documentaries, no psyc evaluation for studies later. Gone, bye, bye I say. I'd rather sleep peacefully than take some moral high ground, or live in a state that just doesn't kill people. "

kevin wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:42 PM:

" Some of you want "life in prison" instead of execution. What about the prison guards and other convicts that are in danger from "lifers" that have no fear of punishment? "

bornin74 wrote on Apr 22, 2008 10:42 AM:

" YES Put the death penalty back in... with ONE major change...

AS SOON AS SOMEONE IS SENTENCED TO DEATH, then COMMENCE WITH THE EXECUTION... No Appeals, No Waiting....... THIS will help DECREASE the overcrowding of the prison population!
"

funnyme wrote on Apr 22, 2008 11:36 AM:

" Attempt Number Two

Here are my thoughts in some of the CON comments:

" I’m not sure I am comfortable with killing anyone as a punishment for a crime..."
We are not talking about a petty crime, we are talking about people who commited hideous crimes and then murder their victims. Huge difference.

"I don’t feel that lowering ourselves to the level of killer is a good thing..."

I am sure you have had a rotten apple or an orange in your fruit basket (you know when the green mold starts to form and the white smelly powdery stuff starts to stink), that you are forced to remove it from the basket before it propagates to the rest of the fruit; what do you do with the rotten fruit? Do you brush off the mold, cut off the rotten part, or just throw it away in the trash or your compost bin? That is exactly what our civilized society would be doing with those poor people with rotten souls.

"Being painted with the same brush as China, Iran, Saudi and Pakistan is a little troublesome for me..."

Not even close. We still have a system that you are innocent until proven guilty. So pleaase don't compare my country with comunists and dictatorships.

"There is too much killing in this world already. How is killing another wayward sole going to make it any better? "

By eliminating the very ones who are doing the killing of innocent people. "

dallen wrote on Apr 22, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Yes bring it back. Some people should just not be alive. Or they should be breaking rocks in the desert. If they are just rotting in a cell using up space and resources, not producing anything, they should be executed. It cost way too much to keep lifers alive for no reason. Lawyers make a killing trying to keep them off death row or trying to get parole when they know damm good and well there's no chance.
And for those who say it's inhumane and cost too much money to execute a prisoner, all it takes it a pistol, one bullet, and a hood. Or just some rope and a tree. "

XMAN wrote on Apr 22, 2008 2:16 PM:

" One method is to put the pathlogical killer in a small room and feed him or her, over a natural course of time, until that person dies.

Or they can be put in a small room and be intraveneously fed a potion until they die.

In the end ~ they are dead. But then, so are we. Eventually, it comes to all of us. Personally, if I were the convictee, I would prefer door number two. "

nodpinca wrote on Apr 22, 2008 3:14 PM:

" In case any of you are interested in finding out about the death penalty and its consequences for our country, states and counties, I suggest the Death Penalty Information Center where you will finds studies, charts and reports not only on our federal death penalty, but each state as well. I believe you can also find links to pro deathy penalty groups, too. "

asahigo wrote on Apr 22, 2008 6:00 PM:

" Short answer yes. Longer answer hell yes. The punishment shall not outweigh the crime (sorry forgot who said that here)...I agree completely. However, should the crime outweigh the punishment? How can you not condone the death penalty for someone who has been tried, convicted, and has exhausted our redicously outdated appeals processs? This person has taken anothers life, why should theirs continue? Our prison system is about to collapse due to the weak backbone society has developed when it comes to punishing murderers. "

Dwayne wrote on Apr 22, 2008 8:41 PM:

" I support a reasonable death penalty, but are y'all aware that in the past 10-years about 117 inmates on death row have been exonerated of the crime which they were convicted?

"

Suze wrote on Apr 22, 2008 10:23 PM:

" It would seem as though this topic is very cathartic to many of the posters on this page! It is a tricky one for sure, do you kill someone who killed? The problem is there are many wrongly convicted people sitting on death row with no means of defense. Even for those who are guilty without a doubt, should we kill them? I read John Grisham's book - The Innocent Man. A true story of one man's journey from stupid (minor) bungle, to ending up on death row. It was very disturbing reading. Very engrossing, I recommend it. (Try audio books if you don't get a chance to actually sit and read, the library has a good collection.) Sadly the good folk of the U.S. are lumped in with all the bad guys by Amnesty International for our death penalty policy. I know some will scoff, but it does give one pause that we are in with Iran and China for brutality. However, I do think that prisoners/criminals get it too soft in jail and prison, and anyone proven without doubt to be guilty of murder should not be getting all the comforts that many law abiding citizens cannot afford. Most prisons feed way too much. Gyms and cable TV are ridiculous luxuries for prisoners. I am in favor of putting them to work and rehabilitation. If they are too aggressive for this then they should be reduced in comforts and privileges until they are prepared to co-operate and earn them, or just remain in very punitive incarceration. I am against the death penalty for the simple reason that the law is fallible, and two wrongs have never made a right. "

nodpinca wrote on Apr 22, 2008 10:49 PM:

" For Asahigo question about why murderers' life should continue, there are organizations that answer that question. In California we have California Crime Victims for an Alternative to the Death Penalty and nationally Murder Victims' Families for Reconcilition. ( The last word is misleading. Reconciliation in this case means members are reconciled to what has happened to their family members.) Both organizations tell compelling stories about why they do not want the death penalty for the murderers of their family members. They range from spiritial and political, to personal reasons such as taking a life is not a way to honor a family member, don't want the families of the executed to go through the grief of losing a relative, the murder was domestic violence so the children would lose both parents ,etc. A unifying factor throughout all states with the death penalty, is that the money could be better used for education and victim services. As to "having closure," who could ever have closure on losing a family member, especially to violence. "

kdbk wrote on Apr 22, 2008 10:54 PM:

" There have been a lot of wonderful developments in the technologies of law enforcement and criminal investigation in recent decades. Our society is now in a much better place to meet out justice based on vastly improved methods of gathering and developing evidence for cases. The death penalty should be utilized on the basis of all the technology we now have available. There must be a high standard of proof for the death penalty, but it should be a sentencing option for most 1st degree murder cases.

It is funny when people suggest that the most civilized societies will refrain from using the death penalty. Just the opposite is true. It is indeed the civilized society that will value human life so highly as to retain the most serious punishment for those who so ruthlessly kill others. Nations of the Middle East and Africa that practice the death penalty do so without all the elements of fairness and justice that our system provides, thus they are a totally invalid comparison. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 23, 2008 10:05 AM:

" NapaCitizen, if you had done your homwork you would know that the Bible verse translated as "Thou shalt not kill" actually means "Thou shalt not murder." In fact, the Old Testament is replete with government sanctioned executions. "

rage against wrote on Apr 23, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Yeah this is a tricky one. I am usually very "liberal" with most of my perspectives, but some people will lump me in with the conservatives on this one. With a crime of passion, where a person murders someone because that person has seriously betrayed them, or done something awful, I'm not sure if that person should be sentenced to death. Maybe they should be allowed to kill themselves, don't know. But, with sickos like Dahmer, Manson, Bundy, any of those who are obviously guilty of their horrible crimes, you know serial killers, child rapists, I say kill them. Kill them quickly and efficiently, painless, but cheap. It is a greater evil to let these whacko's live. They have no recognizable humanity other than their physical appearance. The argument is ussually that "who are we to take these people's lives?" We are humanity, and we are purging ourselves of that which we see as worthless, and most importantly, harmful. It is not a good versus evil argument, it is a predator versus prey, survival argument. "

nodpinca wrote on Apr 23, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Sophisticated technology was not applied to the vast majority of the 699 men on deathrow in California. CSI is a TV show...it is not reality. The reality is the technology is way too expensive for an already broke state to apply to every case. Less than 1/2 the men in San Quentin have legal representationto help them get access to the technology.

By the way, why do we have so many men on San Quentin's death row? Most states have 4 to 6 criteria for a case to be elegible for a death sentence. California has over 30. I doubt very highly if we have the worst of the worst there.

Are we the most civilized nation? Why does the European Union, made up of countries much older than ours and whose exerience with violence is vastly greater than ours, refuse entry to any country who continues to use the death penalty?

Finally, by partcipating in the exercise of the the death penalty, we lose our humanity and go over to the dark side. Ask any experienced executioner. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 23, 2008 11:54 AM:

" It is laughable that some here have equated our justice system to the one in China. There is no comparison. Trials in China are a farce, with little or no effective representation for the defendant. I do think their method of execution (bullet to the head) is effective and humane, compared to the elaborately staged executions in this country. "

John Richards wrote on Apr 23, 2008 11:57 AM:

" nodpinca, China's civilization is much older than Europe's. Should we really be judging the quality of justice by the age of a country? Older does not necessarily mean better. "

nodpinca wrote on Apr 23, 2008 2:20 PM:

" I agree about age of the country, thank you for pointing that out. But I do not like our country keeping company with China, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan by keeping the death penalty as I mentioned earlier. Interesting...those are all ancient countries, but would we say they are evolved as societies out of tribal warfare? When people mention an eye for an eye, that is what I think of, like the Crips and the Bloods, the Nortaneos and Sortaneos (sp?). "

funnyme wrote on Apr 23, 2008 7:08 PM:

" Yes, we know there are innocent people locked up in our prison system, but with the new technology we have now (DNA for instance) many of them have been set free therefore reducing significantly the imprisonment and sentencing of innocent people and the conviction of "guilty without a doubt" criminals.

It seems then that the whole responsibility of sending a guilty person to death row will fall completely into the hands of our District Attorneys, Prosecutors and Judges.

So, at this point our responsibility as US citizens is to make sure we choose our President wisely who is the one who ultimately appoints the Judge who is going to determine a criminal's destiny : Life Sentence or Death Penalty?
How many times we have heard in the news that the criminal had been in our prison system many times before but the Judge failed to sentence him accordingly so the criminal was sent back out on the streets again, just this time to commit a horrendous crime.
Somebody has to pay for the pain caused to the victim not the criminal. Let's remember what side are we on good or evil? I choose good. Bring back the Death Penalty.

"

Dwayne wrote on Apr 23, 2008 7:17 PM:

" Is 15-20-years on death row an equitable system of justice? Over zealous prosecutors are reluctant to release convicted inmates when the new evidence shows they are innocent. It's not the system that's goofed up, it's the people in it. Doing the 'right thing' is not an option for the game-players in the courts. "

barefoot wrote on Apr 23, 2008 10:18 PM:

" The death penalty was imposed as a deterrent to crime. It is not the same penalty as it was when it was instated. Either re-name it, or impose it. "

barefoot wrote on Apr 23, 2008 10:23 PM:

" I do worry about all of these "innocent" people being sent away. If innocent people are being sent to jail, then our justice system does not work properly. But if the proper deterrents are out there, far fewer crimes will be committed. Do you drink and drive? No, because the penalty is so stiff. Get it?
"

aszmidt wrote on Apr 25, 2008 12:23 AM:

" So somehow by not agreeing with the death penalty I am siding with evil? Really? It isn’t that I think we shouldn’t punish criminals. I just can’t support my tax dollars going to support the killing of another human being. For what ever reason. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but don’t call me evil.

Why is it that of the 72 countries that use the death penalty only two of them would be considered 1st world countries? The U.S. and Japan. The United States at 0.042802 murders per 1000 ranks 25th overall. The major countries of the European union, France, U.K., Italy, Spain and Germany rank 40, 46,47,48 and 49 respectively. Even France at 0.0173272 per 1000, the highest ranked EU country, has a murder rate 40% lower than the U.S. If countries without the death penalty are experiencing less than half the murders of our country, how is the death penalty in this country serving as an effective deterrent?
"

GetReal! wrote on Apr 25, 2008 1:54 PM:

" There are two policy changes that I would like to see in the US. First, would be to abolish the death penalty. It isn't working as a deterrent, the cost is outrageous, and because of the possibility of executing an innocent person, it just does not make sense. Second, make inmates life tough. They should have to work, only get medical treatment that is necessary for killing infections, keep disease from spreading and so on, homo's sleep alone, no more television, bread and water, perhaps more self sustaining system, each prisoner should be implanted with a satellite tracking device, and other things that I cannot think of at the moment. Prison should be and could be the ultimate deterrent if policy would recognize that the incarcerated gave up their rights the moment that they criminally infringed on the rights of another person. "

firewater wrote on Apr 25, 2008 8:05 PM:

" How many of you have had a friend or relative murdered?
I have and the man who murdered my niece. Tortured her for hours and threw her away like garbage.It took years to find her body. It was proved beyond a reasonalbe doubt that he did kill and torture her, but he didn't get the Death Penalty.

This man should die just like Scott Peterson for killing his pregnant wife instead of sitting on death row with appeals and appeals.
So to all you People that say they shouldn't kill these murderers, hope it never hits home, you might change your mind. Especially when a young child is molested and killed. Death is the only answer. These people can't be re habilitated, we are wasting our tax dollars. "

Duck wrote on Apr 25, 2008 10:49 PM:

" ABSOLUTELY NO AND NO AND NO! "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Apr 27, 2008 11:15 PM:

" NO. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 28, 2008 6:46 AM:

" Just in case "Dan" doesn't post this: Well, "Paddy", "Dan" won't like this, it's off topic, but since you brought it up. In the blog about Capital Punishment, no fewer than five people advocate a bullet in the back of the head, one advocates drowning, one advocates beating with a blunt object, one advocates death by medical experiments. Several advocate letting the familly of the victim delivering the punishment. My favorite is the gentleman who wants to send children in detention to executions to witness them - as a deterent. How is any of this civilized behavior? I don't even know if I disagree with the death penalty, but... "a teacher" "

Paddy wrote on Apr 28, 2008 11:14 AM:

" a teacher........ my guess is that these people you consider to be 'blood thirsty' are part of the great majority (63% - 80% support the death penalty) who are desperately frustrated that the minority continue to thwart the law and set policies that are constantly thrown in our face.

If execution of the human garbage were allowed to continue the outraged voices of the majority would be muted and our neighbors would probably appear less 'blood thirsty' and a lot more tranquil; perhaps even happy. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 28, 2008 2:54 PM:

" Paddy. I could argue either way for the Death Penalty. I have little sympathy for some of the people on death row. However, I would rather err on the side of letting a bad person live out his days in jail rather than kill the innocent or the redeamable. That's just me. As for the frustration of the majority: Dude! that's democracy in action. It's not just 50%+1, it's about protecting everyone's rights. That's why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. You may not like the ACLU or groups that advocate for the condemned, but they are looking out for everyones rights. Democracy is not efficient nor is it pretty, but consider the alternative. "

greeneyes18 wrote on Apr 28, 2008 10:08 PM:

" im am 17 years old. most of you guys as i read are thinking about other poeple and not if it was your own family member. you have no idea when someone is going to kill someone they look like normal people just like me and you just like your brother sister dad step dad or even baby kid. what if it was your family then what would you say. "MOST IMPORTANTLY" MOST OF YOU ARE FROM BIG NICE HOMES. SAFE COMMUNITYS THERE ARE PLACES IN THE WORLD WHERE ITS NOT SO NICE NOT SO SAFE HALF THE PEOPLE IN PRISON JAIL DEATH ROW ARE PEOPLE WHO HAD TO KILL BEFORE THEY GET KILLED FIRST YOU SEE IT ALL THE TIME IN MOVIES BUT WAKE UP LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THAT HAPPENS ALL AROUND YOU EVERYDAY I SEE PEOPLE WHO LOOK OVER THERE SHOULDERS EVERYDAY. SO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU START VOTING OR MAKING DESISIONS. "

funnyme wrote on Apr 28, 2008 11:10 PM:

" a teacher,
I didn't refer to any CHILDREN, but the ones at the Juvenal Hall (the criminals who just happen to be under 18 years old)...

"

a teacher wrote on Apr 29, 2008 6:18 AM:

" FunnyMe: Actually, being in Juvenile Hall does not make you a crimminal, but it does make you (by California Law) a child. Otherwise you'd be in jail with the adults. I stand by what I said... "

funnyme wrote on Apr 29, 2008 2:41 PM:

" a teacher,
Just like anybody who wants to hide behind the word "children" to get attention and sympathy.
No sympathy here for the "children" who go out and in order to be part of a certain gang have to kill just a few other "children".
Is that what you stand by? "

JimClark wrote on Apr 29, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Naturally!! "

JimClark wrote on Apr 29, 2008 4:13 PM:

" greeneye: I will cut you a break as you will have more time to consider what is real versus what you have been indoctrinated to "believe".

I sincerely hope one of yor friends does not have to die violently before you learn what the end of an innocent life means when it is at the hand of a piece of human feces who couldn't care less.

Please don't allow yurself to be a puppet of your "education". Learn the basics and make your own decisions. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 29, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Robin: Uncivilized people have should not exist in a civilzed society. "

a teacher wrote on Apr 29, 2008 5:53 PM:

" FunnyMe: You said: "No sympathy here for the "children" who go out and in order to be part of a certain gang have to kill just a few other "children".
Is that what you stand by?"

Well, No, since I din't say that. You have an extreme position, and I've called you on it. Don't try boxing me into an equally extreme postion I haven't advocated. I'm not biting.

So are you advocating capital punishment for these young offenders? You say you have no sympathy for them. Lock them up and throw away the key for 14 year olds who murder? Hang 'em? We used to hang 10 year olds for stealing bread. Shall we go there? "

funnyme wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:07 PM:

" a teacher,
You almost got it right.

"So are you advocating capital punishment for these young offenders?"
YES.

"You say you have no sympathy for them. Lock them up and throw away the key for 14 year olds who murder?"
YES. Unless the judge gives the death penalty.

"Hang 'em?"
NO. Lethal Injection would be more humane compared to what they did to their victims.

"We used to hang 10 year olds for stealing bread. Shall we go there? "
NO. NO for the ones who steal bread.
Maybe they are stealing bread because they are hungry, because some murderer killed their parents or a drug pusher has his/her family messed up.
No, for those ones I would TEACH them how to make bread (if you understand what I mean...OK I'll explain: If you give a man a fish he eats for a day, but if you teach a man to fish he eats for the rest of his life).
"

a teacher wrote on Apr 29, 2008 10:01 PM:

" Well the FunnyMe, I go back to my original post about your's being my "favorite" example of "bloodthirsty" responses. "

aszmidt wrote on Apr 30, 2008 9:02 AM:

" As far what I would want if it were a family member of mine that was murdered goes, my initial reaction would be to seek revenge. I think that would only be natural. However, I am glad that we have a justice system were cooler heads would prevail. I am fine with that murderer sitting in a prison for the rest of their life. "

funnyme wrote on Apr 30, 2008 11:26 AM:

" a teacher,
Well, you see, so do I.
I go back to a previous question:
What side are you on, criminal or victim? "

a teacher wrote on Apr 30, 2008 12:05 PM:

" "What side are you on, criminal or victim? "

In respect to capital punishment, neither. I don't think that capital punishment is about the victim or the crimminal, but about how "society" deals with rule breakers.

"Society" needs to establish justice and effectively deter crime. Capital punishment may address a more primal need for vengence (which I don't overlook), but other than that, how is the victim made whole. It's too late for that.

Capital punishment is also a poor deterent. Most murders are "crimes of passion", that is, not well thought out. the Death Penalty is not going to deter that. Those who commit those particularly heinous crimes could care less about the rules anyway. Think of all those countries that don't have the death penalty and compare them to us. Whose crime rate is lower?

I don't think that you can approach this emotionally. Taking life is a serious decision. It should be done with a clear and well thought out goal in mind, or it shouldn't be done. "

barefoot wrote on Apr 30, 2008 10:40 PM:

" Punish the guilty. Period. "

reader wrote on May 5, 2008 12:56 PM:

" I just don't understand why pro-death penalty people choose to be so soft with these horrible crimminals! On death row, you are protected from the general prison population and then you get to die an easy death vs. spending the rest of your life suffering in prison. I say keep them locked up with no possibility of parole.

Did you know that it costs more money to house an inmate on death row and kill him than it does to just keep them in prison for life? We already spend more money per prisoner than we do per student in our schools.

Will a pro-death penalty person please tell me why you are in favor of this?? Why not spend our money on children in school and imprison the crimminals, never to see freedom, enjoyment or the light of day again? Death is too kind. The US is the only developed country that uses the death penalty. Other countries are not so kind to their crimminals. "

justanurse wrote on May 10, 2008 6:14 PM:

" I agree with justmy$.02. Why should our tax dollars be used to house murders and rapist and child molesters? This is part of the reason this country is in debt and so overly populated! I was 18 years old when Polly Klass was kidnapped from her home and killed by that AntiSocial murderer Richard Allan Davis and I feel the same today as I did then. Sickened, absolutely sickened! If murderers can't be put to death then maybe they should be the ones sent to Iraq to die instead of these men and women with kids and wives and husbands. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: