Why are liberals suddenly so pro death penalty?

Post Reply New Topic

Liberals don't support the death penalty. I think that's pretty much liberalism 101.

The OP, and most of the posters, seem to be confusing liberalism with leftism.

That's exactly backwards. Life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty.

It's our government's definition of terrorism. Good or bad is immaterial.



His situation now is immaterial to the judgement of his past crimes.

The definition doesn't require accomplices.



QFT. The death penalty is hugely expensive in this country.

This isn't China. We don't just perp walk someone from the courtroom to the street and put a bullet in the back of their head. Without insurance i might add - because in china the government can just say they don't feel like being insured, and anyone who disagrees can cram it.

In the USA, a safe and humane execution is far more expensive than a few years of incarceration. The reasons are legion, and have nothing to do with the relatively low cost of the actual method employed. Security, facilities, counseling for the people who are actually involved, insurance, etc.

Even if that were not the case, the appeals process can and does drag on for decades in many cases, at huge public expense. It turns out that a federal death row inmate is far more likely to die of old age than be executed.

A few years back, a law professor and a sitting judge published a paper on how the state of california would save millions of dollars a year just by commuting all of their existing death sentences to life without parole.

And even if that were not the case, death penalty court cases cost millions more to prosecute and have a far longer cycle in court than life without parole cases.

My position is that the death penalty couldn't possibly be worth it. Put 'em in a hole and let 'em live to death.

Is it immaterial if he escapes prosecution on a technicality?



Without accomplices, or (e.g.) an extremist terrorist group to back him up, how can he fulfil the FBI's criteria?

1) Intimidate or coerce a civilian population - impossible to achieve from behind bars.
2) Influence the government by intimidation or coercion - he has no leverage.
3) Affect conduct of a government (etc) - obviously doesn't apply.

If a self-identified racist who commits a racially motivated mass shooting can be successfully prosecuted on terrorist charges, it's time to fix your legal system or gtfo of dodge.

Your point 1 is immaterial. His situation now has no bearing on his past crimes.

His intent was to intimidate and coerce a civilian population. We don't seem to care, in most terrorism cases, whether or not their plan worked or made sense. Only what their intent was and what overt acts they took.

I'm fairly left-wing, and I would prefer that the gunman spend a good long time in seclusion, contemplating his actions and thinking. not even ayn coulter deserves capital punishment

Flaming liberal here.
While I personally think there are way too many people on death row today, I also think there are some crimes that are just too terrible that there is no other fitting punishment.

one of the reasons I am opposed to death sentences, is that it lets the offender get off too easily! I can't imagine a fate much worse than being stuck in what amounts to solitary confinement in a shoebox-sized cell in a supermax. that is a living death AFAIC. death is easy in comparison...

Perhaps so.

Actually, depending on what year you use the political-vocabulary, the manner in which their definitions are used factually does change. Currently, for as far as I'm concerned, very little if any differences now exist between so-called right or left, between so-called democrat or republican, between so-called liberal or conservative, but they ALL have PLENTY of the SAME things in common:

They BOTH believe in electing some mere mortal to run & lead everybody's lives via a vote-system for some dictator.
They BOTH believe that they need to fund the system in some way (because "the law" says that they must pay).
They BOTH can be classified as "statists" (see Larken Rose on Statism or read: Statist Delusions).
BOTH the Liberals/Left-Wingers AND the Conservatives/Right-Wingers believe that a « ruling class » is necessary for society.
BOTH of them are IGNORANT about the TRUE state of an Anarchist-Society (because the CURRENT society IS an ANARCHIST society, more specifically, ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS are CURRENTLY running the show & deciding how everybody is allowed to live or not or whether they're even allowed to live or not), and as it stands, our current ANARCHO-Capitalist systems run in the form of a corporatocracy through various oligarchies.

The distiction between political-labels no longer has any real meaning. Whether right-winged or left-winged, the fact remains, BOTH WINGS ARE STILL PART OF THE SAME DAMN BIRD/BEAST/DRAGON !

Now we need George Carlin to be summoned again...

pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

I wasn't aware they were pro-death penalty. To me, political classification doesn't exist as each individual will hold certain beliefs regarding certain topics that might differ to someone else who might consider him/herself as part of the same political class, e.g. Two people who consider themselves communists might have contrasting views on nuclear energy. So, don't assume that those who call themselves Liberals support the death penalty as everyone will have a different perspective on it.

I respect your liberty to your view and don't expect you to change your view, but I must respectfully disagree and put forward a statement of support for the death penalty. The death penalty in its proper form is a morally just and humane form of punishment and integral part of a just civilized society. It is tool for upholding moral obligation, moral order,justice, human rights, and a proper recognition of the value of life. A failure to give due consequence and a tolerance of wickedness is more the mark of barbarism than harshness and zeal is.

actually, life in prison is cheaper than the legal process necessary to carry out the death penalty.

if the death penalty is so civilized, why is the US the only advanced country that still uses it?

if the death penalty is so civilized, why is the US the only advanced country that still uses it?

a pertinent quote- "What says the law? You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing!" -Victor Hugo