If you carry, do you support capital punishment ?

[j1132s]

I was talking w/ some friends (1 carries and 1 does not) and the non-carrying friend asked us if we'd be able to shoot if the time comes. I replied "yes". Interestingly this friend recalls that I'm against capital punishment... so I had to qualify my reply more by saying that if it's between the BG and myself (or people I care about) than I have to take action. However, if the BG no longer poses a threat, then, for punishment, I do not support the death penalty.

The other gun-toting friend thought I would hesitate when pulling the trigger with such belief. I do not feel this is the case. BTW, both of them support capital punishment.

That got me curious regarding capital punishment, so I looked it up:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1693&scid=64
It says support is at 64%. (I've not checked the validity of this number).

I'm curious what the support is among people who carry...

 

[Handy]

Please do not confuse the idea of countering force with force - self defense, with execution.

Killing is an accidental and unfortunate by product of using a weapon to save your life. Execution is the cold, premeditated taking of life for the purpose of punishment.


I oppose capital punishment because our justice system isn't accurate enough for such a permanent punishment. In other words, we've kill way to many innocent people.

 

[okievarmint]

So, you would kill before someone takes a life, but not after? In other words, you would kill at a perceived threat, but not after a killing takes place? Just curious.

 

[FirstFreedom]

I am a little conflicted on capital punishment. I used to be strongly for it, but now I am marginally against it, for the reason Handy mentions and others.

and OkieVarmint, the answer is yes, and it's not necessarily inconsistent, as Handy explained.

Miscellaneous points on the death penalty:

1. First off, those that say that it is not a deterrent are wrong - that's hogwash. It most certainly is a deterrent when criminals see other criminals being put to death. So I don't believe that's a valid argument against. But there are a couple..

2. Most importantly, as Handy says, there are too many mistakes made, coupled with the finality of the (in some cases) erroneous punishment. It is irreversible, and of course, the stories are abundant of DNA evidence proving that people have been wronfully put to death, or very nearly wrongfully put to death before the old evidence was DNA-tested. Many, many, many innocent people have been put to death, and IMO, that is diametrically opposed to a society like ours that is supposed to at its heart look out for the rights of the (unfairly) accused. As the old saying goes, it is better for 10 criminals who deserve to die to not be executed, than for 1 person to be wrongfully executed.

3. It's flat out *cheaper* for the taxpayers to house, feed, and clothe them for the rest of their life than it is to pay for lawyers for their many appeals (BOTH sides' lawyers), and the high cost of the max security of death row, coupled with their lengthy stay while appeals are pending.

 

[okievarmint]

So if I see someone holding a knife to a persons throat (no killing committed yet) It's ok to take his life, but not if he goes ahead and cuts the victims throat, killing them? Not wanting an argument, but the inconsistencies are there.

 

[Nicotine]

An individual killing a man in self defence is a natural and justified thing. A Government agency(state or federal) executing a person in cold blood, after holding him in confinement for a period of time, for committing a crime, is not.

So if I see someone holding a knife to a persons throat (no killing committed yet) It's ok to take his life, but not if he goes ahead and cuts the victims throat, killing them?

That would be a situation of defence. Think about what you would expect a cop to do. If an officer had the opportunity to save a life by killing an armed suspect, then he would be justified and right in killing the criminal, to avoid loss of innocent life. But if the suspect killed the hostage, then it would be unacceptable for the cop to kill the suspect unless his own life was in danger. That is because taking the suspects life would no longer accomplish anything other than taking the suspects life. It would just be death for the sake of death.

Don't confuse the act of self preservation with state sanctioned murder of unarmed, restrained "criminals" for the sake of "justice".

 

[Mikeyboy]

I carry because there are some bad people out there that are totally evil, or are totally stupid and will kill you for almost anything. I'm on the fence about capital punishment. A life sentence with no parole vs appealing and delaying the death sentence for 20 to 30 years then having a slim chance of getting pardoned down to life in prison anyway, what is the difference?

 

[mthalo]

I do not support capital punishment.
While I do believe that there are some people out there that we would be better off without, I see too many reasons why I think it's a bad idea.

1) I don't believe we should be giving the state the power to take a life. I don't have that much faith in the state.

2) It's too expensive ant time consuming to be worth it. (and making it easier for the state to invoke capital punishment by limiting the appeals process is about the worst thing that could be done. It should be very hard to have someone executed).

3) It's also proven that all too often, mistakes get made, evidence gets suppressed by corrupt prosecutors, and so on.

4) Those who can afford the good lawyers, don't get put to death.

 

[Edward429451]

giving the state the power to take a life.

Jury Trial.

I support it on paper. Eye for an Eye and so forth. But the justice system can abuse anything so in reality it doesn't always work out for the best. But IIRC, something on the order of 80% of all violent crime is perpetrated by 6% of repeat offenders. So if done properly, it would/should/could have a serious effect on the reduction of violent crime as a deterrant.

 

[ArcherAndShooter]

Regarding wrongful executions

I see several posts here that refer to "many" and "lots" of people wrongly convicted and executed in this country, written in the spirit of "everybody knows this is true".

Not to be argumentative, but I do not know that it is true. If it is, it is a serious issue that our justice system needs to address, no question.

However, could some of you folks who believe this and use this point in your posts please supply links to documented studies to support the contention? Not anectodal evidence, but systematic studies with hard evidence, so we know how big a problem this really is.

All the anecdotes can do is tell us we need to investigate the possibility of a larger problem. Let's see what the investigation brings forth before we change the law.

 

[okievarmint]

*sigh* I can understand your thoughts and opinions on the death penalty, and a death is a death whether it's government sanctioned by corrections institutions or police officers, but again, I don't want an argument, but it's something I'm trying to decide on. Why is it right, when no death has taken place, to take a life(heck, the perp may just be bluffing, the gun may not be loaded, etc.), but not ok when a life has? Honestly, help me understand.

 

[mthalo]

So if done properly, it would/should/could have a serious effect on the reduction of violent crime as a deterrant.

Key phrase here is "if done properly", which I don't believe is possible. What if your public defender is only interested in moving on to a paying case, can you trust him to be paying attention to jury selection?


ArcherandShooter,

Illinois is a good example of why I don't support it.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_testimony.cfm?id=256&wit_id=622

http://www.justiceblind.com/death/dpillinois.html

 

[44 AMP]

I support the death penalty principle, but disagree with how it is applied today. Only certain categories of crime(murder) "rate" the death penalty. I do not believe that this is the way it should be. Death penalty for wantonly killing a police officer (or a Federal poultry inspector) but not for killing your wife, or daughter. Are their lives somehow worth more than others because of the job they hold?

Many states will only consider the death penalty for "aggravated" murder (whatever the term is). As opposed to (regular) murder, for which the max is life. I see no real sense in this. Murder is most foul, and should be treated as such. Manslaughter is differrent, but murder is murder (why are there degrees of murder?)

We have undergone a complete reversal in attitude during the last century. Once, it was that if an innocent man was occasionally hung, that was the "price of doing business", to see that evil men got what was coming to them. Today it is "better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail". I don't like it, but I appear to be in the minority.

As far as the death penalty being a deterrent, the argument that it is not makes some sense, as criminals don't believe they will be caught, (if they did, they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place) so the threat of the death penalty doesn't deter them. On the other hand, it has been proven that many criminals will avoid armed citizens, because they are afraid of being shot (and killed), so it appears that the risk of death does have some deterrent ability.

And, as far as I know, there has never been a case of repeat offender wherre the death penalty was carried out.

As far as the death of a criminal due to being stopped by a gun (civilian or police), that's the breaks. The sole purpose of defensive shooting is to STOP the bad guy. Stop him before he can do harm. Or more harm. If he dies as a result of the force required to stop him, it is a matter of supreme indifference to me. Kind of the "reap what you sow" thing.

 

[Wildalaska]

I beleive only the most heinous crimes deserve capital punishment..

WildwhatthatisihaventdecidedAlaska

 

[j1132s]

So, you would kill before someone takes a life, but not after? In other words, you would kill at a perceived threat, but not after a killing takes place? Just curious.

This is just my own opinion on the matter. There is difference between self defense killings and executions.

In self defense, I'd stop the BG to save my life. I'm also ok w/ preemptive strikes. In these situations, if lives are lost, so be it, it prevents a greater tragedy. Whether the outcome matches the intent, that'll be left for history to judge.

Execution, i.e. capital punishment, is different. Nobody is being threatened and the BG is effectively neutralized. As those very words indicate, it is a punishment. I do not support the taking of a life as a punishment.

Even if the legal system works and the one being accused did commit the crime, I still won't support execution. I cannot understand why the person commit the crime since we can't read minds, but I think that people do things for a reason. The reason may not agree w/ me but I can't say it is wrong.

 

[Handy]

Archer,

Look up the Innocence Project. They've freed many people wrongly on death row, and should have the stats you're looking for.


Okie,

Not all human life is valuable. Someone who threatens or takes innocent life (or even guilty life) has given up their claim to it. Self defense is the immediate application of this principle, because you choose to shield the innocent at the expense of the fool.

One could say the same about convicted murders, except that we consistantly kill the wrong people. That doesn't make it worthwhile.

 

[Clayfish]

I used to support capital punishment until I studied the subject. I am now against it and agree there is a difference between self defence and and puposfully taking a life. It amazes me still that it cost more to kill someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.

 

[THENASH]

I support the death penalty. Self defense aside. If you murder someone in cold blood then simply, you deserve to die as well. I can see this becoming very philosophical in the next few days.

 

[pax]

I see several posts here that refer to "many" and "lots" of people wrongly convicted and executed in this country, written in the spirit of "everybody knows this is true".

Not to be argumentative, but I do not know that it is true. If it is, it is a serious issue that our justice system needs to address, no question.

Archer, just so we know what number you're looking for: How many innocent people killed for doing things they didn't do would be "too many"?

I put my answer at "ONE."

Incidentally, I agree with the first poster and with several others. Self-defense isn't about revenge, and it isn't about justice. It's about survival.

pax

 

[afsnco]

I disagree that killing in self defense is not analogous to capital punishment.

In both cases a crime is being or has been perpetrated, and in both cases a decision is made that the perp's life is forfeit for this act or attempted act. It's just that one decision is made quickly and in a near panic, because our lives are at stake, while the other is made slowly and deliberately, because potentially the lives of our fellow citizens are at stake, including our fellow citizens in prison.
I know that in defending ourselves, our goal isn't to kill but to stop the threat, but if we train to shoot COM, as we all do, it's highly likely we'll kill.