I, for one, do not support the death peanalty because it does not really protect the innocent despite the automatic appeal process. Innocent people still get railroded. Another reason is that the innocent freed in the midwest were wrongly convicted by this notion of 'eye for an eye' mentality - railroded. If the innocent were truly protected with the death penalty, there wouldn't be wrongly convited people. That is why the moritorium will work if eneacted - it protects the truly innocent from being railroaded.

Any prosecutor or judge who supports the death penalty should be willing to waive judicial/prosecutorial immunity for errors (and worse) that occur in capital prosecutions. After all, if the system is so good at ridding itself of bias and errors, they have nothing to fear from having to answer for the quality of prosecution and the trial.

I am in support of the Death Penalty and I feel it is not used ENOUGH. When I was 18 years old my dorm mate who lived across the hall murdered two people and I was the material witness because he confessed his wrongdoing to me. I can't imagine any other proper treatment for him than a shot to the head. I have a cousin who works in the Salem Mental Hospital. She deals with prisoners who are never going to change and her life is constantly in danger. She says that people when they become that hardened will never change and they are so hindered in their ability to restrain people they basically can't lay a finger on them when they get out of line. She's had many near misses of criminals trying to strangle her. The pansy bleeding hearts would rather pander to these criminals instead of putting them where they belong - in the ground. I think a better use of these professionals would be to deal with these troubled youth before they become hardened criminals. Instead they are spending all their time and energy on "lost causes" who would be better off in the ground for society's sake.

GT - Seriously: you're over 18 years old?! Haha... nah, I'm just joshin' you. Yer ok.

I think we should place a moratorium on the death penatly on the simple basis that it's cheaper to incarcerate someone for life than sentence them to the death penalty's long drawn-out appeals process.

Personally, I'm for the death penalty only in cases where the accused stipulates to the commission of the crime in open court. Let's do that and shrink the automatic appeals process to allow for that stipulation.

That way we'll lower costs, allow for GT and friends' bloodthirsty revenge instinct, and remove the pesky concern about wrongfully-convicted persons.

It's great to dismiss the death penalty as ineffective, but you never really hear the alternatives that make any sense.

People tend to gravitate to the misconception that everyone who supports the death penalty is bent on revenge, but that's just not the case. Some people are able to set aside emotion and think about the problem in a logical manner - and they come to the obvious conclusion that society is better off without human beings that are willing to kill other human beings.

I agree that the death penalty needs to be re-examined in regards to not only its effect on innocent people, but also its effectiveness as a deterrant in its current form. I also believe that getting even more soft on crime is a recipe for disaster.

If the state cannot achieve and demonstrate a 100% accuracy rate, they are not to be allowed to kill anyone. Period.

It's NOT "the state", folks. This is a representative democracy. We're actually talking about We The People performing executions. Whether you support the death penalty or not, you need to wrap your mind around this simple fact and decide whether you're comfortable with it.

It's time...

"...society is better off without human beings that are willing to kill other human beings."

So, does that include the people who are willing to kill criminals too?

I don't see how capital punishment is anything but revenge. It is not a deterrant. It is not cheaper. It is not more humane - for either the victim & family or the perp. If we really want to set aside emotion and think about it logically - how can you ignore those facts?

Abolishing the death penalty isn't being "soft" on crime. Assuming all those death sentences got communted to life in prison, the perps still are being punished and society will still be protected from them - if that's what the real goal is, NOT revenge.

"As the inimitable GT demonstrates, the death penalty has no other purpose than revenge; societies who pedal revenge need to think very seriously about their moral standing. "

I don't see it as a revenge issue. It's a waste of society's money and effort to keep these wastes of human flesh alive. How much does it cost PER year to house and feed these people X how many years they could potentially remain alive for a "LIFE SENTENCE"? Think of how many homeless and troubled youth could be tended to rather than spend money on these people who will not change? That's my point - not revenge. BTW, if you don't believe my story about the murderer, drop me a line. I can send you an essay I wrote about the experience. It was a very stressful period in my life at such an impressionable age.

I am reading An innocent man by John Grisham at the moment.

John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction, an exploration of small town justice gone terribly awry, is his most extraordinary legal thriller yet. In the major league draft of 1971, the first player chosen from the State of Oklahoma was Ron Williamson. When he signed with the Oakland A’s, he said goodbye to his hometown of Ada and left to pursue his dreams of big league glory. Six years later he was back, his dreams broken by a bad arm and bad habits—drinking, drugs, and women. He began to show signs of mental illness. Unable to keep a job, he moved in with his mother and slept twenty hours a day on her sofa. In 1982, a 21-year-old cocktail waitress in Ada named Debra Sue Carter was raped and murdered, and for five years the police could not solve the crime. For reasons that were never clear, they suspected Ron Williamson and his friend Dennis Fritz. The two were finally arrested in 1987 and charged with capital murder. With no physical evidence, the prosecution’s case was built on junk science and the testimony of jailhouse snitches and convicts. Dennis Fritz was found guilty and given a life sentence. Ron Williamson was sent to death row. If you believe that in America you are innocent until proven guilty, this book will shock you. If you believe in the death penalty, this book will disturb you. If you believe the criminal justice system is fair, this book will infuriate you.

Oregon ain't Oklahoma, but the death penalty is irreversible. As a citizen, I don't want that on my conscience.

If you want revenge, let's really make murderers suffer: let's sentence them to life without possibility of parole and then snuff them when they are about to die of old age. That way, you still get your execution AND they had to suffer through life imprisonment. If you're not willing to execute them when they're 80, why do it when they're 25 or 35?

'Course, this means that the usual twenty-year delay in clearing the wrongfully convicted will still have time to do some good, so maybe that's a benefit too.

As someone who spent two years reviewing cases for an appeals court, I can tell you that the presumption of innocence is a sad joke in this country. In the US, the average juror strongly believes that police don't lie, that police forensic experts don't make up their qualifications and their results, and that nobody would be up for a henious crime unless they did something at least that bad.

Anyone who supports the death penalty needs to read "Actual Innocence" by Peter Neufeld and Barry Sheck, founders of the Innocence Project. They have documented just how flawed our murder convictions are, and how often--precisely because they are the most notorious cases with the most press attention--the known factors that result in wrongful convictions time after time all come together.

Add to all this a system of elected prosecutors and judges--where the prosecutors all see death cases as a chance to make their bones and become judges, and the judges never lose the prosecutorial mindset.

This shouldn't even be a question for the Oregon Democratic Party--abolition of the death penalty should be a first principle.

Pat Ryan: Thanks for the civics lesson Lin. I am already clear on the basic concepts of a republic.

Well, Mr Ryan, I'm glad to hear that you understand that your representatives are precisely that. Now for a couple of specific queries: (1) Are you comfortable condemning convicted criminals to death? Or are you only comfortable with other people condemning convicted criminals to death? (2) Are you comfortable with performing executions? Or are you only comfortable with hiring someone else to perform executions?

Obviously I tip my hand. After agonizing over this issue for years, I finally came down firmly against the death penalty. I am not interested in condemning or executing criminals, and equally not interested in hiring anyone to perform executions.

David, You're welcome.

I used to be in favor of the death penalty but changed my mind many years ago. In theory and on an emotional level it can seem to be justified. In practice however, as JMG posted above, it can become legalized lynching. The justice system is flawed in favor of those who can afford the best legal team while those who cannot sometimes end up with unqualified counsel.

Mr. Ryan: our objections to the death penalty are pretty different. I gather (correct me if I am wrong) that if there were 100% accuracy--that no innocents were put to death--then you would favor the death penalty. I suppose I consider this objection as tactical, sort of like saying the death penalty is bad because non-whites are "disproportionately" executed. (The unspoken message I get from that argument is that eliminating the disproportion would make the death penalty just fine.)

My objection to the death penalty is that I'm not willing to give the state my proxy to kill anyone, nor kill anyone myself.

I'm not actually trying to hold myself up as some sort of virtuous enlightened being. I expect I'm not doing too good a job at that.

Here's the most recent Poster Child.

Y'all sure he doesn't deserve to die?

But that couldn't happen in Oregon, Not with nice guys like this...

I have a Two part question for my friends who support the DP. Do you think the criminal justice system is perfect and never makes mistakes. And, how many innocent people are you willing to execute in order to execute 100 guilty people.

I have actually had a few people say they're willing to execute 3-5 innocent people. Don't know if they're serious. Maybe so. I've had no one say the criminal justice system is perfect.

I think a "living death" penalty should be considered. If sentenced to "living death", then the persons sentence includes no visits from family, no letters or communication with family. No ability to be released or pardoned EXCEPT if based on evidence of actual innocence. Otherwise the person is housed and fed, with limited contact by staff and other inmates. No "news" from the outside, no TV or radios or newspapers.

"It's a waste of society's money and effort to keep these wastes of human flesh alive."

Perhaps you'd have more credibility here, GT, if you'd only do some research. But from reading your posts, I don't think credibility - and carrying on an intelligent conversation - is your motive for posting here.

It's been proven time and time again that it costs much more to prosecute a capitol punishment crime, than it does to simply incarcerate them for life. Please don't use homeless youth as your shameless red herring to justifying the DP.

David English - Wow. Reading "The Chamber" also made me a firm opponent to the DP. I hadn't really thought it about much before that book, and even though the guy executed was clearly guilty of a truly heinous crime, the description of the electric chair made me literally sick. It's barbaric. And by the sound of things, we're now discovering that the supposedly more humane "death by lethal injection" isn't any better.

Regardless, the pain and suffering of the executed is really not the point. As, lin qiao wrote, I wouldn't support the DP just because there was some guarantee that it was applied fairly and without error, nor would I support it if there was some truly humane way to do it. It's just wrong.

You know, I've never really had a firm opinion about the death penalty, but I've watched the debates fairly closely. From what I see, it's not really a question of effectiveness, ethics, morality, criminology, deterrence or any other issue.

Basically, it's an issue of democracy - a large percentage of the population supports the death penalty, for a huge variety of reasons. Until people change their minds about it to make the demographics more equal, we won't see a change.

I've always had a firm opinion on it, especially after my experiences with the murderer in college. It was especially troubling that all my liberal friends were like "how could you have done such a thing by turning in YOUR FRIEND to the police?, "Don't you feel bad that he now has to spend the rest of his life in prison because of what YOU did?" Give me a freaking break, he killed people, how do you think his family feels and you have the audacity to criticize me for turning him in? This is the problem with liberals. They are so permissive and don't expect any consequences for wrongdoings, even murder!

I just finished "The Street Lawyer"! How weird. It WAS a really good book and very thought provoking. I've served as a board member for legal aid before though, so this is a subject near and dear to my heart. I'm going to order "An Innocent Man" as both you and BOHICA have recommended. Thanks!

[Ranting deleted. -editor.]

This is the problem with liberals. They are so permissive and don't expect any consequences for wrongdoings, even murder!

Yep, that's definitely right. In fact I'm bringing up my 10 year old child with precisely this ethical framework. I've also given her the car keys, and cleared the books off her bookshelves and replaced them with booze and porn DVDs.

[Rant deleted. -editor.]

The death penalty is wrong. It's a cruel punishment, and other countries such as the Philippines abolished the death penalty. Oregon and the entire United States should do the same thing, giving murderers who would have received the death penalty sentences of life in prison.

I think its a deterrent. I probably would have killed a lot of people by now if there wasn't the threat of the death penalty, or life in prison.