What do you think about the ABA's proposed stay on all Executions?

Question

The American Bar Association has recently asked for a stay on all executions, due to the court decisions that have called the current method "cruel and unusual punishment." The problems are concerning the drugs used in executions, one of which renders the prisoner immobile, unable to speak, move, or indicate pain. This drug is banned for use by veterinarians, but is used on human beings. Do you agree that executions should be halted until some humane method is found? Or do you believe in the Death Penalty at all? Since DNA testing has proven that innocent people have been sentenced to death, do you think the Death Penalty should be banned in the U.S. as it is in European countries?

Answer 1

Actually the ABA has proposed a moratorium for a variety of reasons other than to look at lethal injections. Excerpts from the AP story about it: Problems cited include

"--Spotty collection and preservation of DNA evidence, which has been used to exonerate more than 200 inmates;
--Misidentification by eyewitnesses;
--False confessions from defendants; and
--Persistent racial disparities that make death sentences more likely when victims are white."

"...The ABA, which takes no position on capital punishment, did not study lethal injection procedures that are under challenge across the nation." It also looked at "incompetent indigent defense services and irregular clemency review processes [that make] those death penalty systems operate unfairly."

You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people. The purpose of a moratorium is to give us time to look at systemic problems.
Keeping in mind facts coming to light about about how the death penalty actually functions, I believe that the national dialogue about it should continue.

124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty is a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that don’t.

We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 2

Why should anyone care if lethal injection is painful ? The only
persons who are put to death are murders, who, by and large,
didn't give a rat's backside about the pain their victims went through, or that of the victim's survivors. I feel that the death penalty SHOULD be painful. Bring back "Big Yellow Mama",
the electric chair used in the State of Alabama. Whether executions are banned in other countries is immaterial; those people do not rule our country.
I will never understand why some people think that the death penalty should be done away with, or should be painless. The
convicted murders need to be dealt with, in a swift manner.

;-o

Answer 3

I don't agree with the death penalty. DNA has proven many people innocent of the crimes for which they had been convicted and unfortunately there are plenty of cases with no evidence to be tested. It's reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of cases where DNA testing is not possible have resulted in the conviction people who didn't commit those crimes.

I realize that many have decided that guilty until proven innocent is safer than innocent until proven guilty and they have decided that it's okay to execute a few innocent people in the name of justice, but that does meant that the guilty are being allowed to go free while innocent people are executed and that is as criminal as anything done by those currenlty waiting on death row.

Answer 4

The ABA has just called attention to a problem that many courts have already addressed -- and many courts in various states have already issued stays until these issues can be resolved.

All the ABA is doing is trying to prevent additional litigation -- yes, lawyers trying to keep problems out of the courts -- to give the legislatures time to address the problems.

Personally, I have no opinion on the death penalty -- other than believing that if the govt has the right to kill people, people should also have the right to choose to end their own lives -- I don't believe in the govt having any more power over individuals than individuals have over themselves.