Where do the candidates stand on the death penalty?

...stated at Tuesday's forum that he will not pursue the death penalty if elected.

I Twitter, Therefore I Am.

I disagree with Moore's pro-death penalty position, but at least he's honest about it.

Perdue has pretended genuine concern by stating that while she supports the death penalty, she also supports a moratorium. She wants it both ways. Her position is rank hypocrisy and a cheesey effort to convince progressives that she gives a damn about the morality of the issue. The only purpose for the moratorium is to give the movement to overturn the death penalty some traction, and she knows that. People who tell themselves that a moratorium is capable of "curing" the problems inherent in our system are kidding themselves.

The Supreme Court has recently found that lethal injection is not unconstitutional. This finding strikes a blow, to say the least, to the support for a moratorium.

You can bet you will NOT be hearing Bev Perdue say a word in opposition to the death penalty. Far from it.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

without exception.
1. Keeping a human being caged until natural death is far greater punishment than killing that person.

2. It cannot be undone in the event of a prosecutional mistake, or misdeed (HAS HAPPENED).

3. The death penalty, as it has been applied in the United States, has been open to far too many mistakes, unequally executed, cruel and unusual, and has almost no sense of Justice to it.

If, in our deepest conscience, we believed, as a country, that the Death penalty was Good and Just, we would not carry it out in such discreet privacy. We would be executing people in public forums.

Killing another human being is a dark deed, even when sacntioned by the State.

I would like to think we had grown beyond our darkest instincts. Collective, or institutional revenge is still revenge....and that has nothering to do with justice.

Barack Obama helped reform the death penalty while a member of the state legislature in Illinois. From a Washington Post profile:

Five years later, Obama waded into a complex capital-punishment debate after a number of exonerations persuaded then-Gov. George Ryan (R) to empty death row.

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

In proposing changes, Obama met repeatedly with officials and advocates on all sides. He nudged and cajoled colleagues fearful of being branded soft on crime, as well as death-penalty opponents worried that any reform would weaken efforts to abolish capital punishment.

Obama's signature effort was a push for mandatory taping of interrogations and confessions. It was opposed by prosecutors, police organizations and Ryan's successor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who said it would impede investigators.

Working under the belief that no innocent defendant should end up on death row and no guilty one should go free, Obama helped get the bill approved by the Senate on a 58 to 0 vote. When Blagojevich reversed his position and signed it, Illinois became the first state to require taping by statute.

"Obviously, we didn't agree all the time, but he would always take suggestions when they were logical, and he was willing to listen to our point of view. And he offered his opinions in a lawyerly way," said Carl Hawkinson, the retired Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "When he spoke on the floor of the Senate, he spoke out of conviction. You knew that, whether you agreed with him or disagreed with him."

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

The Independent asked the following question of council of state candidates:

9. As member of the Council of State, you would have input on the issue of the death penalty, including the execution protocol, which was taken up by the Council last year. Do you feel qualified to vote on such issues? If so, how would you vote on the execution protocol and other death penalty matters that may come before the Council? And is the Council of State an appropriate body to deliberate these issues?

Robin's Response:

I believe I am the only candidate for a Council of State office who has represented a death row inmate in a North Carolina death penalty appeal. Early in my career as a lawyer, I volunteered over 500 pro bono hours on a state appeal. I support abolishing the death penalty. Nevertheless, this is a legislative matter; however, I would continue to work towards an end to the death penalty in North Carolina.

"Keep the Faith"

Dan went to a meeting over in Duplin County tonight. I nearly never stand in for Dan because we have an agreement that we don't put words in each other's mouths. In this case, Dan and two other Lt. Gov. candidates answered this question for the Progressive Democrats questionnaire, so I know what his answer is.

The questionnaire can be found over on the Raleigh News and Observer site at this link:
http://projects.newsobserver.com/sites/projects.newsobserver.com/files/L...

This is Dan's answer:

I am on public record in calling for a moratorium on executions in our state. We can no longer justify merely tweaking around the edges of the issue—for example, by debating execution of the mentally retarded, or reform of the procedures for execution. It is past time to address the fundamental questions about capital punishment, the ones which
cause too many of our leaders to duck and cover: risk of erroneous executions of the innocent, and racial bias in the
application of the death penalty. It is time for the legislature to put executions on hold while we carefully, systematically address those issues.

During that moratorium, we must examine and address those two key matters. The first is erroneous execution of the
innocent. No matter what your position on capital punishment, we can all agree that execution of an innocent person is
morally unacceptable. Unfortunately, both judges and juries make errors. If capital punishment is to continue to remain an
option, then for its application we need a new set of evidentiary standards which would eliminate, for all practical purposes,
the possibility of execution of an individual for a crime he or she did not commit. I can see ways to approach that goal, that I
would commend for consideration by a study commission on the topic.

The second problem is racial bias in the application of capital punishment. This is a pervasive problem, and part of an issue
which continues to undermine public confidence in the basic fairness of our justice system. A careful, thorough review of
this element and how it could be addressed is needed. This issue is also tied up in questions surrounding the use of
prosecutorial discretion in determining who to charge, with what offenses, as well as the threat of the death penalty as
pressure in plea negotiations.

I would not put an artificial time deadline on the completion of these reviews. The legislature has the authority to enact a
moratorium, and would inherently retain authority to determine when and if its questions were satisfied.

I hope you'll get a good response on this. It's a very important issue.

Kay

aspect. It shouldn't take forever for a group of reasonable men and women to arrive at appropriate evidence guidelines for capital punishment.

Of course, nothing will be reasonable or appropriate for those who are unalterably opposed to the death penalty. And, there will always be the chance that mistakes will be made or that justice will be contorted by unscrupulous law enforcement officials or others.

I support the death penalty. I believe if someone takes or participates in taking another person's life during the commission of a criminal act, that person ought to be eligible for execution.

If the evidence supporting the prosecution of such a criminal demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that he/she is guilty of taking a life, the death penalty should be an option. If the accused is convicted, and if the accused has a record of other crimes, particularly those involving firearms or violence or threats of violence against others, the death penalty seems appropriate to me.

It would seem, for example, that if what we seem to know about the killers of Eve Carson can be proven in court, those three men should be eligible for the death penalty. If convicted they should be executed...without appeal or delay.

It might also be reasonable for any study of our justice system to also consider why our current prison system doesn't seem to deter those who have served time from repeating their criminal acts after release...or why those who are found guilty of substantial crimes are sometimes not appropriately punished.

Comment posted in the wrong place.

I'm sorry!

Moore's quote is very reminiscent of the same old "eye for eye" rhetoric that has been used to justify a death penalty system that devalues the lives of minorities on both sides of the equation, and disproportionately executes those who are poor, black, and have substance abuse or mental health issues.

Unless poor, African American males are disproportionately "Biblically evil," something is terribly wrong with the system. That's why I'm glad Bev supports the moratorium on the death penalty. I agree with James that she has always shown that she has a reasoned, sincere approach to this issue, and I know that Bev certainly wouldn't let anyone be executed - even without a moratorium - if there were any shred of a chance that they were innocent.

I'm sure that's at least one of the reasons that people I respect (Harvey Gantt, especially) and all but one or two of the whole Black Legislative Caucus support Bev.

My expanded and updated post is available here.

Beverly Perdue took action for suspending executions. That counts for a lot.

On April 30, 2003, the NC Senate was considering a bill for a two-year suspension of executions. The vote on an unfriendly amendment was close and it was then that Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue arrived as president of the Senate and in support of the moratorium. Sen. Marc Basnight and Sen. Tony Rand gave powerful speeches in favor of a moratorium, following on the leadership of Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, the champion of the moratorium in the Senate, and the bill passed by a strong vote.

Lt. Gov. Perdue provided leadership and set an example for others in her support for the moratorium bill, making the NC Senate the only legislative body in the American South to call for a suspension of executions. She has since publicly maintained her support for a moratorium and a thorough review of the death penalty system. North Carolina has never created a blue ribbon commission to study its death penalty system and we desperately need one.

On May 2, the State of North Carolina exonerated and released its third death row prisoner, Bo Jones, in four months. Together these men spent a combined four decades on death row. What does this say about us as a people that we allow so many innocent people to be condemned to die and that we maintain this system so corrupted by race and class and prone to error?

I support repealing the death penalty and using the funds saved to create real programs that reduce violence and assist the survivors of murder victims. Someday, some of our leading gubernatorial candidates will feel the same way. (The current governors of Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey are against the death penalty; it will happen here.)

In the least, supporting a moratorium is the sensible and responsible position for anyone seeking the governorship of North Carolina, and I am grateful that Beverly Perdue has shown her support for doing so.

On the death penalty, she is offering a difference.

(I expressly disassociate my comments here from any organization with which I am affiliated.)