“Should the death penalty be enacted in the state of Wisconsin for cases involving a person who is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, if the conviction is supported by DNA evidence?”
This wording will be on the November 7th ballot throughout Wisconsin and is NOT a binding referendum. What this means is that even if 100% of the people support or reject the referendum it will NOT change the current law of the State. The purpose of this is to determine if there is any support for this penalty…if there is the legislature MAY try to reinstate the death penalty in Wisconsin.
I broached this topic a week ago and said that I would weigh in on the debate. In light of the recent press release from No Death Penalty Wisconsin I thought it might be time to state my opinion on the subject.
I’ll start by saying I will be voting ‘Yes’ for this referendum.
Here is why:
- The death penalty is an effective deterrent is used and promoted.
- First-degree intentional homicide is meant for people that meant to kill someone and therefore the most heinous.
- (The Left hates this one…) If it is legal to kill an innocent child before he/she has a chance at a life…why isn’t it legal to kill a guilty person who has intentionally taken the life of another?
- DNA evidence is conclusive.
If this does move forward I would like to see the wording changed to “first-degree intentional homicide” since under the current wording reckless homicide would be included. I’m not as comfortable having people put to death for acts that unintentionally caused a death whether reckless or not.
The pro-abortion crowd always tries to turn this on its ear and say that if we are pro-life then we can’t be pro-death penalty. I say BS! The taking of an innocent life is far different from taking a guilty one. I have no moral reservations or consider my opinion hypocritical if you do that is your moral dilemma, not mine.
Lastly the “No Penalty” group is currently going around the state with at least on person who has been exonerated due to the DNA evidence that proved he did not commit murder! So DNA works…both ways!! If we can set people free based on DNA why can we not punish them for the same evidence?
Vote “Yes.”
Do you like this article? Share It!
2 comments to "Death Penalty…"
gfolk says:
Well wow hmmmm!!!! I'm OK with the death penalty, somewhat, But is it really a deterant! Lets see In 2004 Murders in state with death penalty was at 5.71 where in states with out 4.02. a diffrence of 42%
In 2003 with 5.91 without 4.10 diff. of 44%
2002 with 5.82 without 4.27 Diff. of 36%
Info found on http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/php/article.php?scid=12&did=168
These trends go back to 1990 not one of those years was the murders in a death penalty state lower then one without. So a deterant I THINK NOT. Lets not be blind by that. Actual police force doing there JOB would be the deterant, They should look into each city first before sticking that on the ballot. Murders and crime in its self would not be so high if RPD actually did there job.
gopfolk says:
Nice LIBERAL site you have there.
I thought I was clear when I said that if the death penalty is used properly it can be an effective deterrent.
Additionally when you look at the life that a prisioner currently has on death row compared to the life he/she would have on the street...of course there isn't a deterrent effect. We need to make prisions a place where people DO NOT want to go! Many of these people know that they would probably be dead in a year out on the street so why not spend the next 10-15 getting 3 squares a day and a gym before one dies?
Besides the statistics they use are for all murders not just intentional murders...FBI's own definition does not seperate between the two.
And for the record...the numbers used go farther back than the 90's they go back to 1976! They look the same all the way back...but this shouldn't be a suprise when you consider the states without the death penalty are also the states with some of the lowest crime statistics across the board!