End the death penalty?

July 17, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
More than a year ago, a team of law professors, scholars, lawyers, and judges let loose a report recommending a halt to the death penalty in Indiana. That assessment came on behalf of the American Bar Association and was one of multiple recommendations being put together nationwide. It suggested putting executions on hold while the Hoosier death penalty statutes were reviewed and, if needed, tweaked.

So far, little action has come from lawmakers on that. But some continue pushing. A protest staged outside the Indiana Statehouse is a monthly ritual that some hope will keep attention on the issue, despite whatever legislative and court decision hurdles may exist. A key question raised by the protest is this: Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong? Then there’s a call to join and end capital punishment. The Indiana Information Center on the Abolition of Capital Punishment holds a similar event every third Thursday, with future dates set for Aug. 21, Sept. 18, and Oct. 16. For more information, visit the IICACP.

So, do you think Indiana will ever join the other 14 states and Washington, D.C., which have no death penalty? Or will the death penalty always be a possible punishment for offenders in Indiana convicted of certain crimes?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT