he should have said: how dare you ask me such a question? how pathetic are you to frame a question about policy in a hypothetical about my wife or family being brutalized or victimized? who do you think you are? the question you posed says more about your character, sir, then any answer i could give would say about mine. shame on you.
What would have been better? To flip flop on a life time of standing next to an opinion, and say yes? I think that was a calm answer. Hell I would have flipped out if someone asked me that type of question.
Dukakis should've said "I would've fucking killed the guy," without the cursing, of course. That's what people wanted to hear. That's what people needed to hear. Certainly, his point was right, but it was too academic, too impersonal, and too milquetoast an answer.
I'm against the death penalty but I can accept the criticism that it might be an unelectable position to have when you’re standing for president of the United States. Every other democrat presidential candidate after Dukakis has been pro death penalty to neutralise the issue.
Yikes, and I thought pitting Bachmann against Perry in the "Rick kills little girls and takes bribes" back and forth bit was over the top and royally stupid.
The moderator is a total ass for asking the question involving a hypothetical of the murder of his own wife. He can ask his opinion on the death penalty without invoking the name of his wife as an example.
@shelleyinthecity Any conservative who likes to whine that there's a liberal media bias or try to say that liberals don't get tough questions, should be forced to watch this clip over and over.
I remember listening to this on the radio and slapping my head when I heard Dukakis' response. We all like to blame Shaw for the question. But the fact is, if Dukakis had simply managed to handle it with grace, to reply as a human & not a robot, NONE of us would even remember the question today.
Today we get the same blame-the-questioner accusations (overwhelmingly from the right) whenever a Palin or Bachmann muff up a perfectly legitimate question.
Here's what Dukakis should have said: "First of all, Bernard, I think that question is highly inappropriate. To bring my wife and my family into such a sensitive issue to try and stump me is deplorable. Second of all, to answer it, I would say yes, I would, as a grieving family member wish to see an irrevocable death penalty for the killer, but that's also why we don't put grieving family members in charge of the American Justice System!"
@gracebasherguy92 Terrific answer, though I don't think the question was that bad. Ill-advised and too provocative, perhaps, but Shaw was invoking Kitty's name to determine Dukakis' values and how he would deal with a situation that might put them to the test.
What I've found most surprising is that some people found that Dukakis sounded cold during his answer of the question [we specifically covered this in a politics class of mine as a gaffe on Dukakis' part] but I've always found that his answer didn't waver from his position and that despite having that personal spin on it, he maintained his view of justice and brought the facts. I've never understood how he supposedly floundered on this. Thats the exact kind of integrity i'd want of a president.
@VAThrasher We had to do an assignment on this very answer for Critical Thinking class and what I like most about it is that he doesn't use "key phrases" or emotion to get his argument across. He stays calm, uses facts and where he stands on the issue without going over the top. Now, the problem is this is real world politics and the key phrases paired with emotion is what gets the audiences on your side. Logic doesn't seem to win like it should in politics.
This answer of Dukakis was a real act of political courage, because he knew what the position of american people was on this issue. But his answer was too brutal, too short, and he seemed cold, which could explain why he lost.
But the question was shocking and dishonorable, because it doesn't matter what Dukakis would want if his wife was killed. All civilized countries agrees to say that Justice isn't a tool for private vengeance. That's why the victims don't judge the criminal.
that was a curveball, but a fair question... if he gave a different answer, he wouldve been criticized for waivering. he shouldve said something tough and emotional then gone back to discuss his original opposition to the death penalty...
Some 22 years later I do not believe Benard Shaw's question was stupid nor was Gov Dukakis reply stupid. If you supported Dukakis you wanted him to give a very emotional positive response but you have to realize that was never his style. On one hand I commend him for saying what he felt was the right answner on the other hand it's like dude your wife just got raped...say you want to take justice in your own hands etc. The bottom line is this: he said the right thing but at the wrong time.
It was a shocking and dishonorable question! It doesn't matter what Dukakis would want if his wife was
killed! In all civilized countries, there's a fundamental principle that wants that Justice isn't a tool for private vengeance! Jusitice isn't supposed to satisfie the victim, it's supposed to judge a criminal, and the victim doesn't get to say what the sentence is!
It should not be framed as a matter of private vengeance. It is the vengeance of society, which should not tolerate such rending of its rules and which must protect and honor the lives of its innocent members.
Of course Dukakis would probably want his wife's killer dead! It would take a great moral strength to stick to his conviction in such a pain! But that's why victims don't get to choose the sentence!
Dukakis should have answered: "yes, I would probably want the killer dead, but that's why I fight today to abolish death penalty, because it's important to fight against that instinct of death that exist in every human soul, and that awakes inside the victims of horrible crimes!"
Imagine the world if Senior hadnt become President. Dukakis was not phony, but that's bad for a politician. You Americans need to move ahead and ban it once and for all-a school opened is a prison closed. We in Europe are good at this. Executing people is in many ways scapegoating for the government's incompetence to create a safe society. It is blatant populism, and in matters of human rights such as that of life public opinion shouldnt matter. This is one limit of democracy, which you oversee.
Canada and Mexico have abolished the death penalty. So have Australia and New Zealand. None of the 27 nations in the European Union imposes the death penalty. Argentina, South Africa, Turkey and 61 other nations have ended this barbaric practice. Yet the United States stands proud with China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia among the top 5 countries for executions. Do we really want to belong to this club?
@shore2222 South Korea has not carried out an execution since 1997. Japan is an exeption, along with the U.S., among the wealthy democracies. Jesse Tafero was convicted of killing two police officers in 1976. In 1982 his accuser recanted and claimed full responsibilty for the murder. Despite this the state of Florida executed an innocent man in 1990. And there are many more cases like this one.
What about George Bush? Isn't he a mass murderer for authorizing the invasion of Iraq? Didn't he know innocent people could die? How come he doesn't get the death penalty?
Michael Dukakis self-destructed with his answer to Bernard Shaw's opening debate question. As a Dukakis supporter at the time, I was so angry with his answer ("You've BLOWN IT, you BLEEPING IDIOT! You just KISSED OFF any BLEEPING chance of wining the BLEEPING White House!") that I had to be physically restrained from smashing my TV, for I knew right then and there that Dukakis was toast.
Remember the exceptional distinction Bernard Shaw once held, in a like-it-was-yesterday era when blatant racism was still socially acceptable?
He will forever be remembered, if at all, for this disgrace. If anyone could make Clarence Thomas look like a saint ... shame on you, Mr. Shaw. Shame. Shame.
@seltian Ummm, American politics? I live in California, where knee-jerk propositions like "3 strikes", and a draconian sex-offender law that actually makes it impossible to moniter sex offendors by making it impossible for them to live anywhere, have reduced our entire judicial system to a cross-eyed barking frenzy.
Incredible ignorance distinguishes the U.S. from other developed nations - this is the real-life, life-and-death manifestation.
Not being American, what was he supposed to have done? Gone raging incredible hulk and screamed blue murder? He's meant to be an authority figure right?
It is stupid to argue about these things, because that sort of argument won't go anywhere, no one will compromise their opinions for even a second to consider the other person's point of view.
"were raped and murdered"-"I am sorry Bernard: the question is posed a bit too ambiguous and not graphic enough. Could you be a little more specific and describe the details of this gory rape and killing orgy in full detail?"
These guys are bad as Hitler. What the fuck does this guy now anyways. It's not like he's a cloning scientist or something. Some dumb fuck, making up some shit like this while he craps. Is that how you'd take care of yourself? I'd prefer not to die thanks. I can take care of myself without a retard. Got my own security system, thanks sir!
Such an idiot. Remember the Willie Horton case where these black guy raped another woman because of Mondales "free-prisoner-for the weekend"programm he forced in Massachusetts, too. He deserved his davastating defeat in these election with only round about 100 electoral votes.
If a female candidate had made a similar comment to a comparable question about her husband, I will wager that she would have been praised for being thoughtful and level-headed.
Dukakis, however, being a man, was expected to have a "warrior" mentality, which calls for revenge first and thought second. Anything else and he is considered less than a man, an especially big problem in the more conservative "heartland" states, in which men and women are still viewed in more traditional roles.
Amended response: "I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my wife go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you."
An appropriate response: "I would want to strangle the son of a bitch with my own hands, but we live in a nation that deters us from vigilante justice -- as strong as that desire might be -- and our legal system was established so that cooler heads can prevale in doling out justice. Would I want that person dead? Yes. But that's a personal feeling and doesn't address the question of whether or not state sanctioned executions are morally justified or if they simply fulfill a desire for revenge."
I can see how, from a European standpoint, the question may indeed be baffling. In fact, it was baffling to a lot of people.
The only way to understand it is to realize that it wasn't a moral question on the death penalty. It was a question aimed at "culture of honor" values. From a "Blue" State American, you're likely to get a nuanced response. What people from "Red" states (especially Southern) heard was basically an audible shrug. I'm not sure how else to explain the American interpretation.
I'd be happy to try and dissect it in further detail than the character count will allow, but if you really want to get a handle on American politics, I would suggest the book "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation" by Dr. Drew Westen.
It's an incredible read. Well-studied, enlightening, and terrifying at the same time. May I ask, what particularly about the question strikes you as so baffling? I'm really curious as to how others interpret the question.
the question is dumb, over-emotional and much too personal. it's logical that Dukakis himself would be angry when someone did something to his wife, but that's not what politics is about. Politics is about laws.
In complete agreement. It's the hypothetical ticking bomb '24' scenario (not sure if you get '24," but it's an entertaining and controversial show that often openly endorses torture via protagonist Jack Bauer who faces impending disasters, "forcing" him to go beyond the law.)
Of course, it is fiction, just like the rape & murder of Dukakis' wife. Yet we Americans are far too often moved by the salience and visceral impact of an argument, rather than its grounding in reality.
Just one last clarification...even though I think the question was remarkably stupid, I don't think it was unfair, and far from it being a third rail issue for a Democrat to take on, Dukakis could have taken it as an opportunity to vocalize the ambiguity most voters feel toward the death penalty, and then expressed his own personal beliefs in a statement based on his own convictions and principles. People respect strong value statements, especially from someone who is truly principled.
Hes probably so devoid of emotion because he's considered this possibility before. I'm stuanchly anti-death penalty and people ask me all the time how I would feel if my dad/mom/bf/sister/etc died. Do I go GUH!! THAT WOULD BE HORRIBLE!! everytime someone asks me that? No. I've already thought of this. So has he.
I know that. My comment was that it was rather bizarre to use this to describe certain states. We've all heard the terms "industrialized nations" and "developing nations." But rarely are these terms used to describe states.
I'm against the death penalty but unfortunately it is political suicide to be against it.Democrats that have ran for the presidency after Dukakis have never been totally against the death penalty.
It's not a third rail issue if you frame it correctly and acknowledge the complex feelings individuals have toward capital punishment, then deliver your personal beliefs in an answer driven by values, not monotonous talking-point drivel.
People would like to see their own ambiguous feelings toward capital punishment reflected in the values of their leaders. Dukakis' actually had a great chance to score political points w/ this question, but he whiffed and he whiffed big.
@LocoYoFla Where a candidate for President Of The United States stands on the death penalty is largely irrelevant, since this is primarily a state issue, not a federal issue. There are occasionally cases where the death penalty is imposed by the federal government, but overwhelmingly it is done at the state level--about 3/4 of it occurring in the state of Texas.
Agreed, but Dukakis's answer made him seem dispassionate and detached from such a highly charged, emotional issue. At that moment, Americans put themselves in that horrific hypothetical and thought "if that happened to me, how would I respond?" I know that if someone touched a hair on any of my sisters' heads, I'd want their scalp. But I'm also against the death penalty. It isn't easy to square that circle without acknowledging the difficult emotional conflicts, and Dukakis fell far short.
If your a killer you deserve to die. It's the only fair punishment and sets an example. I believe it should be a matter of states to choose if or if not they want it. Let the people decide on a state level with a vote to leave it legal or illegal every 4 years. The same should go for gay marriage,abortion,and almost all other laws of this nature. Also the reason Dukakis state had such a low murder rate was do to the state he was governor of Maine.Also if you want to stop crime you create wealth.
It's nice that Dukakis didn't cave in to this incredibly facile, manipulative question. But in the interest of giving a rhetorically effective response, he probably should have said something to the effect that while he would personally want to tear the rapist limb from limb, what someone in that position would want to do is not what our government should do.
Hah, I just came across your comment after someone responded to my posting of a hypothetical response that basically attempts to do exactly what you suggest. With you 100% on this one.
It is not simply a rapist under discussion here, it is also a murderer. Any man who can answer this question as Dukakis did is quite simply not a man.
@Pizuzuzimmer I disagree with you. I believe that giving in to the personal framing of the question and throwing out a strongly held principle would be more indicative of him needing his man card taken away. He didn't say anything about killing the man himself rather than giving the state the satisfaction.
Recommended reading, Dr. Drew Westen's "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation".
We're evolutionarily programmed with certain moral emotions. A train is heading down the track full speed at 10 people tied to the rails. You can stop the train by pushing a nearby counterpart onto the tracks, thus saving 10 by sacrificing 1. Do you do it? If we assume relative "societal value," then it's an analytical no brainer. But would you be the one to make the push?
CONT"D...most people say no to this hypothetical, but when presented with a nearly identical situation, in which you're the conductor speeding down the tracks toward the 10 doomed men but at the last moment you notice that there's a single man tied to parallel tracks and if you throw the switch, you will bypass the 10 and kill the 1. People overwhelmingly respond that in this situation, they would throw the switch and kill the 1. Why? IDK. But I think it's why we like a mix of Spock & Kirk
heres a good situation, a girl got raped and the person who did it lives 1 block away from her and is sent to jail, the guy doesn't get the death penalty for raping her and 6 other local girls and in just 12 years, he lives back in his old home where all the girls are AT LEAST 1 block away from the rapist. how would YOU feel if you were the girl in this story?
Even though Joe Biden is a retarded bastard, look how he handled the question about if Obama were to be killed. Total opposite of Dukakis, and it didn't cost him any points.
WOW, how can people be ignorant about the death penalty? seriously, victims CANNOT stand seeing the killer out there not dead because he or she may be back to commit more murders or better yet, hunt the witnesses that told the truth about them. why cant we be like china where 9mm is always used and the gov makes the killers family pay for it.
Because of legal weed laws allowing people to buy weed thus ruining the drug war where people grow weed illegally. Plus, reason why Eu has a supposedly reported lower murder rate is because in my opinion that there's no "rights" over there written in paper to allow people to do whatever they like. It is true that in EU you can do alot of things but its different from America where you get the idea that your " free" and you have " rights" to do anything you want.
I dont think so.... Because alot of people dont think as if it happened to them.. so they oppose the death Penalty,,,but if someone raped and hacked up your family..you would want that guy to die for sure..therefor you suport the death penalty..gotta get people thinking "what if it happend to me.
I'm sure many of you will think of this as immoral, but I believe that the best & only way for a murderer to repay their debt to society would be to use their body to save or improve the lives of as many innocents as possible, in the form of organ donation. If their hearts, livers, kidneys, etc could be used to save the lives of others, how is it right to let those innocents die while a murderer is kept alive & well? And the murder victim's families could know that their loss was not in vain.
He should have said, let's say the man was tried and convicted and executed but it turned out to be a wrongful convition. Killing an innocent man, would be just as bad as what you said would happen to my wife.
This is the United States of America, we cannot let that happen.
The problem with this answer is Dukakis didn't have the presence of mind to tell Bernard Shaw to shove the question up his ass...that would have worked much better.
I wish journalists asked more insightful questions like this instead of the standard, made-for-sound-byte junk.
I am not a Dukakis fan but the problem with his answer wasn't on the merits of the death penalty. The issue was his non-passionate, robotic response to a question about someone raping and murdering his wife. It's like the question was about budget calculations.
George H.W. Bush should be recognized for dedicating his life to his country; however, I think now looking back at the '88 Presidential election that he wasn't the right choice. He wasn't a terrible President, just not a very good one. I'm assuming Michael Dukakis would've done a better job.
How is it irrelevant? It remains a controversial question, but it is entirely relevant. Dukakis' answer was cold and unemotional. Of course he would want his wife's rapist and murderer put to death! That's why in our justice system the victim's family does not decide the fate of the murderer.
The relevancy is obvious. Which is why I asked you "How is it irrelevant?" The question asks would he favor the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered. The question becomes relevant when you consider that opposition to the death penalty was one of Dukakis' most well-known platforms. The question seeks to establish whether his principle on the matter was broad-based and conditional or, if in the case of his answer, he was unwavering and final on his position.
Perhaps I should have been more specific. How is the question relevant in determining what type of president he will be. How many president's wives have been raped and murdered in office? Is this something that occurs often?
Almost every question asked during a debate is hypothetical to some degree. The candidates spend most of their time saying what they're going to do, not what they've already done. Unfortunately for the candidates, mere plans are not that interesting to journalists, or the viewing public. Of course the question is not a literal one - Shaw was alluding to William Horton and the entire controversy concerning weekend passes in Mass.
This first question knocked Dukakis back on his heels for a moment. He recovered somewhat, but the main complaint against him was that he didn't show any emotion while answering. His response seemed a little too rehearsed.
I WISH Michel Dukakus could run for presidnet in 2016 with John Kerry as his VP then the death penalty can be abloish from the US at last by the 28th admendment.
Let me ask you another question... If your MOTHER was raped and murdered, and you were forced to watch, would you want a death penalty for the murderer? Of course you wouldn't because obviously you don't care about your loved ones and bringing justice to the murderer.
as a fair penalty for the murderer and tells you that killing is wrong."
Killing INNOCENTS is wrong - and hardly the same thing as killing killers. To suggest that it is the same thing is spitting on the graves of every innocent victim in history.
Personally, I find it reprehensible that murder victims families are forced to pay taxes to put food on the tables of the murderers that took their family members away from their own tables.
the other option is that the murderer's victim's families have to spend more money on the extensive process of killing the murderer, with the added bonus of possibly aiding in the killing of an innocent, if the "murderer" turns out to be wrongfully accused, which has happened more than a few times in the past.
look, it's a shame that a family has to deal with the fact that their loved one is gone. there is no fixing that. the option here is what is the best thing to do given the circumstance
That's assuming there is no such thing as a unquestionable verdict. For example: jeffrey dahmer - there is no possibility that he was innocent of the crimes in question, nor did he deny it. Ending his life would have cost far less than incarcerating him in a maximum security prison for 30-50 years. No one said the death penalty was appropriate in ALL situations, however your suggestion that it is appropriate in none is no better in my opinion.
he pleaded not guilty for reason of insanity, so the fact that there was no question that he killed people is irrelevant to the case.
there is still an appeal process that takes a long time. all people who receive the death penalty appeal it.
this is a necessary safeguard to ensure we don't kill people who don't deserve it, though it's not a perfect system. even cases that seemed like a slam dunk can be wrong.
So you're basically saying there exists no situation where the element of doubt does not exist, even in a case of full confession and failed plea of insanity.
In other words, if your spouse and children were butchered in front of you and the killer admitted it - you would still fight for the life of the murderer, after all a slam dunk case COULD be wrong, right? How very sensitive of you.
At least know that your view would likely be an offense to many who have lost a loved one to a murderer.
it's pretty basic philosophy that we can never be sure of ANYTHING.
the reality is that we accept that if a person is incapable of telling right from wrong, we are not to punish this person. the plea for insanity may have failed, but that is hardly a guarantee that the man was sane.
two can play that game, your view is offensive to the families of innocent men who have died due to a false conviction.
We can never be sure of anything, eh? That's more than a little hypocritical coming from somebody who has produced a video entitled "Irrefutable Proof of the 9/11 Conspiracy", isn't it?
Why would my view be offensive to anyone? It's you, not me, that is taking the stand that capital punishment is all-or-nothing. I've suggested that there are indeed certain circumstances (not all) where it is warranted - you on the other hand suggest that in ALL circumstances it is NOT warranted.
"i know that i know nothing". you know who said that? socrates. but he was naive. thankfully we have the world's greatest teacher ever, HistorySpeaks4itself, to correct him.
it's too bad you didnt actually view the video. oh wait, no, that's the point. that people will just flame me for it without watching it. it just shows how people will criticize without even trying to understand.
your view is that it should be legal and the consequence of that, want it or not, is that innocents die.
Face it - your argument is not whether or not capital punishment is fundamentally right or wrong - it is an argument that guilt or innocence can ultimately never be determined. Your argument, derived from your "peer" Socrates, is that facts cannot exist - and that nothing is indisputable - except of course your 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Also, based on your "logic" - no one should drive automobiles, because "the consequence of that, want it or not, is that innocents die."
youre a joke. again, it's sad that my experiment turned the results i expected: that people would flame me for the video without ever watching it. it's too bad people jump to extreme conclusions without even bothering to see anything for themselves.
my argument on this point isnt about facts not existing, thats sort of a philosophical abstract thing that's beside the point. my point was that verdicts are frequently wrong. also, driving a car results in accidents, not premeditated killings.
What if there is no need for a jury to determine innocence or guilt? What if the perpetrator openly admits guilt - or a brutal murder is committed on videotape, as in the recent case at the Holocaust museum or other numerous killings that take place under security video? By your imbecilic "logic" - those killers should be granted mercy - simply based on the fact that IN OTHER CASES there may be some shadow of doubt as to the facts that transpired. The joke is you - and I did watch your video.
you watched my video? that's even WORSE. you clearly don't get it then.
if the perpetrator pleads guilty, as per our legal system, they are likely to do so to avoid the death penalty.
i dont believe mercy to be a bad thing, or a product of "imbecillic logic", unless you consider jesus christ to be an imbecile as well, which i get the feeling you don't.
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
Dukakis doesn't see it as a deterrent! What a load of stereotypical crap from this camp. It gets rid of one lowlife that committed wilful murder from ever doing it again.
I think there's more to the story. There are some fundamental questions that need to be answered: Does the government have the right to kill? And what if it turns out that the 'criminal' is innocent?
Yes this is more to the story. In the eyes of God according to Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13 the government does have the right and the responsibility to administer the death penalty.
The death penalty can only be applied for a particular type of murder. This murder has 4 criteria:
a) It is wilful
b) Premeditated
c) Unprovoked
d) Without any shadow of doubt.
If the murder yields all these criteria, then the guilty person should be put to death.
I don't believe in a God, so I think for me, personally, the Bible argument isn't a legitimate argument, but I don't want to discuss that matter, because that is a bit off the subject. Can you maybe give other arguments for the right that the government has to take lives?
Second thing: do you reduce the murder rate with the death penalty? If someone wants to murder somebody else, does he change his mind, because he knows that there is something like capital punishment?
Yes this is exactly what lost him the election. Stupid public wants to see compassion and emotion not a cold logical answer
fuckvegan 1 week ago
he should have said: how dare you ask me such a question? how pathetic are you to frame a question about policy in a hypothetical about my wife or family being brutalized or victimized? who do you think you are? the question you posed says more about your character, sir, then any answer i could give would say about mine. shame on you.
timothyand 3 weeks ago
What would have been better? To flip flop on a life time of standing next to an opinion, and say yes? I think that was a calm answer. Hell I would have flipped out if someone asked me that type of question.
LukasMueller1993 1 month ago
I hold suspect anyone who would not want death for someone who killed their family members, provided their guilt was proven.
EminencePhront 1 month ago
Dukakis should've said "I would've fucking killed the guy," without the cursing, of course. That's what people wanted to hear. That's what people needed to hear. Certainly, his point was right, but it was too academic, too impersonal, and too milquetoast an answer.
JamesBaldwinIsGod 2 months ago
How about, "Let's be clear, Bernard. What you're really asking me is if a thirst for revenge justifies the death penalty. The answer is no."
sonicboomz 2 months ago 3
I'm against the death penalty but I can accept the criticism that it might be an unelectable position to have when you’re standing for president of the United States. Every other democrat presidential candidate after Dukakis has been pro death penalty to neutralise the issue.
dcc1980 3 months ago
Yikes, and I thought pitting Bachmann against Perry in the "Rick kills little girls and takes bribes" back and forth bit was over the top and royally stupid.
IAWINDTALKER 4 months ago
Answering this way was the death penalty for Dukakis' political career. He deserved to lose...
2010metsfan 4 months ago
The moderator is a total ass for asking the question involving a hypothetical of the murder of his own wife. He can ask his opinion on the death penalty without invoking the name of his wife as an example.
shelleyinthecity 5 months ago 2
@shelleyinthecity Any conservative who likes to whine that there's a liberal media bias or try to say that liberals don't get tough questions, should be forced to watch this clip over and over.
This question cost Dukakis the '88 election.
sean2015 4 months ago 2
@shelleyinthecity
I don't think the moderator chooses the questions; he just reads them
Sulla2300 3 months ago
Crappy editing job! Trying to make Fritz look good and Ranaldus Maximus look bad!
tobewunaskwunaaron 5 months ago
I remember listening to this on the radio and slapping my head when I heard Dukakis' response. We all like to blame Shaw for the question. But the fact is, if Dukakis had simply managed to handle it with grace, to reply as a human & not a robot, NONE of us would even remember the question today.
Today we get the same blame-the-questioner accusations (overwhelmingly from the right) whenever a Palin or Bachmann muff up a perfectly legitimate question.
TroyOi 5 months ago 2
This question is stupid in so many ways.
E59th 6 months ago 2
the correct response is: angrily tell Shaw to fuck off
Konform2zoidberg 7 months ago 3
Wow. Heavy question
EffLabels 8 months ago
Here's what Dukakis should have said: "First of all, Bernard, I think that question is highly inappropriate. To bring my wife and my family into such a sensitive issue to try and stump me is deplorable. Second of all, to answer it, I would say yes, I would, as a grieving family member wish to see an irrevocable death penalty for the killer, but that's also why we don't put grieving family members in charge of the American Justice System!"
gracebasherguy92 8 months ago 52
@gracebasherguy92 That's a wonderful answer!!!!! Well said.
jasmynemk 7 months ago
@gracebasherguy92
thats a brilliant answer. but you would have to be very sharp to come out with that on a live debate.
nem700 5 months ago
@gracebasherguy92 Bloody well said!
ForeverBennett 3 months ago
@gracebasherguy92 Terrific answer, though I don't think the question was that bad. Ill-advised and too provocative, perhaps, but Shaw was invoking Kitty's name to determine Dukakis' values and how he would deal with a situation that might put them to the test.
JamesBaldwinIsGod 2 months ago
@gracebasherguy92 nuff props to u mate
TheShakiebreaks 1 month ago
@gracebasherguy92 I'm sure Gomer Pyle's happy to know he still has supporters.
Sage80 3 weeks ago
@gracebasherguy92 Wow you quoted Newt Gingrich 8 months before he said it. lol
holidayrap 1 week ago
Now if only he could keep such a cool head on the parking issue in Westwood...
sickwidit951 8 months ago
There is a time to answer the question with a calm and cool head.
This was not the time for that.
I am suprised that this question was even proposed in that manner.
gundamWWW 9 months ago
What I've found most surprising is that some people found that Dukakis sounded cold during his answer of the question [we specifically covered this in a politics class of mine as a gaffe on Dukakis' part] but I've always found that his answer didn't waver from his position and that despite having that personal spin on it, he maintained his view of justice and brought the facts. I've never understood how he supposedly floundered on this. Thats the exact kind of integrity i'd want of a president.
VAThrasher 11 months ago 2
@VAThrasher We had to do an assignment on this very answer for Critical Thinking class and what I like most about it is that he doesn't use "key phrases" or emotion to get his argument across. He stays calm, uses facts and where he stands on the issue without going over the top. Now, the problem is this is real world politics and the key phrases paired with emotion is what gets the audiences on your side. Logic doesn't seem to win like it should in politics.
Keinichn 9 months ago
That sounded like more of a threat than a question, idk. Why did he have to use 'Kitty Dukakis'?
shaggie07 1 year ago
This answer of Dukakis was a real act of political courage, because he knew what the position of american people was on this issue. But his answer was too brutal, too short, and he seemed cold, which could explain why he lost.
But the question was shocking and dishonorable, because it doesn't matter what Dukakis would want if his wife was killed. All civilized countries agrees to say that Justice isn't a tool for private vengeance. That's why the victims don't judge the criminal.
nonoar234 1 year ago
Ban the easy adquisition of guns and your crime rates will be reduced
asasscd 1 year ago
that was a curveball, but a fair question... if he gave a different answer, he wouldve been criticized for waivering. he shouldve said something tough and emotional then gone back to discuss his original opposition to the death penalty...
avzeolla 1 year ago
Some 22 years later I do not believe Benard Shaw's question was stupid nor was Gov Dukakis reply stupid. If you supported Dukakis you wanted him to give a very emotional positive response but you have to realize that was never his style. On one hand I commend him for saying what he felt was the right answner on the other hand it's like dude your wife just got raped...say you want to take justice in your own hands etc. The bottom line is this: he said the right thing but at the wrong time.
mrdestiny2011 1 year ago
it wasnt a stupid question. It was one of the first i have seen that had a question with some balls. Unlike most of the other debates
Texas93 1 year ago
@Texas93
It was a shocking and dishonorable question! It doesn't matter what Dukakis would want if his wife was
killed! In all civilized countries, there's a fundamental principle that wants that Justice isn't a tool for private vengeance! Jusitice isn't supposed to satisfie the victim, it's supposed to judge a criminal, and the victim doesn't get to say what the sentence is!
nonoar234 1 year ago
@nonoar234
It should not be framed as a matter of private vengeance. It is the vengeance of society, which should not tolerate such rending of its rules and which must protect and honor the lives of its innocent members.
Pizuzuzimmer 11 months ago
@Texas93
Of course Dukakis would probably want his wife's killer dead! It would take a great moral strength to stick to his conviction in such a pain! But that's why victims don't get to choose the sentence!
Dukakis should have answered: "yes, I would probably want the killer dead, but that's why I fight today to abolish death penalty, because it's important to fight against that instinct of death that exist in every human soul, and that awakes inside the victims of horrible crimes!"
nonoar234 1 year ago
Such a swarthy little man
kingofthepeons 1 year ago
dukakis is exposed for being a soft on crime liberal
superman93994 1 year ago
@superman93994 your just the typical white trash that lives in the states.
meowmyxxx 1 year ago
Imagine the world if Senior hadnt become President. Dukakis was not phony, but that's bad for a politician. You Americans need to move ahead and ban it once and for all-a school opened is a prison closed. We in Europe are good at this. Executing people is in many ways scapegoating for the government's incompetence to create a safe society. It is blatant populism, and in matters of human rights such as that of life public opinion shouldnt matter. This is one limit of democracy, which you oversee.
Ioannisthegreat7 1 year ago
"An eye for an eye only makes one blind"
whiteknight4879 1 year ago
Dukakis was a nice guy, but sometimes we need more in a President than just being a nice guy.
brianclough 1 year ago
Canada and Mexico have abolished the death penalty. So have Australia and New Zealand. None of the 27 nations in the European Union imposes the death penalty. Argentina, South Africa, Turkey and 61 other nations have ended this barbaric practice. Yet the United States stands proud with China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia among the top 5 countries for executions. Do we really want to belong to this club?
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 Wow what about Japan and South Korea? They're in the club as well ans they're pretty good.
shore2222 1 year ago
@shore2222 South Korea has not carried out an execution since 1997. Japan is an exeption, along with the U.S., among the wealthy democracies. Jesse Tafero was convicted of killing two police officers in 1976. In 1982 his accuser recanted and claimed full responsibilty for the murder. Despite this the state of Florida executed an innocent man in 1990. And there are many more cases like this one.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
What about George Bush? Isn't he a mass murderer for authorizing the invasion of Iraq? Didn't he know innocent people could die? How come he doesn't get the death penalty?
all028 1 year ago
@all028 you are an idiot!
sanjacraven36 1 year ago
@sanjacraven36: Am I not allowed to have a different opinion or to raise those questions? Rather than throw insults, tell me why?
all028 1 year ago
If you think it's not a coincidence that they had an African-American male pose this question, give a thumbs up
shoplifter2 1 year ago
At least he was being honest I think he would have mad a good honest president. We need more politicians like him.
Pifftoker420 1 year ago
Michael Dukakis self-destructed with his answer to Bernard Shaw's opening debate question. As a Dukakis supporter at the time, I was so angry with his answer ("You've BLOWN IT, you BLEEPING IDIOT! You just KISSED OFF any BLEEPING chance of wining the BLEEPING White House!") that I had to be physically restrained from smashing my TV, for I knew right then and there that Dukakis was toast.
SkeeterVT 1 year ago
@TheGriff45 nice defense of incest :)
greeniem 1 year ago
Whoever opposes the Death Penalty is a stupid coward
PunkAttitude8V 1 year ago
@TheGriff45 if anyone raped and killed your wife , you'd be charged, you mean LMAO
greeniem 1 year ago
Remember the exceptional distinction Bernard Shaw once held, in a like-it-was-yesterday era when blatant racism was still socially acceptable?
He will forever be remembered, if at all, for this disgrace. If anyone could make Clarence Thomas look like a saint ... shame on you, Mr. Shaw. Shame. Shame.
Enantiodromialist 1 year ago
Japan has just announced a moratorium on the Death Penalty, which leaves the USA as the only First World nation to still use the Death Penalty.
ProsperityGlobal 1 year ago 3
@ProsperityGlobal shut34ealskugf;o kaeldsjg .aerkgljafdl;SA
utube44333 1 year ago
How the f*** did that lose him the election? That wasn't even a bad answer! Hell, he was absolutely right!
seltian 1 year ago 18
@seltian Ummm, American politics? I live in California, where knee-jerk propositions like "3 strikes", and a draconian sex-offender law that actually makes it impossible to moniter sex offendors by making it impossible for them to live anywhere, have reduced our entire judicial system to a cross-eyed barking frenzy.
Incredible ignorance distinguishes the U.S. from other developed nations - this is the real-life, life-and-death manifestation.
Enantiodromialist 1 year ago
@seltian low unemployment, growing economy made conservatism popular, very popular in the late 80's he didnt have a snowballs chance in hell
ajgolfer1 2 months ago
Opponents of the death penalty are not to blame for the costs. There is no such thing as a frivolous appeal of the death penalty.
Kristin3030 1 year ago 3
Not being American, what was he supposed to have done? Gone raging incredible hulk and screamed blue murder? He's meant to be an authority figure right?
mrfrostynova 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
It is stupid to argue about these things, because that sort of argument won't go anywhere, no one will compromise their opinions for even a second to consider the other person's point of view.
harduproberto 1 year ago
Dukakis founded the program that allowed lifetime sentenced rapist murderers to get out of jail for a weekend and do as much evil as they could.
opacid 1 year ago
"were raped and murdered"-"I am sorry Bernard: the question is posed a bit too ambiguous and not graphic enough. Could you be a little more specific and describe the details of this gory rape and killing orgy in full detail?"
hyperseauton 1 year ago 2
These guys are bad as Hitler. What the fuck does this guy now anyways. It's not like he's a cloning scientist or something. Some dumb fuck, making up some shit like this while he craps. Is that how you'd take care of yourself? I'd prefer not to die thanks. I can take care of myself without a retard. Got my own security system, thanks sir!
abczs 1 year ago
Such an idiot. Remember the Willie Horton case where these black guy raped another woman because of Mondales "free-prisoner-for the weekend"programm he forced in Massachusetts, too. He deserved his davastating defeat in these election with only round about 100 electoral votes.
olehomer88 1 year ago
What a moron, no wonder he lost.
GoreFreeTennessee 1 year ago
If a female candidate had made a similar comment to a comparable question about her husband, I will wager that she would have been praised for being thoughtful and level-headed.
Dukakis, however, being a man, was expected to have a "warrior" mentality, which calls for revenge first and thought second. Anything else and he is considered less than a man, an especially big problem in the more conservative "heartland" states, in which men and women are still viewed in more traditional roles.
trwent 1 year ago
Amended response: "I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my wife go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you."
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
An appropriate response: "I would want to strangle the son of a bitch with my own hands, but we live in a nation that deters us from vigilante justice -- as strong as that desire might be -- and our legal system was established so that cooler heads can prevale in doling out justice. Would I want that person dead? Yes. But that's a personal feeling and doesn't address the question of whether or not state sanctioned executions are morally justified or if they simply fulfill a desire for revenge."
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
for me as a european, i'm 1000x more baffled by Shaw's question then the response from Dukakis.
Dodec84 1 year ago
I can see how, from a European standpoint, the question may indeed be baffling. In fact, it was baffling to a lot of people.
The only way to understand it is to realize that it wasn't a moral question on the death penalty. It was a question aimed at "culture of honor" values. From a "Blue" State American, you're likely to get a nuanced response. What people from "Red" states (especially Southern) heard was basically an audible shrug. I'm not sure how else to explain the American interpretation.
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
I'd be happy to try and dissect it in further detail than the character count will allow, but if you really want to get a handle on American politics, I would suggest the book "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation" by Dr. Drew Westen.
It's an incredible read. Well-studied, enlightening, and terrifying at the same time. May I ask, what particularly about the question strikes you as so baffling? I'm really curious as to how others interpret the question.
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
ok, thanks for the suggestion.
the question is dumb, over-emotional and much too personal. it's logical that Dukakis himself would be angry when someone did something to his wife, but that's not what politics is about. Politics is about laws.
Dodec84 1 year ago
In complete agreement. It's the hypothetical ticking bomb '24' scenario (not sure if you get '24," but it's an entertaining and controversial show that often openly endorses torture via protagonist Jack Bauer who faces impending disasters, "forcing" him to go beyond the law.)
Of course, it is fiction, just like the rape & murder of Dukakis' wife. Yet we Americans are far too often moved by the salience and visceral impact of an argument, rather than its grounding in reality.
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
Just one last clarification...even though I think the question was remarkably stupid, I don't think it was unfair, and far from it being a third rail issue for a Democrat to take on, Dukakis could have taken it as an opportunity to vocalize the ambiguity most voters feel toward the death penalty, and then expressed his own personal beliefs in a statement based on his own convictions and principles. People respect strong value statements, especially from someone who is truly principled.
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
that's true.
Dodec84 1 year ago
Pro capital punishment .. Ultimate sanction. offers the absolute guarantee.
HOUSEOFFOURDOORS 1 year ago
Hes probably so devoid of emotion because he's considered this possibility before. I'm stuanchly anti-death penalty and people ask me all the time how I would feel if my dad/mom/bf/sister/etc died. Do I go GUH!! THAT WOULD BE HORRIBLE!! everytime someone asks me that? No. I've already thought of this. So has he.
pimpincheerio 2 years ago
:37 Dukakis mentions "industrial states".. Kind of bizarre term to be using
LocoYoFla 2 years ago
Um urban v rural
you fucking moron
greeniem 2 years ago
I know that. My comment was that it was rather bizarre to use this to describe certain states. We've all heard the terms "industrialized nations" and "developing nations." But rarely are these terms used to describe states.
LocoYoFla 2 years ago
It's ok moron
greeniem 2 years ago
Sorry, I'll try to keep responses under 3 words so that you can understand.
LocoYoFla 2 years ago
cocksucker. One word for you.
greeniem 2 years ago
Sorry, but yours ain't nearly big enough.
LocoYoFla 2 years ago
I'm against the death penalty but unfortunately it is political suicide to be against it.Democrats that have ran for the presidency after Dukakis have never been totally against the death penalty.
LocoYoFla 2 years ago
It's not a third rail issue if you frame it correctly and acknowledge the complex feelings individuals have toward capital punishment, then deliver your personal beliefs in an answer driven by values, not monotonous talking-point drivel.
People would like to see their own ambiguous feelings toward capital punishment reflected in the values of their leaders. Dukakis' actually had a great chance to score political points w/ this question, but he whiffed and he whiffed big.
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
@LocoYoFla Where a candidate for President Of The United States stands on the death penalty is largely irrelevant, since this is primarily a state issue, not a federal issue. There are occasionally cases where the death penalty is imposed by the federal government, but overwhelmingly it is done at the state level--about 3/4 of it occurring in the state of Texas.
trwent 10 months ago
@trwent I agree. But unfortunately, I don't think most voters process the knowledge to be able to distinguish between state and federal issues.
LocoYoFla 10 months ago
What a stupid question. Even more stupid to ask it with a personal invective.
mnc51 2 years ago 26
Maybe, but it got the job done. Dukakis lost!
FederalGovernment101 2 years ago
Agreed, but Dukakis's answer made him seem dispassionate and detached from such a highly charged, emotional issue. At that moment, Americans put themselves in that horrific hypothetical and thought "if that happened to me, how would I respond?" I know that if someone touched a hair on any of my sisters' heads, I'd want their scalp. But I'm also against the death penalty. It isn't easy to square that circle without acknowledging the difficult emotional conflicts, and Dukakis fell far short.
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
If your a killer you deserve to die. It's the only fair punishment and sets an example. I believe it should be a matter of states to choose if or if not they want it. Let the people decide on a state level with a vote to leave it legal or illegal every 4 years. The same should go for gay marriage,abortion,and almost all other laws of this nature. Also the reason Dukakis state had such a low murder rate was do to the state he was governor of Maine.Also if you want to stop crime you create wealth.
cpblackangel88 2 years ago
It's nice that Dukakis didn't cave in to this incredibly facile, manipulative question. But in the interest of giving a rhetorically effective response, he probably should have said something to the effect that while he would personally want to tear the rapist limb from limb, what someone in that position would want to do is not what our government should do.
redetrigan 2 years ago 37
Hah, I just came across your comment after someone responded to my posting of a hypothetical response that basically attempts to do exactly what you suggest. With you 100% on this one.
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
@redetrigan Good analysis.
Thelookoutslookout 1 year ago
@redetrigan I thought of the same thing!
montenegrin2010 1 year ago
@redetrigan
It is not simply a rapist under discussion here, it is also a murderer. Any man who can answer this question as Dukakis did is quite simply not a man.
Pizuzuzimmer 11 months ago
@Pizuzuzimmer I disagree with you. I believe that giving in to the personal framing of the question and throwing out a strongly held principle would be more indicative of him needing his man card taken away. He didn't say anything about killing the man himself rather than giving the state the satisfaction.
hatebunny 10 months ago
@redetrigan That's right, he really missed an opportunity to connect with the voters right at the outset.
draoi99 7 months ago
@redetrigan Even better would've been the Lyndon Johnson reply: “You're asking the leader of the Western world a chicken-shit question like that?”
valeriereified 4 months ago
thing is that the constitution in America is SUPPOSE to help both sides of political parties thus its controversial.
guardman12345 2 years ago
I liked Dukakis' answer because it was analytical rather than emotional.
I believe that we would be a much better society if more of our leaders thought and acted like Mr. Spock, rather than like Captain Kirk!!
trwent 2 years ago
Recommended reading, Dr. Drew Westen's "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation".
We're evolutionarily programmed with certain moral emotions. A train is heading down the track full speed at 10 people tied to the rails. You can stop the train by pushing a nearby counterpart onto the tracks, thus saving 10 by sacrificing 1. Do you do it? If we assume relative "societal value," then it's an analytical no brainer. But would you be the one to make the push?
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
CONT"D...most people say no to this hypothetical, but when presented with a nearly identical situation, in which you're the conductor speeding down the tracks toward the 10 doomed men but at the last moment you notice that there's a single man tied to parallel tracks and if you throw the switch, you will bypass the 10 and kill the 1. People overwhelmingly respond that in this situation, they would throw the switch and kill the 1. Why? IDK. But I think it's why we like a mix of Spock & Kirk
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
This guy (Dukakis) was such a loser. It took Bill Weld to clean up his mess.
GoreFreeTennessee 2 years ago
heres a good situation, a girl got raped and the person who did it lives 1 block away from her and is sent to jail, the guy doesn't get the death penalty for raping her and 6 other local girls and in just 12 years, he lives back in his old home where all the girls are AT LEAST 1 block away from the rapist. how would YOU feel if you were the girl in this story?
guardman12345 2 years ago
Pretty much.
Even though Joe Biden is a retarded bastard, look how he handled the question about if Obama were to be killed. Total opposite of Dukakis, and it didn't cost him any points.
tommygun6644 2 years ago
I agree. While it was a horrible, disgusting question to ask, Dukkakis didn't handle it very well.
MrWinston1984 2 years ago
WOW, how can people be ignorant about the death penalty? seriously, victims CANNOT stand seeing the killer out there not dead because he or she may be back to commit more murders or better yet, hunt the witnesses that told the truth about them. why cant we be like china where 9mm is always used and the gov makes the killers family pay for it.
guardman12345 2 years ago 3
@guardman12345
Thank you!! Finally someone praises the death penalty!!
CazK88 2 years ago
Comment removed
dartaddict 2 years ago
Because of legal weed laws allowing people to buy weed thus ruining the drug war where people grow weed illegally. Plus, reason why Eu has a supposedly reported lower murder rate is because in my opinion that there's no "rights" over there written in paper to allow people to do whatever they like. It is true that in EU you can do alot of things but its different from America where you get the idea that your " free" and you have " rights" to do anything you want.
guardman12345 2 years ago
Comment removed
dartaddict 2 years ago
The author cut the video off. Why?.
TaeKwonDohBoy 2 years ago
While the question is valid it was inappropriate to ask it in such a manner. Extremely inappropriate.
MrWinston1984 2 years ago
I dont think so.... Because alot of people dont think as if it happened to them.. so they oppose the death Penalty,,,but if someone raped and hacked up your family..you would want that guy to die for sure..therefor you suport the death penalty..gotta get people thinking "what if it happend to me.
joshbeedham1 2 years ago
I'm sure many of you will think of this as immoral, but I believe that the best & only way for a murderer to repay their debt to society would be to use their body to save or improve the lives of as many innocents as possible, in the form of organ donation. If their hearts, livers, kidneys, etc could be used to save the lives of others, how is it right to let those innocents die while a murderer is kept alive & well? And the murder victim's families could know that their loss was not in vain.
HistorySpeaks4Itself 2 years ago
A man that would not want the killer of his wife killed is a pussy
newtoday1 2 years ago
America agreed.
leaveapennyvideos 1 year ago
he would have been the right man for the USA then. typically, the americans didn't use this chance.
lennart32x 2 years ago
He should have said, let's say the man was tried and convicted and executed but it turned out to be a wrongful convition. Killing an innocent man, would be just as bad as what you said would happen to my wife.
This is the United States of America, we cannot let that happen.
Now that's an answer!
gundamWWW 2 years ago
no eyebrows, cool
blackbeltpatriotism 2 years ago
Michael Ducockis is a typical pos libtard!
Gingifluff 2 years ago
The problem with this answer is Dukakis didn't have the presence of mind to tell Bernard Shaw to shove the question up his ass...that would have worked much better.
greengoatcake 2 years ago 4
LOL Poor Kitty.
ninanwk69 2 years ago 2
Oh my god, the look on Dukakis' face is priceless!
Beale64 2 years ago 3
Dukakis Went out of the spotlight after losing this election. You hardly hear almost anything about him anymore
rsandoval89 2 years ago
The same can be said of Bernie Shaw.
trwent 1 year ago
I wish journalists asked more insightful questions like this instead of the standard, made-for-sound-byte junk.
I am not a Dukakis fan but the problem with his answer wasn't on the merits of the death penalty. The issue was his non-passionate, robotic response to a question about someone raping and murdering his wife. It's like the question was about budget calculations.
jksonny 2 years ago 3
George H.W. Bush should be recognized for dedicating his life to his country; however, I think now looking back at the '88 Presidential election that he wasn't the right choice. He wasn't a terrible President, just not a very good one. I'm assuming Michael Dukakis would've done a better job.
Beale64 2 years ago 2
What a rude question. My God. At least say "If one of your immediate family. Not name his wife!"
andocrates 2 years ago 6
What the fuck was wrong with Shaw?
typhonsentra 2 years ago
This question is irrelevant.
JrFLYnnIV 2 years ago
How is it irrelevant? It remains a controversial question, but it is entirely relevant. Dukakis' answer was cold and unemotional. Of course he would want his wife's rapist and murderer put to death! That's why in our justice system the victim's family does not decide the fate of the murderer.
cronoskronos 2 years ago
You still haven't explained why it's relevant.
JrFLYnnIV 2 years ago
The relevancy is obvious. Which is why I asked you "How is it irrelevant?" The question asks would he favor the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered. The question becomes relevant when you consider that opposition to the death penalty was one of Dukakis' most well-known platforms. The question seeks to establish whether his principle on the matter was broad-based and conditional or, if in the case of his answer, he was unwavering and final on his position.
cronoskronos 2 years ago
Perhaps I should have been more specific. How is the question relevant in determining what type of president he will be. How many president's wives have been raped and murdered in office? Is this something that occurs often?
JrFLYnnIV 2 years ago
Almost every question asked during a debate is hypothetical to some degree. The candidates spend most of their time saying what they're going to do, not what they've already done. Unfortunately for the candidates, mere plans are not that interesting to journalists, or the viewing public. Of course the question is not a literal one - Shaw was alluding to William Horton and the entire controversy concerning weekend passes in Mass.
cronoskronos 2 years ago
Dukakis seems like a douchebag.
jamesspencerjackson 2 years ago
And JamesSpencerJackson sounds like the name of an upperclass twit.
JrFLYnnIV 2 years ago 3
did you honestly think Dukakis would have been a good president?
jamesspencerjackson 2 years ago
do you honestly think this is a thoughtful and constructive question?
JrFLYnnIV 2 years ago
i was just asking...
jamesspencerjackson 2 years ago
there's a chance..
ironmadion55 2 years ago
O_O
FreeskiCorp 2 years ago
This first question knocked Dukakis back on his heels for a moment. He recovered somewhat, but the main complaint against him was that he didn't show any emotion while answering. His response seemed a little too rehearsed.
ftsjr 2 years ago
I WISH Michel Dukakus could run for presidnet in 2016 with John Kerry as his VP then the death penalty can be abloish from the US at last by the 28th admendment.
I LOVE YOU DUKAKUS
I LOVE New England, kind, fair.
FUCK YOU BUSH'S
FUCK YOU pro deathpenalty Texens
FUCK you selfish, rich, war spending texens.
Ja100453 2 years ago
Wow...
Let me ask you another question... If your MOTHER was raped and murdered, and you were forced to watch, would you want a death penalty for the murderer? Of course you wouldn't because obviously you don't care about your loved ones and bringing justice to the murderer.
sugarbobaker 2 years ago
I oppose death penalty
But
I support (Life without a chance of parrole).
as a fair penalty for the murderer and tells you that killing is wrong.
When the death penalty is abolish in the US, the deathrow prisoners will be replaced to life w/out parrole.
Me and Dukakus maby the same but I HATE Dukakus policys of giving weekend passes to very evil killers who will never going to get out on parrole.
Ja100453 2 years ago
a life for a life. i may be just old school but that's my philosophy
sugarbobaker 2 years ago
"I support (Life without a chance of parrole).
as a fair penalty for the murderer and tells you that killing is wrong."
Killing INNOCENTS is wrong - and hardly the same thing as killing killers. To suggest that it is the same thing is spitting on the graves of every innocent victim in history.
Personally, I find it reprehensible that murder victims families are forced to pay taxes to put food on the tables of the murderers that took their family members away from their own tables.
HistorySpeaks4Itself 2 years ago
the other option is that the murderer's victim's families have to spend more money on the extensive process of killing the murderer, with the added bonus of possibly aiding in the killing of an innocent, if the "murderer" turns out to be wrongfully accused, which has happened more than a few times in the past.
look, it's a shame that a family has to deal with the fact that their loved one is gone. there is no fixing that. the option here is what is the best thing to do given the circumstance
theZodiacDigital 2 years ago
That's assuming there is no such thing as a unquestionable verdict. For example: jeffrey dahmer - there is no possibility that he was innocent of the crimes in question, nor did he deny it. Ending his life would have cost far less than incarcerating him in a maximum security prison for 30-50 years. No one said the death penalty was appropriate in ALL situations, however your suggestion that it is appropriate in none is no better in my opinion.
HistorySpeaks4Itself 2 years ago
he pleaded not guilty for reason of insanity, so the fact that there was no question that he killed people is irrelevant to the case.
there is still an appeal process that takes a long time. all people who receive the death penalty appeal it.
this is a necessary safeguard to ensure we don't kill people who don't deserve it, though it's not a perfect system. even cases that seemed like a slam dunk can be wrong.
theZodiacDigital 2 years ago
So you're basically saying there exists no situation where the element of doubt does not exist, even in a case of full confession and failed plea of insanity.
In other words, if your spouse and children were butchered in front of you and the killer admitted it - you would still fight for the life of the murderer, after all a slam dunk case COULD be wrong, right? How very sensitive of you.
At least know that your view would likely be an offense to many who have lost a loved one to a murderer.
HistorySpeaks4Itself 2 years ago 2
it's pretty basic philosophy that we can never be sure of ANYTHING.
the reality is that we accept that if a person is incapable of telling right from wrong, we are not to punish this person. the plea for insanity may have failed, but that is hardly a guarantee that the man was sane.
two can play that game, your view is offensive to the families of innocent men who have died due to a false conviction.
again, there is no win-win.
i have a question for you: are you a christian?
theZodiacDigital 2 years ago
We can never be sure of anything, eh? That's more than a little hypocritical coming from somebody who has produced a video entitled "Irrefutable Proof of the 9/11 Conspiracy", isn't it?
Why would my view be offensive to anyone? It's you, not me, that is taking the stand that capital punishment is all-or-nothing. I've suggested that there are indeed certain circumstances (not all) where it is warranted - you on the other hand suggest that in ALL circumstances it is NOT warranted.
HistorySpeaks4Itself 2 years ago
It's not basic philosophy that we can never be sure of anything, that's called basic naivety and/or ignorance.
HistorySpeaks4Itself 2 years ago
"i know that i know nothing". you know who said that? socrates. but he was naive. thankfully we have the world's greatest teacher ever, HistorySpeaks4itself, to correct him.
it's too bad you didnt actually view the video. oh wait, no, that's the point. that people will just flame me for it without watching it. it just shows how people will criticize without even trying to understand.
your view is that it should be legal and the consequence of that, want it or not, is that innocents die.
theZodiacDigital 2 years ago
Face it - your argument is not whether or not capital punishment is fundamentally right or wrong - it is an argument that guilt or innocence can ultimately never be determined. Your argument, derived from your "peer" Socrates, is that facts cannot exist - and that nothing is indisputable - except of course your 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Also, based on your "logic" - no one should drive automobiles, because "the consequence of that, want it or not, is that innocents die."
HistorySpeaks4Itself 2 years ago
youre a joke. again, it's sad that my experiment turned the results i expected: that people would flame me for the video without ever watching it. it's too bad people jump to extreme conclusions without even bothering to see anything for themselves.
my argument on this point isnt about facts not existing, thats sort of a philosophical abstract thing that's beside the point. my point was that verdicts are frequently wrong. also, driving a car results in accidents, not premeditated killings.
theZodiacDigital 2 years ago
What if there is no need for a jury to determine innocence or guilt? What if the perpetrator openly admits guilt - or a brutal murder is committed on videotape, as in the recent case at the Holocaust museum or other numerous killings that take place under security video? By your imbecilic "logic" - those killers should be granted mercy - simply based on the fact that IN OTHER CASES there may be some shadow of doubt as to the facts that transpired. The joke is you - and I did watch your video.
HistorySpeaks4Itself 2 years ago
you watched my video? that's even WORSE. you clearly don't get it then.
if the perpetrator pleads guilty, as per our legal system, they are likely to do so to avoid the death penalty.
i dont believe mercy to be a bad thing, or a product of "imbecillic logic", unless you consider jesus christ to be an imbecile as well, which i get the feeling you don't.
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
theZodiacDigital 2 years ago
AMEN!
guardman12345 2 years ago
Dukakis doesn't see it as a deterrent! What a load of stereotypical crap from this camp. It gets rid of one lowlife that committed wilful murder from ever doing it again.
rplende 2 years ago
I think there's more to the story. There are some fundamental questions that need to be answered: Does the government have the right to kill? And what if it turns out that the 'criminal' is innocent?
kombelpeter 2 years ago
Yes this is more to the story. In the eyes of God according to Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13 the government does have the right and the responsibility to administer the death penalty.
The death penalty can only be applied for a particular type of murder. This murder has 4 criteria:
a) It is wilful
b) Premeditated
c) Unprovoked
d) Without any shadow of doubt.
If the murder yields all these criteria, then the guilty person should be put to death.
To take a life like this forfeits your life.
rplende 2 years ago
I don't believe in a God, so I think for me, personally, the Bible argument isn't a legitimate argument, but I don't want to discuss that matter, because that is a bit off the subject. Can you maybe give other arguments for the right that the government has to take lives?
Second thing: do you reduce the murder rate with the death penalty? If someone wants to murder somebody else, does he change his mind, because he knows that there is something like capital punishment?
kombelpeter 2 years ago
"Second thing: do you reduce the murder rate with the death penalty?"
There are countries where the families of mur