All Nine Candidates on the Death Penalty

A good overview can be found at The Texas Moratorium Network.

Of the 9 Democratic candidates currently in the field, 3 oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. They are Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton. Kucinich and Sharpton always have opposed the death penalty during their public careers. Kucinich has just introduced a bill to abolish the federal death penalty. Moseley Braun introduced moratorium bills and voted against reinstating the death penalty in Illinois as a state representative. Later, during her successful 1992 run for U.S. Senate, she briefly endorsed the death penalty, and was attacked by her Republican opponent for her inconsistency. Following that attack, she resumed her opposition and has been consistent and outspoken ever since (see Chicago Tribune article below).

More here.

This site has some good detail on some of the candidates whose positions are unclear. It also has good resources and links, and even a poll on the front page, so it's one for your bookmarks. Current poll results:

6% - Carol Moseley Braun (3 votes)
22% - Howard Dean (11 votes)
2% - John Edwards (1 vote)
2% - Bob Graham (1 vote)
10% - John Kerry (5 votes)
48% - Dennis Kucinich (24 votes)
2% - Joe Lieberman (1 vote)
8% - Al Sharpton (4 votes)

Always good to have death penalty information. However, I don't think this will be a big issue in 2004. I think it could have been in 2000, but Gore and Bush had similar takes on the death penalty, although Bush seemed to like it a lot more. With the economy and the world the way it is, I think crime and punishment issues will be limited.

Have yet to see those directly and clearly articulated by the candidates, but there are good arguments to make.

Crime and punishment always take a back seat to the economy, but the issue still means a lot to some people. If the eventual nominee can't differntiate their position from Bush's, they risk turning off or turning away a vocal group of supporters.

to have a MUCH different view than *. And I want it articulated very well. I don't feel strongly enough to make it a deal killer if the person advocates limited usage, but I want it well established then that they support limited usage - I prefer none but don't know if that is realistic in this day and age with terrorism fears being daily stoked. I will not support any candidate with extreme usage views like *.

because the U.S. has the barbaric practice of executing people.