Say Anything Blog

I’ve long opposed the death penalty, not because I don’t think murderers should be put to death, but rather because our system (good as it is) is too flawed.

I’ve worked with far too many people who were wrongly accused and convicted.  Besides, by the time you work your way through the endless appeals inherent to our system (and necessary in order for it to work) that come before someone is put to death, it’s cheaper to just keep them in prison.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Same here Rob but what of the murderers who confess, admit, and prove guilt? We’ve have several here in Washington ... and have died for their crimes. I was not sorry to see Ted Bundy executed.

I would have to review this study to actually believe it.  If it were true than why is the murder rate in Texas not substantially lower than in Massachusetts?

But the problem with the death penalty isn’t just that innocent people will be executed.  There is also the problem of it being not being uniformly applied.  If you are a minority you are far more likely to get the death penalty.  If your victim is a minority you are far less likely to get the death penalty.

I’ll not argue that there are those who are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and deserve to die.  But how to we create an equitable system that condemns them to death while simultaneously protecting those less convincingly convicted?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

There is also the problem of it being not being uniformly applied.  If you are a minority you are far more likely to get the death penalty.  If your victim is a minority you are far less likely to get the death penalty.

If any of this is true, it is an good argument for more death penalty, not less.  Thanks!

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

None of the stuff about murderers confessing is meaningful; what is meaningful is that they committed murder.  The death penalty is a punishment for what they did, not what they said afterward.  Some things cannot be tolerated by society, and murder is one of them.  All this “compassion” for the murderer from the lefties is simply the old crap about criminals being the fault of society.  The criminals are responsible for their choices in life. Criminals, especially violent criminals, are not “poor and downtrodden”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

If it were true than why is the murder rate in Texas not substantially lower than in Massachusetts?

Perhaps it’s because majority of society realizes that very few actually are executed.  To tell you the truth.. I bet very few people have knowledge that people are still executed in some states.

If it were true than why is the murder rate in Texas not substantially lower than in Massachusetts?

There are more invaders(the so-called “illegal immigrants") in Texas.  Duh.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Does a message need to be sent that we will not tolerate this type of violence in our community and others?

No. We don’t need to send any messages. Murderers don’t listen to messages.

Society simply needs to set a high pricetag on the taking of a life. It should be this: you kill someone else, you lose the right to live. Placing such a high pricetag affirms the value of life.

Instead, I live in a country that pats itself on the back for only locking up the murderer for ten years. My country’s jurors call it “compassion” that they don’t string these murderers up and shoot them with firing squads. Meanwhile on the government end, the prison system pushes the murderers and rapists out and replaces the overcrowding population with non-violent drug possession. Go U.S.A.! Way to set your priorities straight. Life is damn cheap in this country and that’s a damn shame.

If any of this is true, it is an good argument for more death penalty, not less.  Thanks!

Unless you are a total racist your comment makes no sense.  I said minority, not illegal immigrant. 

I would guess the murder rate among illegal immigrants is not substantially higher than among others.

I would guess the murder rate among illegal immigrants is not substantially higher than among others.

You would be wrong.  I said nothing racist, only pointed out that what you said indicates that there are murderers escaping the death penalty.  If you really want racial “equality” in the imposition of the death penalty, then make sure all the murderers are punished, not just the minority ones.  You haven’t proved that the minorities are falsely accused, only that they get the consequences of their actions more often than the “majority” murders, if anything you said was true.  It sounds like typical leftie BS, but as I said, you prove the point that the solution to the claimed uneven distribution of the death penalty is to extend it to all murderers, not let the minority ones go free.  As usual for lefties, you have it backwards.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

It might be a good idea to prosecute any public official(judges, DAs, etc) that release a violent criminal who then commits more violent crimes.  It should be at least an accessory beef, maybe criminal negligence, or even, in the case of murder, second or third degree murder or manslaughter.  See how much “compassion” they have when they are held responsible for releasing violent criminals back into society.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Well I don’t believe that every homicide is deserving of the death penalty, and thankfully, most people agree with me. 

To get the death penalty you have to prove special circumstances.  And if our system is not capable of treating all people equally, it shoult not be giving out the ultimate punishment which can never be rectified.

It might be a good idea to prosecute any public official(judges, DAs, etc) that release a violent criminal who then commits more violent crimes.  It should be at least an accessory beef, maybe criminal negligence, or even, in the case of murder, second or third degree murder or manslaughter.  See how much “compassion” they have when they are held responsible for releasing violent criminals back into society.

You’re not even worth arguing because you have no concept of how our justice system really works.  You would destroy it.

Well I don’t believe that every homicide is deserving of the death penalty, and thankfully, most people (in my basement) agree with me.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

You have any statistics to back that up?

Not one state has the death penalty for 2nd degree murder.  Every state that has the death penalty requires special circumstances for first degree murder.

You’re not even worth arguing because you have no concept of how our justice system really works. You would destroy it.

I know it’s supposed to protect society, not the criminals.  What’s your version?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

And if our system is not capable of treating all people equally, it shoult not be giving out the ultimate punishment which can never be rectified.

In the first place, no human creation is perfect, so your proposition is pure BS.  However, to achieve the closest thing to equality of punishment(not “treatment”, since we are talking about violent criminals who kill innocent citizens), is to ensure that all the possible criminals are punished appropriately, not letting them go free because we can’t achieve your idea of perfection.  As usual with lefties, you have it backwards.  If innocent people are on Death Row, then all possible means should be employed to rectify that, but society shouldn’t be sacrificed to your fantasy of “equal treatment”.  We need more death penalty, not less.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Robert108,

In my version there are plea bargains because if we tried everybody who was arrested it would shut down the justice system.

In my version there is time off for good behaviour because it is good to incentivize good behaviour.

In my version public officials are charged with crimes while making the tough decisions which are statuatorily theirs to make, because than nobody would take those jobs.

Your version is moronic and would shut down the justice system.

But you only want to talk about platitudes because you don’t understand the details.  That is clear becuase nobody who understood the system would suggest such a moronic solution to anything.

In my version there are plea bargains because if we tried everybody who was arrested it would shut down the justice system. Plea bargains are the perfect expression of bureaucracy over justice.  The law-abiding citizens suffer.

In my version there is time off for good behaviour because it is good to incentivize good behaviour. Actually, getting off for violent behavior encourages more violent behavior.  The law-abiding citizens suffer.

In my version public officials are charged with crimes while making the tough decisions which are statuatorily theirs to make, because than nobody would take those jobs. I specifically referred to setting known violent criminals free. That is not a “tough decision”, it’s a bad decision, and the public officials who make those bad decisions should face the consequences of their bad decisions, which would reduce the suffering of law-abiding citizens.
Your version is moronic and would shut down the justice system. My version would reduce the suffering of law-abiding citizens, the ones who pay for the “justice system”.  We deserve to get what we pay for. To do otherwise is fraud and theft.

But you only want to talk about platitudes because you don’t understand the details. I understand that the “justice system” you advocate protects the violent criminal, not the law-abiding citizen.  That is just wrong. That is clear becuase nobody who understood the system would suggest such a moronic solution to anything. Your thinking is responsible for the suffering of law-abiding citizens.  Shame on you!

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

“I’ve long opposed the death penalty, not because I don’t think murderers should be put to death, but rather because our system (good as it is) is too flawed.”

As a liberal, I couldn’t agree with you more.  In Illinois there were 13 deathrow inmates released because DNA evidence proved that those people did not commit the crimes they were convicted of.  Good ol’ Rod put a suspension on executions after that.  I do have to agree with Anna about the “ murderers who confess, admit, and prove guilt”
....they should be put to death.  The only problem is that our justice system contains human error.  Too often, the person who gets released or convicted has (or is facing) the lawyer who can argue better.  Our legal system (at least as far as the lawyers are concerned) is more concerned with winning and losing instead of fact.

Lestat:  Don’t waste your time debating a wall.

Lestat: Don’t waste your time debating a wall.

Especially when you have no facts, logic or truth.  All you have done, dallas, is to spew adolescent hatefilth when refuted.  Not impressive at all.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Robert108,

You are so ignorant of how the justice system works as to be laughable. Over 90% of cases are pleas. You assume when somebody pleas they arnot getting justice.  Under your asinine system nobody would ever plea.  You would increase the cost by at least a factor of 10.  How do you propose to pay for your asinine system?  Raise taxes?

Why don’t you come live in the real world?

You assume when somebody pleas they arnot getting justice.

You lie; I said no such thing, nor do I believe it.  What I said was that if the death penalty is not applied equally, it should be applied equally, not eliminated.  I also said that when violent criminals are not punished, it encourages more violent crime, which victimizes law-abiding citizens.  You do yourself no credit by lying about what I said and by trying to change the subject when you get refuted.  Typical leftie tactics.  The truth is not on your side, so you have to resort to lying and personal attack.  Pathetic.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Robert,

When you are called on your moronic statements, you get less and less coherent.  With all do respect, can you make any type of argument that doesn’t rely on you falling on your “leftie lie” comments?  You are starting to sound like a caveman “LEFT BAADD ... RIGHT GOOOOOOOD”.  I will give you until tomorrow to think of something intelligent. 

I am tired...Good night. 

Your serve wall.

dallas: If you have any truth, facts or logic, get back to me.  If all you have is weak personal attack, don’t bother.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I think multiple murderers or those who attempt to conceal their crime (before confessing) should face the full force of the law, but if they freely admit the crime immediately it is committed, there should be some leniency.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

I generally oppose the death penalty, like Rob, because of the flaws in the judicial system, but as science enables us to refine our investigative techniques and hopefully guarantee secure convictions, my mind may be changed.
I’d be in favour of castration and/or branding (on the forehead) though.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Well, this suspect told them where to locate the body. In this case I think we can remove the “alleged” from the term killer

Anna,

As I posted in my last comment over on my rant about this, you can intellectualize the death penalty debate until the animal who killed her dies of old age.

Like Said, I take a page from our ancestors. When a monster threatened the lives of the children of the tribe they didn’t hyperintellectualize about the monster’s motivations.

They got a club, hit it in the head, and killed it. There. No threat. Kids are safe. Pretty simple stuff, really.

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

In this case I think we can remove the “alleged” from the term killer

Reminds me of an old “Frank & Earnest” cartoon. Two cons standing in a prison yard, one says to the other,

“I couldn’t get a ‘fair’ trial. Too many people saw me do it!”

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

When a monster threatened the lives of the children of the tribe they didn’t hyperintellectualize about the monster’s motivations.

Nowadays, Pil, PETA would go after you for being cruel to the monster, and the Dems would criticize you for not respecting the monster’s feelings.  According to them, we have no right to protect ourselves.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

...if they freely admit the crime immediately it is committed, there should be some leniency.

Why? Does that make the victim any less dead?  How do you know they are being sincere(as if that matters)?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

You lie; I said no such thing, nor do I believe it.  What I said was that if the death penalty is not applied equally, it should be applied equally, not eliminated.

OK, I will give you the chance to explain yourself.  What did you mean by this statement?

Plea bargains are the perfect expression of bureaucracy over justice.  The law-abiding citizens suffer.

And for your education.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the 8th Amendment demands individual sentencing.  A law that demands the death penalty is unconstitutional.

And for your education. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 8th Amendment demands individual sentencing. A law that demands the death penalty is
unconstitutional.

Your statement would lead one to believe that SCOTUS has found the death penalty unconstitutional, but it hasn’t.  My statement still stands.  In fact, your interpretation opens up the death penalty to be applied more often, IMO.  We are not bound by statute, according to you, so the death penalty can be imposed individually.  Good going!
My statement meant exactly what it appears to mean; it’s your interpretation that is wrong.  I don’t think plea bargains are ever good, but using them for non-violent criminals is less harmful than using them to turn violent criminals loose on society.  Duh.
Anytime we sacrifice truth and justice for convenience, the good part of society suffers.  You may accept that in your moral relativity, but, not being a moral relativist, I find it wrong and disgusting.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Your statement would lead one to believe that SCOTUS has found the death penalty unconstitutional, but it hasn’t.

No, my statement was that laws that demand the death penalty are unconstitutional.  As in a law that required the death penalty for murder would be unconstitutionhal. 

To apply the death penalty special circumstances must be found.  Examples of these would be killing a police officer, torture, mass murder. 

You claim that you always argue from facts.  Why don’t you provide some instead of arguing from ignorance.

Lestat argues:

“a law that required the death penalty for murder would be unconstitutionhal. . . To apply the death penalty special circumstances must be found.”

Well let us use some facts:

5th Amendment: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Surely the 5th Amendment twice anticipates that people can legally be put in jeopardy of losing their life through capital punishment, and yet there is not one word or even a hint of any special circumstances being required.

8th Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

You like many liberals are hanging your anti-capital punishment hat of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. But, not by any word or or even a hint does the 8th Amendment speak about capital punishment, and indeed could not without setting aside the 5th Amendment. It only talks about punishment generally, and prohibiting such general punishment from being according to state standards of decency being unusual or cruel.

Thus, you are absolutely wrong! There is no constitutional provision against capital punishment for plain murder and I would submit that under the 5th Amendment and SCOTUS precedent it could apply to cases of treason and even physical torture of another human being. Farther, there is not the slightest hint that capital punishment must include special circumstances.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman,

Read some case law.  I am telling you the current state of the law, not making it up. 

As much as you and Robert108 want it to change, it isn’t likely to do so.

Lestat: You are right, I don’t care about case law, I care about the Constitution. So, please cite a SOCTUS case or two wherein it is made clear the death penalty requires special circumstances and it cannot apply to plain old murder.

You see old boy, we should be demanding that the Constitution be applied assiduously and to hell with individual case law. The SCOTUS has no right to amend the Constitution, even in the way that pig O’Conner suggested, by applying international law to the interpretation of our Constitution.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

So, please cite a SOCTUS case or two wherein it is made clear the death penalty requires special circumstances and it cannot apply to plain old murder.

Gregg v. Georgia is the case that started the special circumstances line of reasoning. 

You see old boy, we should be demanding that the Constitution be applied assiduously and to hell with individual case law. The SCOTUS has no right to amend the Constitution, even in the way that pig O’Conner suggested, by applying international law to the interpretation of our Constitution.

It’s not quite as simple as that.  Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Equal Protection under the law are phrases in the Constitution that do not come with alot of explanation.  Who is supposed to make the judgemenht about when these rights are violated and what standard do they use?

Its late and I’ll look up this case tomorrow, so I cannot comment on it now!

1. Surely you cannot deny that in the 5th Amendment it is conceded that people will lose their life in a criminal sense, can you? If no you cannot deny that, then we must examine wherein the Constitution and it alone denies its use in plain old murder cases, and I would submit that it was used in the early decades of our existence for other causes. If it is not prohibited in the Constitution the SCOTUS is violating their oath of office to make such a ruling.

2. Then we must ask, what words in the Constitution and it alone would deny capital punishment in the absence of special circumstances. If case law exceeds the Constitution, it is case law that is in error not the Constitution and that is our only guidebook for Law in the nation.

3. As to what is cruel and unusual punishment, it may be decided by SCOTUS but that decision cannot be extra-Constitutional in nature and it must be in accordance with community standards, and it can never be a matter of the personal preferences or political bias of the Justices, or they should be impeached.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The special circumstances reasoning has grown out of the equal protection clause as well as the cruel and unusual punishment clause.  To put somebody to death the state must show why the crime being accused is worse than other similar crimes.  If the state cannot show that, than the punishment is arbitrary and capricious and runs afoul of the 8th amendment.

Originally states tried to use the phrase that the crime was heinous, atrocious and cruel.  The Supreme Court ruled that these were mere words and the punishmet was still arbitrary and capricious.

The states than came up with the special circumstances reasoning.  I don’t believe that the Supreme Court has ever said that is the only way to skin the cat, but it is Constitutional.

Lestat: You keep trying to change the subject, but what I said originally still stands: we need more executions, not fewer.  A lot of violent criminals are not getting the punishment they deserve, and society suffers as a result.  We have our money confiscated to pay for a justice system, and we deserve to get good value for that money.  People like you, who want to coddle the criminals, are the problem.  You offer no solutions to make the public safer, only lame rationalizations for police and court malfunctions.  Your policies cause the law-abiding citizens of this country, who pay the bills, to suffer.  Shame on you!

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

If the objection to CP is innocent lives, this report should put everyone on the side of CP.

If the objection to CP is financial costs of CP, then you have to ask yourselves: are the innocent lives lost not worth the cost of executing capital offenders?

If the application of CP is not impartial, then the impartiality must be weighed against the innocent lives lost without CP at all. 

In all three cases the answer is obvious if one prioritizes the life of the innocent.

If the application of CP is not impartial, then the impartiality must be weighed against the innocent lives lost without CP at all.

Lack of impartiality is no excuse not to punish murderers.  If there is any partiality(with humans, that always happens, btw), then being impartial means executing more murderers, not fewer.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Lack of impartiality is no excuse not to punish murderers.

Damn that Constitution gets in the way.  Ever heard of equal protection under the law?

R108,

I agree with you.

The argument says that because it is not impartial (between rich and poor, for instance) then it should not be practiced. 

However, factor in this report which says that more innocents die without CP, and now you have to weigh impartiality against the net loss of innocent lives with no CP at all.

Ever heard of equal protection under the law?

I think law-abiding citizens deserve to be protected from murderers. Have you ever heard of that concept?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I think law-abiding citizens deserve to be protected from murderers. Have you ever heard of that concept?

So we shouldn’t be concerned about equal protection and the Constitution in this case?  How can you argue that we must follow the Constitution on other threads, but on this one we should sacrifice it for safety?  And you claim that you are not a relativist.

Hawk: Once again, you lie.  I don’t think protecting murderers is the intention of the Constitution, despite the lies of leftie lawyers, eager to earn a living by getting special rights for violent criminals.  The first duty of govt is to protect law-abiding citizens.  I realize that doesn’t fit your leftie template, but it’s what we pay for when our money is confiscated to pay for a justice system.  The criminals aren’t paying for it, we are, and your insistence on special rights for those who choose to violate the rights of law-abiding citizens reveals the core sickness of the left.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

They are not special rights, they are civil rights.  If the Constitution wasn’t meant to protect murderers than explain the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.  They all protect the rights of the accused or convicted.  Its easy to stand on principal when everything is nice and pretty, it is a little more difficult when things are harsh.  You claim to support the Constitution, but you only seem to do so when it matches your ideology.

Accused, yes; convicted, no.  Show me the part where murderers are protected at the expense of the law-abiding.  I see you are again reduced to personal attack; that happens pretty often with you.  You seem to run out of facts/logic rather quickly.  Typical leftie: all about “feelings”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

A true candidate for execution .. perhaps a lil’ spontaneous combustion could mysteriously take place instead.

The person who talked about the Illinois cases misses what really happened.  In that state, everyone on death row (167, not just 13 people) had their sentences commuted to life in prison because the governor saw 13 people exonerated, while only 12 were executed.  No cases exist where an executed man is believed to have been innocent, though, nor is there clear indication that any of the 167 commutations involved an innocent man.

And why does the Illinois justice system stink so bad?  Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that three governors in the past 30 years have gone to jail, and Blagojevich has an ethical cloud hanging over him, as well.