Democrats & Liberals Archives

Pulling out the race card again. This is a joke. I don’t particularly like the Bush administration or the way the GOP is doing some things. I really don’t think that the GOP is a bunch of racists. The racists opinions that you express here are the reasons we can not overcome our racist past.
Ivan

The Gop will act like fools trying to defend their position on this one,great show.

Pulling out the race card again. This is a joke. I don’t particularly like the Bush administration or the way the GOP is doing some things. I really don’t think that the GOP is a bunch of racists. The racists opinions that you express here are the reasons we can not overcome our racist past.

I knew someone would pull this on me. Whenever the GOP finds it useful, they accuse the Democrats of being racist, anti-Hispanic, anti-Baptist, anti-Catholic, what have you… but when a lefty uses race in an argument it’s suddenly a travesty.

For what it is worth, I don’t think the GOP is a “bunch of racists”, but they are certainly opportunistic on this front. I won’t even try to figure out what was racist about what I wrote, much less my “racist opinions”. If the racial angle bothers you that much, try explaining the GOP culture of life.

Woody

The death penalty is LESS likely to applied to black defendants.

Blacks and white each make up about 49% of those on death row. According to Justice Department statistics, blacks committed 52.1% of the homicides. Whites committed 45.9% and others account for the rest.

So you may oppose death penalty for various reasons, but race is not legitimately among them.

You might also be interested in the fact that most murder is committed against people of one�s own race. 94% of the murders of blacks are by blacks. 86% of murders of white are by whites.

The link is at bureau of justice statistics.

Jack,

My understanding is that this apparent equality in sentencing is an artifact of the following:

1) Defendants who attacked a White person are more likely to get the death penalty.

2) Black defendants, as you noted, tend to have Black victims.

It was obviously a mistake to mention race, because my critics don’t want to talk about the “culture of life” business.

It isn’t race that decides things for Mr. Bush. It is money. Everyone has a right to life until they get sick and need medical attention. Then they become someone elses problem. If he doesn’t want to help these kids after they are born he shouldn’t be involved in the question of whether they get born. Of course it could be that these unwanted kids grow up to become the front line of the military because they can’t afford schooling. Can’t be killing off the future sacrificial lambs.

Everyone has a right to life until they get sick and need medical attention. Then they become someone elses problem.

This is why I doubt a substantial legal change will come out of the Schiavo debate. If there is a moral and legal imperative to keep people, even those in a vegetative state, alive, then someone has to foot the bill. Anyone Republicans ready to endorse a legal right to healthcare, with Uncle Sam paying the tab?

I will write again re your original subject.

The reason I (and others) react to the race card is that it is played way too often. I agree that there was no reason to mention it at all in this context.

Just to finish up on this permutation, the reason proportionately fewer blacks get the death penalty is evidently more an artifact of black juries being more reluctant to acquiesce in the death penalty than white juries. Since most people are tried where they commit the crime and since they tend to commit murder close to home, to the extent that they get a jury of their peer, it makes a difference even to the extent of what district attorneys propose. That is the only way race factors in.

Re your culture of life and death.

I personally think of all the things you mention in more or less the same way.

To be for abortion and against the death penalty, or the reverse, is inconsistent. They should be avoided if possible and are morally dangerous, but there are cases that require them. I am no more in favor of death penalty or war than I am with abortion or euthanasia without considering the circumstances. (I don�t have any objections to birth control at all).

Let�s make a few points, however. The Statistics">http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Mar/01-776955.html”>Statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice show a downward trend in death sentences nationwide. In 2003, the latest year for which statistics are available, the number of death sentences imposed hit a 30-year low.

Only 65 people were executed in the whole U.S. in 2003. Given the numbers of appeals etc, a person on death row has a better chance of dying of old age.

I can’t find reliable statistics on abortion in the U.S., but I would guess it is more than 65 last year.

We don�t fight wars for trivial reasons. I believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified in the sense that they probably saved lives in the medium and long run. The objective of war is not death. That is an inevitable byproduct, but it is not the goal. The U.S. works hard to minimize casualties, even on the enemy side. It doesn�t fit with your other points.

I think you make a valid comparison of abortion with death penalty. I am consistent on both. They are bad things that sometimes have a place depending on precise circumstances. There can be no joy in either.

The objective of war is not death. That is an inevitable byproduct, but it is not the goal. The U.S. works hard to minimize casualties, even on the enemy side. It doesn?t fit with your other points.

So it is OK to bomb people, as long as your “objective” isn’t to kill them. Call me crazy, but I thought that the point of military actions was usually to kill people. Those guns don’t fire candy and daisies.

You can say that the killing is justified, but to say it is a “byproduct” is asinine. War is killing.

Woody Mena is right. It’s impossible to think a war will not kill anyone. Therefore, any war should be clearly thought out to make sure there are no alternatives and have all precautions to protect civillians taken. This was not the case in Iraq.

Woody,

BTW,

Euthenasia, is state supported in Texas.

Saddam Hussein could have PREVENTED THE WAR.
HE CHOSE not to.
He never thought Bush (the U.S.) would follow through. I wish he had surrendered to begin with. Then Bush wouldn’t have HAD TO take us to war in Iraq.
Most of the blame LIES SQUARELY on Hussein’s shoulders.

By the way, Jack, I noticed you were rather sanguine about conservatives playing the anti-Christian card. Sauce for the goose and all that…

“Saddam Hussein could have PREVENTED THE WAR.”

“Most of the blame LIES SQUARELY on Hussein’s shoulders”

bugcrazy,

Excuse me?

Iraq was a soverign nation. The only nation calling for it’s surrender was America. To expect them to roll over at our threats is the height of arrogance.
We don’t run the world yet. Heaven help the world if we ever do.

By a man in Baghdad.

“Two years now and “they” still wonder
And “they” still ask Was it worth it?
Was it right?
Two years and it seems to me Like it was yesterday
Two years and “they” keep trying
To silence the voice inside us
Yet it only grows louder

I was once free When I was a kid
But when I grew up
I couldn’t be the man I am
I couldn’t be the kid I was
And I couldn’t flee

Two years since I finally became
The man in me, and the kid in me.
And “they” want to take this away?
“They” would have to kill them both first
The man and the kid
And turn the clock back around
And still “they” can’t change me back

Two years since I stopped weeping
Inside of me, day and night
Two years since the widow
Found her husband’s body
In a feast of death for the human death lord.
Two years since the orphan
knew Where his father lied
And now they finally have peace
And they have a future
No matter how painful it is to go on
And their dreams still go on

Two years since I started dreaming
Dreams that have a chance
And are becoming true
Two years since I regained my heart
And then I found her…
And she found me…
And the world looked beautiful!
And “they” think they can separate us?!
Think again, or keep wishing.

“They” say we are being slaughtered
“They” say we are being abused
Am I blind or are “they” the ones who are sightless?!
As why can’t I see what “they” see?
And the best “they” can offer of their view is Maybe I’m a CIA?
Or maybe the other “they”, that of their accusations is paying me?
But who is their accused and rumored “they”?
Oh, the accusers have so many names for this other “they”.
Sometimes they’re the CIA
Sometimes they’re the NSA
Sometimes they’re Bush and the gang
I say, yes they exist and they “pay” me, and I’m seduced.

I see with my own eyes this other “they”
And I call them simply, Americans.
What are they paying me?
Oh, you couldn’t afford that!
Saddam couldn’t afford it.
Sadr cannot afford it.
“They” think any of these can?
Could their “they” even try!?

Two years and some are still
Trapped in the past
And some cannot withstand the moment
And want to arrive without struggle to a better future
While others just enjoy what is already better now
And work to meet the future, bettered with them.
Two years and they ask Should I be grateful?
Am I?
Do I even need to answer that!?
YES, and to the last breath!”

The link.

Bugcrazy,

I appreciate the man’s sentiments, but it seems to me that he is making a utilitarian argument for the war, namely that the Iraq War improved a lot of people’s lives (even though many other lives have been lost along the way). That is all well and good, but what does it have to do with the “culture of life”?

Woody

I never understood how people use the word sanguine. No really. It seems to mean different things to different people, despite its official definition.

I don’t think it is good to call people anti-Christian unless they are. There are a lot of policies that end up being anti-Christian and I see a lot of anti-Christian sentiment on these blogs. It is not wrong to call people that and they shouldn�t be ashamed if that is what they think.

Woody et al

Yes. War means fighting and fighting means killing. I can think of justification for war, so picking up both ends of the stick, I can think of justifications for killing.

The U.S. works to minimize the casualties, both theirs and ours. American soldiers and marines put their own lives at risk to protect civilians, even as our enemies work to maximize deaths among civilians, both theirs, and ours to create a greater sense of outrage.

I am not sure how to answer the culture of life question you ask.

We should preserve life when we can, but there are sometimes constraints and necessities. The morality is difficult and I don�t believe you can always act in a perfectly consistent fashion. I am convinced that our intervention in Iraq will end up saving more lives than it cost, but I can never prove it. I am convinced that pacifists in Britain and France helped provoke a war that cost millions of lives. Weakness in the face of tyranny kills.

But we have to make choices. North Korea is probably the most oppressive country in the world, and a strong contender for the worst in the history of the world. A war against North Korea would probably save lives. But I am uncertain enough about the outcome to not advocate it. On the other side of this blog, we are discussing intervention in Darfur. Is that worth the cost in lives?

In relation to the death penalty, I support it under some conditions. Some people deserve the death penalty and it sometimes helps the police track down accomplices. I also support abortion in some cases. I don�t like it, but I can think of situations where it would be justified. Euthanasia is something we, as a society, have to deal with. I didn�t support keeping Terri Schiavo on the feeding tube. But I am just repeating what I said already. Do you disagree?

Heh. Did anyone ever notice that the US only attacks countries incapable of harming it? Iraq did not have WMDs while North Korea does. I would believe BushCo’s “Principles” more if he would hit a tougher country AND send his Twins to the frontlines…

Jack,
I applaude your centrist stance but it doesn’t explain the contradictions within your presidents’ and your parties’ agenda. How can REPUBLICANS be vehemently opposed to abortion and stem cell research while lifting the assault weapons ban and supporting the death penalty. There is a conflict of morality.

Craig:

I applaude your centrist stance but it doesn’t explain the contradictions within your presidents’ and your parties’ agenda. How can REPUBLICANS be vehemently opposed to abortion and stem cell research while lifting the assault weapons ban and supporting the death penalty. There is a conflict of morality.

Because we get our support from the Religious Right and the NRA. Sounds consistant to me.

How can you say we are inconsistant??

Craig

bugcrazy:

Considering this Administration’s penchant for paid shills, I would not be surprised if your poet is a fake ala Jeff Gannon.

Jack,

You don’t strictly subscribe to the Republican “culture of life”, as I understand it. Neither do I.

I am somewhat stunned to see you criticize me for bringing in race, and then see it is OK to say that someone is “anti-Christian”. From a Republican, this strikes me as a rather self-serving argument.

By the way, I guess by “sanguine” I meant that it didn’t seem to bother you, an impression reinforced by your subsequent comments.

Let me get this straight. A scumbag rapes and kills a little girl. I want that scum of humanity to die, and you equate him to the innocence of an unborn child? Sorry, I don’t see any incosistency. The unborn child didn’t ask to be conceived, yet it is life. The child molestor abuses life, kills life, degrades life. Yes, I want him to fry.
As for the war in Iraq, it wasn’t just the US telling Hussein to step down. It was the UN. The UN issued several resolutions to that effect. The US was just carrying out the UN’s decision. I thought all you libs loved the UN? What about the thousands and thousands of bodies found in mass graves in Iraq? I thought libs loved to rescue the downtrodden, and suffering. What about Clinton’s foray into Kosovo? Sending troops into there was more bogus than the Iraq War. If some of the hijackers from 9-1-1 would have somehow survived, wouldn’t you want them to die? Or would you be more concerned about their “human rights”? As for North Korea, you have got to be kidding me. If Bush sent in the military you would deem him reckless, if he doesn’t, you deem him incosistent. Last time I checked North Korea was on the border of China. Naturally, I think China should be involved in some type of solution. So does Bush, but the libs want him to act unilaterally and have negotiations with only the North Koreans. That is what I call incosistent. We shouldn’t go to Iraq, but we should go into Kosovo, incosistent.
As for birth control, I have already taken care of that with a little surgery; but don’t get your hopes up, I already have four kids. HA HA HA

Let me get this straight. A scumbag rapes and kills a little girl. I want that scum of humanity to die, and you equate him to the innocence of an unborn child?

Many people do, including the late Pope if I am not mistaken. Scumbags are alive. I’m not sure about the death penalty, myself. Personally, I would feel a lot better about the death penalty if I knew that it was administered fairly and the people getting it were actually guilty. Many, many people on death row have been found to be innocent.

As for the war in Iraq, it wasn’t just the US telling Hussein to step down. It was the UN…

Same answer I gave to Bugcrazy. That’s all well and good, but I don’t really see how it squares with a culture of life.

I thought libs loved to rescue the downtrodden, and suffering.

Ditto.

As for Kosovo, I didn’t say a darn thing about it. Clinton got a lot of heat from the left about that.

Woody,

Back to the topic.

I agree that, on its face, these views and others can seem contradictory or hypocrytical. I think a deeper intellectual dive is needed here.

Conservatives tend to believe in the death penalty and are anti-abortion. I don’t see these as a conflict, so long as you take them in the intended context.

According to conservatives, abortion takes an innocent life—one who has done nothing to anyone to deserve termination. The death penalty punishes one who has taken an innocent life or performed some other like offense. Conservatives tend to look at these two issues very seperately—the taking of an innocent life versus the taking of an offenders life.

War, again, is the limited taking of life to a given end. The end being peace. I can not agree with your assertion that Republicans or conservatives “endorse” the death penalty or war. When read in the context of your piece, I extract a assertion that war and the death penalty are some how sought out or fabricated. I guess my naive trust of human nature would tend to disagree. I don’t think any political group (liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans) seeks out war or death. You may have gone a bit over the top here.

The opposition to birth control is not a universal trait among conservatives or Repbulicans. That is a more religious view as opposed to political. I think there are quite a few liberals/Democrats especially in the Bible belt who would also disagree with handing out birth control to teens and other permutations.

I will agree with you that the anti-abortion and euthanasia stances are in conflict. However, I do not think, as others have expressed in this thread, that absolute consistancy is required in life. To me, not everything is exactly black or exactly white. There are many shades of grey in life.

After saying all this, please keep in mind I do not necessarily espouse the views above. I do, however, find it important to see things through the eyes of the speaker to better understand their point of view. I have found this helpful when attempting negotiations and finding common ground amongst the parties.

You may not agree with the views, but in order to make a valid retort, you must first fully understand your opponents view.

I can not agree with your assertion that Republicans or conservatives “endorse” the death penalty or war…

I think what I wrote was completely accurate. There is no question that most conservatives, and moderates for that matter, support the death penalty. It is also fair to say, IMHO, that the Republican Party is pro-war. Look at the justifications that have been offered for the Iraq War: Saddam was a bloodthirsty tyrant, the Iraqi people are enjoying the beginnings of democracy, etc. If these kinds of reasons are satisfactory to you, I think you are objectively pro-war, because in this world we will live in there will always be more places to invade.

“Saddam Hussein could have PREVENTED THE WAR.
HE CHOSE not to.
He never thought Bush (the U.S.) would follow through. I wish he had surrendered to begin with. Then Bush wouldn’t have HAD TO take us to war in Iraq.
Most of the blame LIES SQUARELY on Hussein’s shoulders.”

So following your train of logic……
If say Mexico or Canada were to oppose some sort of Presidential Edict, we would be justified in attacking them?…..It would be their FAULT for not OBEYING Mr. Bush?……WOW, what HOG WASH!

Woody:

“I think what I wrote was completely accurate. There is no question that most conservatives, and moderates for that matter, support the death penalty. It is also fair to say, IMHO, that the Republican Party is pro-war. Look at the justifications that have been offered for the Iraq War: Saddam was a bloodthirsty tyrant, the Iraqi people are enjoying the beginnings of democracy, etc. If these kinds of reasons are satisfactory to you, I think you are objectively pro-war, because in this world we will live in there will always be more places to invade.”

I do not, and did not say that conservative and moderates do not support the death penalty. What I did say was that the word “endorse” connotes not only approval but that they seek out ways to employ it and are somehow blood thirsty. This I do not agree with. If that was not your intention—if you really only meant that they agree with the policy in principle when administered within guidelines—then I stand in agreement. My goal was not to argue for or against, but to help you understand their reasoning.

On your next point, to say someone is “pro-war” is similar to say someone is “pro-abortion.” To say someone is pro-abortion implies a thirst for abortion whenever possible. A more accurate description is “pro-choice” for the latter and, perhaps, there is no truly accurate label for the earlier. I think they feel war is justified in certain instances, after qualifying reasoning. I don’t think the concept of war is so much the issue as the qualifying reasoning. There are not many, though some, people who don’t believe there is ever a valid reason for war. The arguement lies withing the qualifying reasoning behind going to war.

As a matter of your opinion and for my education, do you feel there is ever a valid reason for war?

Woody

I don’t believe people should bring up racism or anti-Christian-ism except when it is obviously present. There are times when citing each is appropriate.

Personally, I dislike all the public emphasis on faith, which I think is a personal and private topic. I expect that people’s faith informs their behavior and decisions, but it is not something that needs to be brought up very often. You should know a person by his works and to the extent people believe in something, it should be evident in what they do. If you repeatedly have to explain what you are, maybe you aren�t.

I don�t suppose you disagree and this statement is not in response to anything you have written. Rather it is more for my own colleagues.

No problem here seeing the pattern - one set involves Innocent life the other doesnt - duh

Oops Woody,

I forgot to warn you about the ‘race clause’! My bad…

It goes, when making an otherwise solid, critical argument about the GOP and the Right, if the issue of race is not necessarily central to making your main point, leave it out. Heck, I’m Black, and have been called racist for criticizing Condi Rice and Colin Powell! But, when Sen. Boxer’s questioning of Rice got too substantive, those on the Right were asking where the outrage of Black leaders was at?

Oh btw, RNC Chair Ken Mehlman is currently launching an outreach to Black churches, based on exploiting intolerant and homophobic ignorance among older congregants.

No problem here seeing the pattern - one set involves Innocent life the other doesnt - duh

Civilians die in wars. Duh. :)

Chi Chi,

I am not going to waste time worrying about the meaning of “endorse”, but it seems pretty clear to me that the GOP, and particularly the neoconservative wing, is interested in using military power to “liberate” people. (Notice I am assigning them the highest possible motive, not saying they are only interested in oil, etc.) I don’t think they are bloodthirsty — but to be more precise I don’t care. Actions are what counts.

Now for what I think about war. I am not a pacifist. As you said, there are a lot of gray areas here. If a country is a threat to international stability (e.g., Nazi Germany, to put it mildly), then war is justified. Saddam Hussein was operating in a very small box. Yes, he was doing terrible things, and if one of my family members was tortured by his goons I would probably be leading the parade when he was overthrown. But the fact is that there are other Saddam Husseins in the world, and we aren’t going to overthrow all of them. I don’t think it was a crime to invade Iraq, but I suspect that it was not a good idea. Time will tell.

——————-

On the PC front, you guys may enjoy this article I wrote back in 2003.

Woody:

I appreciate your posts and can tell, especially after reading the linked article, that you do not post off the cuff. You are well thought out. Having said that, I offer this:

“I am not going to waste time worrying about the meaning of “endorse”, but it seems pretty clear to me that the GOP, and particularly the neoconservative wing, is interested in using military power to “liberate” people.”

I agree—with a caveate. I believe they are using it where necessary. And, by the way, I don’t agree with your insinuation that it is only the conservatives behind this. People from every background have supported this particular war, not to mention quite a number from the UN. No, not the so-called big three, but we are finding out their true motives now also. Politics is a funny thing. All sides claim to spout absolute truth—until one of them is caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

“Saddam Hussein was operating in a very small box. Yes, he was doing terrible things, and if one of my family members was tortured by his goons I would probably be leading the parade when he was overthrown. But the fact is that there are other Saddam Husseins in the world, and we aren’t going to overthrow all of them.”

I’m not sure the fact that his “box” was small at the time is relevent. Is the fact that he was killing his own people versus say Iranians any less terrible or actionable? I don’t think we will or should overthrow all of the Saddam Husseins in the world. I do wish the UN would actually do something constructive and say what they mean and mean what they say. 17 or 18 resolutions was a waste of time with the current UN structure because they didn’t mean any of it.

I would like to see the UN take a much bigger role in these situations. I disagree with Bush to the extent that, while the current UN structure is debilitating, I don’t think it always has to be that way. The UN can be the best avenue to “world peace” through meaningful negotiations, meaningful sanctions when necessary, or meaningful calls to arms when necessary.

I would have preferred to wait to go into Iraq until more info was available that was reliable. I would prefer that the burden was not on our taxpayers to the extent that it is. I would prefer that there were more troops from other countries involved.

I have listened to the discussion presented from both sides—the extreme right and the extreme left. As usual, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I agree with the criticism of the “culture of life” crowd. However, I believe that criticism is due both major political parties on the whole issue of life. You see, while there are obviously exceptions to the rule, the Republican party doesn’t have an issue with taking lives if done so in the context of war or the death penalty but shudders at the thought of abortion. The Democratic party, on the other hand, disagrees with killing in the context of war (at least in the case of Iraq) and death penalty (again there are exceptions to the rule) but sees no problem in abortion. Both parties are dichotomous when it comes to the issue of life. Is life sacred and something to protect? Or isn’t it? It seems as though both major political parties answer that question with a resounding “sometimes.”

I’m going to try to speak from the middle. Though we did liberate several million people from the grip of a horrible dictator that took lives, we also took lives. We went in and took lives for the sake of stopping a twisted evil psycho who was taking lives. Hypocritical, isn’t it?
Quality of life should also come into account here.
Bush rushed to save Terri Schiavo from dying, even though she probably didn’t know she even existed. He also supports an amendment to the Constitution that bans gay marriage. Those people know full well that they are alive, and, for the most part, are probably quite happy. Bush wants to keep the ultimate happiness with their chosen partner from them by barring them from marriage anywhere in the United States of America and all of its other possessions. That is also quite hypocritical. After all, what is life without good quality?

Stan,

You are right that my argument could potentially cut both ways. It isn’t really that relevant to Democrats, however, because there is no Democratic version of “the culture of life”. Dems invoke other ideals like equality, justice, and personal freedom. It would be more relevant, for example, to ask whether they are consistently “pro-choice”.

And, by the way, I don’t agree with your insinuation that it is only the conservatives behind this.

I don’t think I was insinuating anything, but being pretty straightforward. Obviously, it would be wrong to say that Iraq War supporters are “only” anything. If you look at the polls, though, the war has consistently enjoyed the support of about half of the country, and I don’t think it would be much of a leap to say that the supporters skew to the right politically.

I’m not sure the fact that his “box” was small at the time is relevent. Is the fact that he was killing his own people versus say Iranians any less terrible or actionable?

I guess that depends on whether you see the war as a moral crusade to right a wrong or a pragmatic act of self-defense. In the latter case, the box is extremely relevant.

Hey Bert,

I’ll keep the “race clause” in mind.

It’s a shame for you that the world isn’t as PC as conversatives allege. As a gay, Black man, you would win every argument. Bwahaahaha! ;)

(Don’t worry folks — no revelation there.)

Bugcrazy:

Saddam Hussein could have PREVENTED THE WAR. HE CHOSE not to. He never thought Bush (the U.S.) would follow through. I wish he had surrendered to begin with. Then Bush wouldn’t have HAD TO take us to war in Iraq. Most of the blame LIES SQUARELY on Hussein’s shoulders.

Yes, and it was Poland’s fault that World War II happened. They should have appeased Germany like Austria and Czechloslavia.

In regards to the culture of life:

One misconception that I believe many conservatives have is that an embryo is a “baby”. This is not true, a baby is a human living independent of its mother, not inside. If a fetus has a brain and nerves it can feel pain and have thoughts and desires and therefore should not die, the mother has plenty of time to abort before the brain develops. Before the Brain develops, an embryo is just a blob of Stem Cells with unique human DNA and nothing more.

In regards to the death penalty, I do not think most mainstream liberals would dissagree with putting to death a person who has killed five or more people, has evidence like video recordings or confessions that definitely place him as guilty and shows no signs of remorse. The problem is that in most cases this amount of certainty can almost never be achieved. These individuals are more innocent than any of the other disscussed here in regards to the culture of life except possibly the poor innocent civillians who have died because of our wars. Also, most people convicted of murder only have killed one person and have since realized that ther actions were a mistake and are remorseful. These people should be shown mercy by being allowed to live in jail. Anyone however, that commits murder, goes to jail and commits it again has no right to life after abusing the second chance at life graciously given to him/her after the first murder.

In jumping to race, the more important common denominator has been missed: poverty. Who is more likely to be given the death penalty? The poor. Who is more likely to turn to abortion as what they view as the only viable choice? The poor. What countries are “fair game” for the mighty USA to “rescue”? The poor.

To all the Right Wing, Extremist, Neo-Con, PRO-DEATH, Racist, Hypocrites.

You know who you are.. Maybe not.. That is the problem!!!!!

{Saddam Hussein could have PREVENTED THE WAR. HE CHOSE not to. He never thought Bush (the U.S.) would follow through. I wish he had surrendered to begin with. Then Bush wouldn’t have HAD TO take us to war in Iraq. Most of the blame LIES SQUARELY on Hussein’s shoulders.}

Why dont you, and your kind, try to overthrow the US government (not like you are now) but with military force and see what you get! Besides there is no proof that he ever used chemical weapons to kill those people.

There were many other methods to deal with this situation that would not have killed so many innocent people.

Im certainly not trying to defend Saddam Hussein it seems as he really is a bad guy, although he wasnt so bad 10 years ago when Bushs daddy associated with him.

I was shocked when I listened to Powells presentation to the UN. Supposedly we knew exactly where all of these WMDs are. Why didn�t we tell the weapons inspectors? They have been searching for years. I will tell you why BECAUSE IT WAS JUST ANOTHER LIE!

So as the blame for this WAR of CHOICE LIES ONLY on BUSH and HIS CRONIES!
I hope their secret plan fails miserably so the rest of us can get on with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness�.

PS you know why Bush won’t join the World Court? Because he is on the dockit!

The problem with the death penalty is that it is answering violence with violence as a considered opinion.
To defend yourself and prevent you or your loved ones from being hurt is a justifiable decision. I hope I have the precence of mind.
OTOH to decide, as a society, after the crime, to kill the perpetrator, models violent behavior. It has no deterrent effect. It is expensive. And it is mindlessly violent.

It has no deterrent effect.

Really? I’d love to see something to back that up.

AP,
Try this link “http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FaganTestimony.pdf”

He talks about different studies that have been done and some of the flaws with them. His point is basically not that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but rather there is no evidence that it is a deterrent. The most interesting part of the comments, I thought, was about life without parole.

The studies fail to take into account the deterrent effects of Life Without Parole sentences (LWOP). LWOP has the same incapacitative effect as does execution. For a few death row inmates, it has a deterrent effect: at least 100 executions since Gregg were “voluntary” –death row inmates who elected to not fight their execution, and at least some of these persons explicitly said that death was preferable to life in prison…

Moreover, examining declines in homicide rates in California, Texas and New York since each state’s peak homicide rate in the early 1990’s, one can see the strong effects of such incapacitative sentences on murder rates. For example, the in New York, a state with no death penalty until April 1995 and no executions, homicide rates declined over the next decade by 65.5% since the peak in 1990. In comparison, homicide rates in Texas declined by 61.4% since its peak rate in 1991.

So, although the death penalty may deter, it is less than or equal deterrence to life without parole.