Third Party & Independents Archives

NJ Death Penalty Bites the Dust

Not that they had executed anyone since 1963 anyway, but the New Jersey Sate Assembly, Senate, and Governor made it official this week and passed and signed legislation to outlaw the death penalty in that state. This is a step in the right direction. Thirteen states down, and 37 to go…

Of course, those in favor of the death penalty are crying injustice. Says one Republican Assembleyman from New Jersey:

"It's simply a specious argument to say that, somehow, after six millennia of recorded history, the punishment no longer fits the crime," said Assemblyman Joseph Malone, a Republican.

Yep... the ol' 'we've been doing it for 6,000 years so it must be right' argument... kinda like slavery, eh Mr. Malone? Of course, if we are using this argument, maybe we should still be putting people to death for stealing apples?

Don't get me wrong... I'm not about to write a post crying for the lives of those guilty of the most heinous crimes that have been put to death. The "they need to pay" part of me has no remorse for some of these people that should probably be removed from the population anyway. It's just that there are too many arguments for the abolition of the death penalty...

Never mind that there is no conclusive evidence anywhere that the death penalty is a deterrent. If anything, it is just the opposite:

Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. In a state-by- state analysis, The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

And never mind that the death penalty is unfairly applied to the poor and minorities... or that nearly 42% of current death row inmates are black, even though they account for only 12% of the general population. Are blacks 3 1/2 times more likely to commit a capital offense? Hhmmm...

Oh... and also never mind that the death penalty is much more costly than life in prison:

Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to an approximate cost of $24 million for each execution. This finding takes into account the relatively few inmates who are actually executed, as well as the time and effort expended on capital defendants who are tried but convicted of a lesser murder charge, and those whose death sentences are overturned on appeal. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000)

No... the real reason we should abolish the death penalty is the simple fact that innocent people have been, and will continue to be, executed. Too many convictions have later been overturned on new evidence that proves innocence, even when there was a confession, for me to believe that no innocents are put to death. We are absolutely kidding ourselves if we think we are not putting innocent people to death... but here in America, we like to enact laws that do nothing but make us feel good, regardless of cost or iniquity.

In my humble opinion, anyone who believes in the death penalty as a system of justice for the greater good needs to be willing to sacrifice themselves or, worse, a loved one, as being wrongly accused, convicted, and put to death as a cost for maintaining that system. Given that we have and will continue to put innocent people to death, anything less would be hypocrisy.

But hey... I might be willing to acquiesce if friends like Syria, China, and Iran continue to stay by our side...

Posted by Doug Langworthy at December 18, 2007 11:00 PM
Comments
Comment #241009

Doug, my better half has always opposed the death penalty on the simple grounds that we were supposed to be a nation that respected human life and that our systems would reflect that value. Those who pose to great a danger to society to ever be freed into it, should not be put to death for the sake of the price of incarcerating them for life. That puts a dollar value on human life, and that is something most Americans have always been opposed to.

The only two circumstances I have ever believed warrant the taking of a human life are self-defense when no other defense is reasonably available, or in the case of voluntarily requested euthenasia. A person’s manner and time of death should be an inherent part of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and death is an integral part of life.

And no, I don’t regard a zygote or fetus human life until it has been born into the society by a mother’s choice to bring that life forth. Obviously many others would disagree.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 19, 2007 7:55 AM
Comment #241012

So hows this for an idea, instead of using the death penalty we use the work penalty. Where people who are put into prison for “heinous” crimes have to work to stay alive i.e. they have to work to stay in the better cells, they have to work to earn food and to earn things like books to read and tv to watch. So this means that the tax payers dont have to pay for people that shouldnt be a part of society to stay alive. When they dont work they starve or have to sleep outside when its raining, snowing, ect. Sounds good to me. I also think that if women are allowed to abort a fetus than other people should be allowed to sell their liver or kidney’s. Sounds fair to me.

Posted by: Common Sense at December 19, 2007 8:52 AM
Comment #241014

Common Sense (!?),

So hows this for an idea, instead of using the death penalty we use the work penalty. Where people who are put into prison for “heinous” crimes have to work to stay alive i.e. they have to work to stay in the better cells, they have to work to earn food and to earn things like books to read and tv to watch.

Wake up, it’s the case in most western prisons already.

So this means that the tax payers dont have to pay for people that shouldnt be a part of society to stay alive. When they dont work they starve or have to sleep outside when its raining, snowing, ect. Sounds good to me.

Sounds like gulag to me. Former soviet ones. Or North Korean today ones.

Weird how a nation which was so against Stalinism in the past now seems ready to use the same methods, violating the most basic human rights they used to defend against these dictatorships of the past or present…

I also think that if women are allowed to abort a fetus than other people should be allowed to sell their liver or kidney’s. Sounds fair to me.

Abortion vs… organ market. Yeah, very obvious comparison. What about parents being allowed to sell their kids organs too. Or to have purposely a baby in order to cure one of their older sick kid?
Sounds fair to me, after all, it compensate for the unborn kids other parents have aborted, right?

If that was a (failed) attempt to push the argument that everybody should be free to do what he wants from his body, not just woman and their uterus, AFAIK you’re totally free to do whatever with your body. Giving your organs included.

Doesn’t means be paid for them is legal. Aborted fetus are not sold either. Quite the contrary sometimes, even (clandestine abortion is/was a scary and deadly business).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 19, 2007 9:44 AM
Comment #241023

David… thank you for your comments. Like I said in my original post, the cost of the death penalty process is not my reason for being against it, but, IMHO, any argument that may make people think about the subject in different terms should be discussed… What’s the old religious saying… first the head, then the heart? It could apply…

In fact, I like all arguments against the death penalty as the end goal is ultimately the same, regardless of why.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at December 19, 2007 11:44 AM
Comment #241043

There are too many mistakes; too many innocent people executed (about 27 between 1900 and 1987).
One is one too many.
That’s enough reason to oppose the death penalty.
A separate, but serious problem too, are the judges and parole boards that repeatedly release criminals to commit more crimes, over and over. Perhaps some of these judges and parole boards should be held accountable for early paroles for criminals that commit more crimes?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 19, 2007 1:59 PM
Comment #241064

If someone has no more respect for human life than to murder someone why should society respect their worthless life? And why should their right to live be anymore important than the right their victim had to live?
Seems that the only ones that have the right to live anymore are the criminals.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 19, 2007 5:01 PM
Comment #241066

Ron… Are you saying that you do not believe an innocent person has been wrongfully executed?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at December 19, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #241096
If someone has no more respect for human life than to murder someone why should society respect their worthless life?

To lead by example, showing human life, even the worst one, should be respected?

And why should their right to live be anymore important than the right their victim had to live?

The right to live is the same for every human.

Seems that the only ones that have the right to live anymore are the criminals.

Are we all criminals now!?!
But… but we are alive, right? By your claim, we must be criminals, then…

Nonsense.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 20, 2007 5:08 AM
Comment #241124

Doug
How many “innocent” people have grown old and died while serving a life sentence?
“About 27” or a lot more, from 1900 to 1987?
Do you think that is more humane than executing them?

And, as there is no way of telling how many people don’t kill because they are afraid of the death penalty, there is no way of fully knowing if it is a deterent or not.

Posted by: kctim at December 20, 2007 3:39 PM
Comment #241129

kctim, good points and I am glad you brought them up…

Short answer… yes, I do.

Nothing will ever be perfect. I think that innocent people serving out life terms, at the very least, gives hope that one day they may be exonerated… and even if not, living on death row knowing that you are about to meet an unjust end soon… it must be terrifying. At least if an innocent person is serving a life term they can, within the confines of prison life, try to find some kind of meaining.

Given that it can never be a perfect system, I would much rather send an innocent person to jail than to the gas chamber.

And your last sentence is as much an argument against the death penalty as it is for it… and given the finality of the death penalty, shouldn’t we be erring on the side of life?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at December 20, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #241130

And also… I do hope you are not putting the “about 27” in quotes as if to attribute that number to me… it is not my number. To me, “about one” would be too many as, if I were to accept this number as acceptable collateral damage in order to ensure the system remains entact, I would also have to accept that that one be either myself or a loved one… anything less would be hypocritical.

And I could not accept that.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
Comment #241174

kctim,

How many “innocent” people have grown old and died while serving a life sentence? “About 27” or a lot more, from 1900 to 1987? Do you think that is more humane than executing them?

Without any doubt.
One word: hope.

You know the motto: until death, there is always hope.

Plus, like Doug, ONE innocent being giving death sentence is way enough to make death penalty intolerable to me.
And unfortunately, we do have proof that not only one but far more were.

And, as there is no way of telling how many people don’t kill because they are afraid of the death penalty, there is no way of fully knowing if it is a deterent or not.

So why “death” sentence instead of “life” sentence, if it doesn’t make any deterrence difference?!

Why side with the death sentence which we know killed innocent too, making in the process hope to be one day found not guilty too late for these, and make no measurable deterrence difference!?

I’m not often, but I’m clearly sharing every Doug position regarding Death Penalty.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 21, 2007 4:40 AM
Comment #241179
If someone has no more respect for human life than to murder someone why should society respect their worthless life? And why should their right to live be anymore important than the right their victim had to live? Seems that the only ones that have the right to live anymore are the criminals.
Ron, perhaps, if the system was reliable.

However, many innocent people have been executed.
I used to support the death penalty.
But not any more.
One mistake is one too many.
There are many mistakes, as evidenced by DNA testing, and the following:

  • Girvies Davis, was likely an innocent victim of a coerced confession. He was executed in Illinois in 1995. Prior to that execution, a widespread campaign sought to publicize his innocence.

  • Odell Barnes, Freddie Lee Wright and Philip Workman were all probable victims of manufactured evidence and corrupt proceedings. Odell Barnes was executed in Texas, and Freddie Lee Wright was executed in Alabama. Phillip Workman was executed in Tennessee.

  • David Wayne Spence was executed in Texas on 3-APR-1997 despite the conclusion of the police lieutenant who stated: “I do not think David Spence committed this crime.”, the homicide detective on the case added: “My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved.”, and one of the inmates who testified in Spence’s trial, Robert Snelson, said, “We all fabricated our accounts of Spence confessing in order to try to get a break from the state on our cases.”

  • Randall Adams, the subject of the documentary The Thin Blue Line, is a well-known example of a released prisoner who most likely would have been successfully framed and possibly executed.

  • In Florida, Sonia Jacobs and Jesse Tafero were both convicted of murdering a state trooper and his companion in 1976 and were sentenced to death. The chief evidence against them was supplied by the third person at the scene of the crime, an ex-convict named Walter Rhodes. In exchange for his testimony, Rhodes pleaded guilty to 2nd degree murder and received a life sentence. Jacobs’ death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment, but in 1990 Tafero, despite his protestations of innocence, was executed. Micki Dickoff, a childhood friend of Jacobs’, read about Tafero’s execution and reestablished contact with Jacobs. Thanks to Dickoff’s unflagging efforts, federal courts threw out Jacobs’ conviction; in 1992 she was released when the state admitted not having the evidence to retry her. It now appears Jacobs was completely innocent. If Jacobs was innocent, then the execution of Tafero was probably the execution of an innocent man, because the same evidence (later shown to be insufficient) used to convict Jacobs had also been used to convict Tafero. The information that freed her would have freed him, if he had not already been executed.

  • Neil Ferber, accused of rape and murder, was probably framed. On 15-NOV-1996, Ellis Wayne Felker was executed by the state of Georgia. An autopsy of the murder victim put the time of murder such that it would rule out Neil Felker as a suspect, the findings of the autopsy were falsified. Also, there was a signed confession from another suspect in the crime. Forensic samples from the crime scene, which might have proven Felker innocent if they had been subjected to DNA testing, were also among this previously withheld evidence. A stay of execution was granted by the Supreme Court on 14-NOV-1996, just minutes before the scheduled execution and after Felker had been shaved for the electrodes. The unanimous decision denying the appeal was issued late the next day because the judges had a long, “leisurely” lunch. As a result, Neil Felker was executed by electrocution the previous day.

  • Warren McCleskey, denying the murder of a policeman, was executed by Georgia in SEP-1991, after losing two important Supreme Court cases in four years. However, there was government misconduct, and the only evidence that McCleskey was the triggerman was a fellow inmate’s claim that McCleskey had confessed it to him. However, years after the trial, it was discovered that this inmate was an informant planted by the police and was promised leniency in return for his cooperation.

  • On 25-MAR-1997 in Florida, Pedro Medina was executed by electrocution. Pedro Medina was arrested for the murder of Dorothy James. Pedro Medina’s fingerprints were not found in the victim’s apartment, nor on the alleged murder weapon, and there was no blood in the car in which he allegedly left the scene. Nor was there blood on the knife that the prosecution touted as the murder weapon. Justice Harry Anstead said the court should have noted Medina’s long history of mental illness and the fact that the case against him was based on circumstantial evidence; the judge pointed out that daughters of the victim testified that they do not believe that Medina killed their mother. The justice the state also failed to disclose evidence suggesting that another suspect killed Dorothy James. One of Dorothy James’ daughters, Lindi James, said: “I have never believed Pedro killed my mother”.

  • Coleman Gray was executed in Virginia on 26-FEB-1997. Several witnesses admitted to falsely testifying that Gray told them he killed store manager Richard McClelland. McClelland was forced off the road shortly after he left work one night in May-1985, taken back to the store where his two abductors robbed his business, then took him to a nearby community college and shot six times in the head. Some of the witnesses who said they lied about hearing Gray admit to killing McClelland also said in the affidavits that they lied about hearing Gray claim he committed two unrelated murders. One of the trial witnesses against Gray was his codefendant, Melvin Tucker, who avoided the death penalty (getting a life sentence) by testifying that it was Gray who shot McClelland. A judge threw out Gray’s death sentence in an earlier appeal, but the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it, and upheld a death sentence after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a review of Gray’s case. Gray’s attorney said that “this case has raised very serious concerns among federal judges about the fairness of Coleman Gray’s trial. The new evidence demonstrates that this case is shot through with perjured testimony and that Coleman Gray’s conviction and sentence are completely unreliable.”

  • Leo Jones, convicted of killing policeman Thomas J. Szafranski on 23-MAY-1981, was executed in Florida on 24-MAR-1998. Jones’ conviction was based on the testimony of a police interrogator who had been forced out in 1988 after being identified by a fellow officer as a torturer. In upholding Jones’ conviction and sentence, Florida’s appellate system refused to take into consideration the following. First, at the time of the shooting, witnesses reported seeing another man running down an alley near the crime scene with a rifle in his hands. These witnesses did not immediately tell the police what they saw. On the day after the shooting, the man with the rifle asked his girlfriend to lie to police and provide him with an alibi for the previous night. Neither the testimony of the eyewitnesses nor that of the rifleman’s girlfriend was presented at Jones’ trial. Soon after the killing, police searched Leo Jones’ apartment, finding him and a friend with some rifles that could have fired the shots that killed Officer Szafranski. Feeling that they needed more evidence to connect Jones and his friend to this crime, the arresting officers proceeded to beat them continually. They beat Leo Jones and threatened to kill him until he gave them a two-line confession. They also beat Leo Jones’ friend to the extent that he was “barely recognizable.” Leo’s friend also gave the confession that the police wanted. They were then taken to a hospital. The man who was seen running with the rifle later openly admitted to family members, friends, and fellow inmates that he killed Officer Szafranski. However, Leo Jones had already been executed.

  • Timothy Baldwin was executed in 1984 for murdering an elderly woman. After the trial, his lawyers found a hotel receipt proving he was hundreds of miles away in another state on the night of the murder. The prosecution promptly claimed that he had driven to the hotel in order to establish an alibi and then returned to Louisiana to commit the murder. Howard Marsellus, chairman of the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole from 1984 to 1986, witnessed Timothy Baldwin’s execution and remembers the night clearly. Baldwin “looked into my face and said, ‘You are murdering an innocent man.’ That’s what I did.”. Howard Marsellus regrets his part in denying clemency and admits that political pressure influenced his decisions on clemency.

  • James Beathard, was executed in Texas on 10-DEC-1999. Courts and the governor ignored the recantation and confession of the only important witness against Beathard, a conflict of interest by the defense attorney, and the prosecution’s willful misrepresentation of the case against James Beathard, including presenting two contradictory versions in two different trials.

  • David Junior Brown (Dawud Mohammed), was executed in North Carolina on 19-NOV-1999. David Brown, was convicted by an all-white jury of killing two white people. All successive courts refused his appeals although, despite acknowledged mistakes in his trial. One judge concluded there was prosecutorial misconduct. Amnesty International noted inconsistencies in witness accounts and an incomplete investigation, in addition to the prosecutors’ misconduct.

  • Brian Baldwin was executed in Alabama on 18-JUN-1999. Brian Baldwin was convicted by an all-white jury. Prosecutors excluded Black jurors. The judge, the prosecutor and Baldwin’s own court-appointed attorney used racially derogatory language during the trial. A man who was a sheriff’s deputy at the time swore in a statement shortly before the execution that Baldwin had been beaten and tortured into a confession by white officers. Baldwin’s co-defendant, who was executed for the crime in 1996, stated that Baldwin was not present at, nor had any knowledge of, the murder. This statement was corroborated by physical evidence. Alabama Governor Siegelman said he was “deeply troubled” by the case; nevertheless, he did not grant clemency.

  • Joseph O’Dell was executed on 23-JUL-1997. Virginia authorities tried to prevent DNA evidence. Early DNA tests gave inconclusive results, and O’Dell argued that improved tests would demonstrate his innocence. However, Virginia courts refused to allow more testing. Since his execution, prosecutors have attempted to have the evidence destroyed. How is it someone was convicted and executed based on evidence that was “inconclusive”?

  • A study of innocent prisoners convicted of capital crimes was an article in the November, 1987 Stanford Law Review by Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet. They found that 23 innocent prisoners, between 1900 and 1987, had been executed. Huge Bedau and Michael Radelet later updated their research in a book “In Spite Of Innocence.”
Obviously, the legal system is not only unreliable, but corrupt.
DNA testing is revealing many people unjustly convicted of various crimes.
That alone is enough reason for opposing the death penalty.
A separate, but serious problem too, are the judges and parole boards that repeatedly release criminals to commit more crimes, over and over. Perhaps some of these judges and parole boards should be held accountable for early paroles for criminals that commit more crimes?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 21, 2007 8:54 AM
Comment #241187

Doug
Open and fair answer, thanks.
And I put the 27 in quotes only because it was the only number that had been given and d.a.n referenced it, not to suggest it was your number. Sorry for the confusion.

Philippe
Good post and I think you make some valid points also.

“Why side with the death sentence which we know killed innocent too”

Because I believe the pros outweigh the cons.
IMO, it is a deterent and that in being so, it has saved countless number of lives. I also believe the most evil among us, do not deserve to be among us.

Posted by: kctim at December 21, 2007 10:10 AM
Comment #241234

I sit in disbelief at my total agreement with dan. One of my best friends and the secretary of my rotary club is a district attorney for the town in which I live. Until recently, I was pro death penalty and hated the idea that judges could do whatever they want without accountability - like that criminal who let that black guy up in New Hampshire (I think) go free because (the judge said) “I just don’t want to put another black man in jail.” That man walked for a violent robbery and ended up raping and killing two people.

I don’t know why I’ll be the first to echo total agreement with holding judges accountable, but here here - I certainly do.

Anyway, there was a gigantic error in the basis for my belief in the death penalty, which was strictly based on least amount of burden to the hard-working and honest taxpayers. My DA friend told me he does not support the death penalty for the same reason I do! Only he has intimate knowledge of costs. He claims the appeals process and jury trials for a Death Penalty Conviction are so lengthy and so expensive that it is FAAAAAR more expensive to put a needle in someone’s arm than it is to lock them in a cage for the rest of their life.

And so I am a convert.

To David, the idea that anything relating to human rights or criminal sentences cannot be based on cost equates to putting a dollar value on human life presupposes that a man who rapes and murders a child is still deserving of the title “human.” In my unbridled discrimination of such people, I think the term “monster” is far more apt, and I don’t mind putting a dollar value on “monster” life at all.

Knowledge changes everything, and like Doug said, who cares if we oppose the death penalty for different reasons, as long as we oppose it together.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at December 21, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #241321

kctim,

“Why side with the death sentence which we know killed innocent too”

Because I believe the pros outweigh the cons.

The “cons” could be you or any of your beloved.

IMO, it is a deterent and that in being so, it has saved countless number of lives. I also believe the most evil among us, do not deserve to be among us.

Above you said rightly as there is no way of telling how many people don’t kill because they fear death penalty, there is no way to know if it’s a deterent or not. But now you claim it is, having saved countless lives?

If we can’t know, you can’t claim that same countless of lives would have been saved without death penalty either…

Yukon,

putting a dollar value on human life presupposes that a man who rapes and murders a child is still deserving of the title “human.” In my unbridled discrimination of such people, I think the term “monster” is far more apt, and I don’t mind putting a dollar value on “monster” life at all.

Every death penalty supporter who consider the sentenced non-human should be enforced to:
1) assist a death sentence in the front row.
2) defend their “he was the devil” argument against every family of sentenced since found innocent, in order to see which side will be considered devil…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 23, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #241353

Philippe
“If we can’t know, you can’t claim that same countless of lives would have been saved without death penalty either…”

I am not claiming anything my friend. IMO is short for “in my opinion” and that was all my statement was, just my opinion.

I believe both sides of the death penalty issue, make valid points and I respect them both.

Posted by: kctim at December 24, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment #241572

Phillipe,
The flip side of your statement is ‘every person who believes in the humanity of a child rape and murder perpetrator should be forced to watch the rape and murder of a child for so carelessly dismissing the atrocity and it’s perpetrator as deserving of life.’

That feels good to say in retort, but I know the statement makes no sense, as does the statement that everyone who thinks these perpetrators should have to not only assist in the execution but defend their position to other people - totally unrelated who were wrongly convicted. I do think there is some merit to making those immediately affected who state their support for the execution attend the perpetrators last hoorah. Even though msot of me feels it would be a little macabre.

I never said that they were the devil, I said they were more aptly called monsters, and I challenge you to defend the idea that a grown man who rapes a three year old girl and then buries her alive while she begs for her mommy, is not a monster. I also challenge you to defend that they deserve any pity from me, especially these days when death penalty convictions require DNA evidence and a plethora of rock solid evidence to make it through the appeals process.

In the past, emotional rulings have sentenced man to death wrongly. That happens a fractionally small percentage of the time any more.

Rather than debate this on it’s merit, or lack thereof in your opinion, why don’t you tell me where your sense of pity, for someone who were to carry out the specific act I quote, comes from? I just don’t understand the mentality that all people have good hearts and deserve life. That only good people do terrible things. Do you not agree that there are monstrously evil people in the world, and if you do submit to that, then what do you propose we do for them?

Posted by: Yukon Jake at December 27, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #241711

Yukon,

The flip side of your statement is ‘every person who believes in the humanity of a child rape and murder perpetrator should be forced to watch the rape and murder of a child for so carelessly dismissing the atrocity and it’s perpetrator as deserving of life.’

That would be fair, indeed.
Except that watching it without trying to stop it is illegal, while watching death penalty is.

I challenge you to defend the idea that a grown man who rapes a three year old girl and then buries her alive while she begs for her mommy, is not a monster.
He was given birth by a human woman, and until he became a rapist and a child killer, he was never ever called anything but human. Anthropologists will call him an human, as I am. What he does is monstruous, but it doesn’t change his specie, sorry.

Being human and being monstrous is not antagonistic, humen can be both at time, as so very often proved in humankind History.

You say he’s not a human but a monster. The burden of proof is your.

Anyway, you keep avoiding the issue of death penalty: supporters tolerates that one or more innocents are given death sentence. Could you share with us your rational in such tolerance?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 29, 2007 5:37 AM
Comment #241983

I never said I tolerated a single innocent life taken by the Death Penalty - where do you come up with that?

Also, I didn’t reclassify his species, only his value and worth - insodoing I call him a monster, INSTEAD of calling him a human.

I love the idealistic, “everyone deserves” mentality of the left. As though there is ANYTHING worth saving after a person commits this kind of crime. Let’s not forget that I don’t want them killed anymore, I think that a lifetime to rot in a tiny cell in prison (since it is cheaper than death) is more appropriate.

Though I don’t think I would have DRR’s amazing composure when the criminal was released to the public, had the same crime been perpetrated on my daughter that was on his - according to his posts.

Watch the movie - “Deliver us from Evil” and then talk to me about pity for these human crimes.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 2, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #242654

Yukon,

I never said I tolerated a single innocent life taken by the Death Penalty - where do you come up with that?

Sorry, I’ve mixed you and kctim on death penalty position.
He’s the one claiming the DP’s pros outweigh the cons. The cons being innocents are killed, he’s tolerating this.

Also, I didn’t reclassify his species, only his value and worth - insodoing I call him a monster, INSTEAD of calling him a human.

Which he’s still. You can value his actions as monstrous as much as you want, it doesn’t remove the fact a human did it.

I love the idealistic, “everyone deserves” mentality of the left. As though there is ANYTHING worth saving after a person commits this kind of crime.

Relatives deserves it. Why a mother should lost his son/her daughter!? She did nothing to deserve it. But when the son/daughter in question is not the victim but the perpetrator, the mother deserves losing it!?

That’s double standard.

Let’s not forget that I don’t want them killed anymore, I think that a lifetime to rot in a tiny cell in prison (since it is cheaper than death) is more appropriate.

So we do both agree here.

Though I don’t think I would have DRR’s amazing composure when the criminal was released to the public, had the same crime been perpetrated on my daughter that was on his - according to his posts.

Sure, but Justice is not about personal reactions to crime, but Society reaction.

Watch the movie - “Deliver us from Evil” and then talk to me about pity for these human crimes.

I’m not talking about pity, I’m talking about the fact it remains human-made. Human condition comes with its very dark parts, calling them unhuman is being in denial, and often used to calm off our conscious about the penalty but also, maybe more even, to avoid thinking we could all goes very wrong.

Thinking about them as not human is thinking we’re too different to goes that wrong ourself.

Which is obviously false.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 9, 2008 1:21 PM
Post a comment