Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiExecutions Resume In US After Supreme Court Lethal Injection Ruling
The US supreme court yesterday cleared the way for executions to resume when it ruled that the lethal injection procedure used in Kentucky does not violate the American constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment".
The 7-2 ruling means that an informal moratorium on executions in place since the court agreed to hear the case last September can now be lifted. Virginia's governor, Tim Kaine, wasted little time, immediately giving the go-ahead for executions in to resume in his state.
The case, brought by two death row inmates, argued that the procedure of lethal injection, which is intended to knock out, paralyse and then kill, is inhumane. They suggested a single-dose of a powerful barbiturate as an alternative. The three-drug protocol used in Kentucky is similar to that used in the 36 other states which use lethal injection.
But the court, in a splintered decision, disagreed with the plaintiffs in the case. Writing the majority opinion, which was only agreed in full by two other justices, the chief justice, John Roberts, argued that the standard for deciding whether a method violated the constitution was if it posed a "substantial risk of serious harm". The plaintiffs had proposed that the standard should be "unnecessary harm".
"We ... agree that petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that the risk of pain from maladministration of a concededly humane lethal injection protocol, and the failure to adopt untried and untested alternatives, constitute cruel and unusual punishment," Roberts wrote. Four other justices agreed with the opinion while two dissented.
In the ruling Roberts said: "A condemned prisoner cannot successfully challenge a state's method of execution merely by showing a slightly or marginally safer alternative."
Moreover, he said, the single-drug method "has problems of its own, and has never been tried by a single state".
Opponents of the three-drug method argue that if the first anaesthetic is not properly administered the following two drugs can cause excruciating pain. The paralysis drug, critics say, would prevent the prisoner from expressing that pain.
The ruling, however, appeared to leave open to question the processes that individual states use to administer the three drugs, monitor the condemned person's condition and complete the execution. Opponents of the death penalty have argued that in several states staff are not properly trained, and that the environment in which many executions take place are inadequate, with insufficient lighting and cramped conditions.
The debate in the supreme court went beyond the issue of whether the three-drug procedure was constitutional.
Another justice, John Paul Stevens, wrote that while he agreed with the ruling, he thought the issue would be revisited.
"The time for a dispassionate, impartial comparison of the enormous costs that death penalty litigation imposes on society with the benefits that it produces has surely arrived," Stevens wrote. He went on to suggest that he would vote to abolish the death penalty.
Kentucky has only had one execution using lethal injection. A total of 42 executions took place in the US last year, the lowest figure for 13 years. Despite the informal moratorium, only China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan carried out more executions each than the US in 2007, according to figures released by Amnesty International on Tuesday. Together the five countries carried out 88% of the 1,252 known executions last year.
Earlier this year New Jersey became the first state to abolish the death penalty since its reintroduction in the US in 1976.
Ty Alper, a death penalty opponent and associate director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, said he expects challenges to lethal injections will continue in several states.
© 2008 The Guardian
107 Comments so far
Show AllFirst .... When the bastard who is upset over how they are going to kill him cries about it ....Think about this ..... Did the bastard take a moment to think about the way he was killing the person or person(s) he killed to be on Death Row? Probably not for one second. he could give a shit. I say there should not be any choices here. That bastard should suffer and suffer good. I would rather hang the bastard or maybe chop the animals head off. I'd even settle for electric chair if it is painful enough. Screw these crybaby criminals. I say gas them all and save some money.
sLiMsHaDy said " '"Over and over again? That'd make you worse than they are."
Are you for real??? You have got to be one of these people ranting and railing for the rights of the accused-"
More like ranting and railing for the rights guaranteed to all of us under that quaint document, the US Constitution.
"Over and over again? That'd make you worse than they are."
Are you for real??? You have got to be one of these people ranting and railing for the rights of the accused- one of those who has no idea what they are talking about because they haven't been a victim. Yet.
I understand your opinion FAT LADY. If someone seriously harmed or killed my kids, I would want to kill them myself and would probalby try. __ But I'd be wrong.
The flip side of that coin is: If a killer who raped, tortured and murdered someone, or like that guy who buried a child alive and was set free due to a legal technicality, therefore no 99 year or life sentence. They should be hunted down and killed so they cannot do it again. Like we'd kill a rabid animal. __ Mixed feelings huh?
I don't say that. Obviously we differ on that issue.
KEM
I can understand you would be upset if innocent and in prison, I would be to. If the US justice system was changed then I would say if you are caught on camera or 50 witness you doing a crime that warrants death, then do away with the person
slimshady said: "Having been a victim of both of these crimes, I say yes. YES they should be subjected to the exact same treatment that they doled out. Over and over and over again."
Over and over again? That'd make you worse than they are. The question would be: Did the person committing the crime have the right to commit that crime? Of course the answer is no. That being said, should the state, or the victim for that matter, have the right to commit the exact same crime in revenge? I would say no. Doing so makes us no better than the perpetrator.
Capital punishment is wrong.
This decision is correct.
It is now up to Kentucky legislators to abolish capital punishment in their state, rather than by judicial fiat.
kendpotter
" It is pretty tough to apologize to a corpse. "
On the contrary, it is so much easier - they don't get angry or sue you or anything ;)
http://rebelconservative.blogspot.com
Hi there THE WONDERING YOU, great to see you are still kicking. Drop me an E-Mail, haven't heard from you for a long time. I fear I don't have your e-mail address anymore lost a bunch when my computer crashd one fine day.
On Taiwan, they use taxicab drivers for the executioner. You have to ride with one for two days, sitting in the right front seat. If by some miracle you aren't crushed to death in a collision,___ you'll die from fright.
If I'd been put in prison with a life sentence for a crime I had not committed and after 23 years, the state released me and said "Oops, very sorry for the inconveniece" I think I'd probably want to kill somebody.
I'd really be pissed if they executed me and I was innocent. At least pissed until my heart quit pumping.
Butttt, ___ I wouldn't kill anyone. I'd be bitter though, just as I would have been during all of those 23 years. Some people may be able to forgive and forget. I'm not built that way, some things for me are unforgiveable. ___ Guess we all have our faults. Sometimes I pick my nose too.
redstatelefty said, "Capital punishment would cease if the following rule were implemented: if a person who is executed is posthumously determined to have been innocent, the prosecutor who asked for the death penalty, the judge who imposed it, and the executioner who carried it out are to be put to death as well."
Maybe, but in the Qing Dynasty of China, judges would be liable for wrongful decisions. And for the injustice caused, the judge would get the same penalty as the one wrongfully given. So, looks like the Qing Dynasty would be your ideal of impartial justice. Hmmm.
AngstOfThePeople said, about killing innocent people, occasionally, "- not sure, but its a risk we should be willing to take." But why should we be willing to take this risk? What is it that we are supposed to be gaining by killing this innocent? Especially since, we have then, by definition, allowed the actual murderer to go free and kill again. Remind me how is this supposed to make us safer.
And if we're into quotes then here's mine: " Oftentimes have I heard you speak of one who commits a wrong as though he were not one of you, but a stranger unto you and an intruder upon your world. But I say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each one of you, So the wicked and the weak cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also." Kahlil Gibran, "The Prophet".
My theory is that the people with those hang 'em high attitudes, are in fact the very ones who find the death penalty to be a deterrent and want to keep it there, firmly in place. Not to execute the others so much, but rather to keep themselves in check. And, that's probably not a bad idea but there's just got to be better ways.
As for vacation destinations, there are a lot of great places on that list. I've been to ten, not counting the USA, and I think you'd have a wonderful time in many of them. Certainly, I did. There are a few places on the list of those which have outlawed the death penalty, or have abolished it de facto, or don't have it for "ordinary" crimes, that I wouldn't want to go to while they still have their current governments; those would include Myanmar, Israel, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Iceland (which is busy killing whales.)
And as for "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," I would note, "And vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." I'd just as soon we accepted that bit of advice and left all the vengeance in the hands of this ancient and hateful, mythical creature guy.
The death penalty is morally wrong under any circumstances, for the guilty and innocent alike. Yes, even for those guilty of war crimes and subverting the constitution. You shouldn't need a god or a religion to figure that out.
thewonderingyou
"kendpotter, you posted a list of countries that still allow the death penalty. My home country (Taiwan)"
Hi thewonderingyou,
Taiwan is a lovely place and I was there (Taipei) 25 odd years ago. I am glad that while it is on the list it doesn't really execute many people. The only reason I didn't say anything about vacationing there is that I have been already. It would be nice to see how it has changed in the intervening years. I am a retired sailor and have traveled extensively in Asia.
wise guy
"I agree, but the part about the couple of million dollars is a fantasy. Please read this recent article from the Dallas Morning News:"
Hi wise guy,
It is unfortunate that more states don't make it easier to sue for error on the courts part. We really do owe it to people to try to atone for jurisprudential mistakes. More to the point though, is the utter inability to even offer an apology once you plant someone.
USAn just posted:
"Numerous people who oppose the death penalty have, and they don't 'change their tune'."
This is true. I have known some people in that situation. Also, there is a nationwide organization, Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation. A visit to their web site is worthwhile:
http://www.mvfr.org/
"If you had one of yours brutalized and then murderred, I'd bet you'd change your tune."
Numerous people who oppose the death penalty have, and they don't "change their tune".
And from the hate-filled speech of these pro-death penalty people, I wouldn't want to piss them off in a bar then meet them walking home in a dark alley.
Nearly all premeditated murderers start with the concluson that someone else "deserves to die". The death penalty is just a legal form of murder, period. Stop it.
Yesterday, KENDPOTTER posted at 3:10 pm:
"...Too many people have subsequently been exonerated on the basis of advanced technology particularly in the realm of DNA analysis. If you place a person in prison and find out you made a mistake, you can give the person an apology and a couple of million dollars. It is pretty tough to apologize to a corpse."
I agree, but the part about the couple of million dollars is a fantasy. Please read this recent article from the Dallas Morning News:
Man Exonerated For Rape Gives Forgiveness
A DNA sample from Thomas McGowan proved him innocent of rape, which made his exoneration the 16th conviction overturned in Dallas using DNA. McGowan was arrested in Richardson in 1985 and sent to prison for life. But Wednesday, the nightmare ended for him and his family. The life sentence was overturned with just a few words from Judge Susan Hawk to McGowan.
"Words cannot say how sorry I am for the past 23 years," she said. "Is there any statement you would like to make?"
"Thank you," McGowan said. "Thank the DA, the Innocence Project. God is good."
Since McGowan was wrongfully convicted in 1985, he has spent almost half his life locked up for a rape he didn't commit. But his family said they never doubted his innocence as the years went by with McGowan behind bars.
"Oh my God, he missed his whole life," said Doris Washington, McGowan's sister. "He never got married. He doesn't have any children. He missed a big part of his life. He was 27-years-old."
McGowan was convicted because the victim said she was sure he was guilty; but DNA has now proved her wrong.
McGowan said he harbors no resentment.
"I know God forgives," he said. "So, I got to forgive too. It's not for me to be holding anger and resentment. I feel good. The bad news is over with."
His father and one of his sisters died while he was in prison.
"It's a blessing I was alive to see this," said his mother.
McGowan was released without the $100 the state gives parolees. James Giles, who was exonerated last year, knows what that's like.
"So, I'm going to give him this $100 bill to make sure he has something," Giles said handing over the bill.
McGowan walked to his freedom and new life Wednesday.
Apologies to all: I only got halfway through the posts before scrolling down to make my own.
kendpotter, you posted a list of countries that still allow the death penalty. My home country (Taiwan) was in that list. No, I wasn't born here, but it is my home for good now, and I assure you, a vacation here would leave you quite pleasantly refreshed, and possibly with a strong desire to return, maybe even for a long time.
The other two shout-outs before slogging on to read the rest...
simo: SCORE! Hands-down, flog-me adulations for the Gil Scott Herron lyrics post!! The revolution will NOT be televised!! Excellent!!!
And hey! Kem's back! 好久ä¸è¦‹! Missed your wisdom, my dear fellow!
is the Death penalty OK.
when there is doubt, absolutely not
Catch the thug with a smokin' gun or confession?
Absolutely so!!
If you had one of yours brutalized and then murderred, I'd bet you'd change your tune.
Put it in for child rape, too. These goons don't deserve the air they breathe.
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Lethal injection is TOO humane for them. mMatter of fact, so is the "Iron Maiden".
your friend, banjoman
I don't know if I am for capital punishment these days or not! I have changed my mind a lot about the practice. To many people on death row have been found innocent and had to be released. But, I will say this. If 'life in prison' meant life I could go for getting rid of the death penalty. But, we all know it doesn't. When they get 'life' they are lucky if they serve 25 to 30 years. The ones who killed Sharon Tate are up for parole almost every year. Her family has to make certain they don't get out. This shouldn't be happening to them. When the court says 'life' it should mean exactly that! They don't ever get out again.
thanks, mine is an older dictionary the first part is about the same but the second is more detailed in mine
US politics: Insurgent, a member of a section of the Republican party who has advocated progressive policies and opposed certain rules of The House, rebellious ,isubordinate.
When I read that I said yes that sounds like the Bush regime in a nut shell.
Sure good luck - I'd be happy to. Since you didn't say which dictionary, then I'll choose Websters.
(1) insurgent n - 1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; esp : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent 2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
(2) insurgent adj : - rising in opposition to civil authority or established leadership: REBELLIOUS
Happy to be of assistance.
Peace,
Ken
Buffalo Ken:
I have a question I know this is a little off topic but can you look up insurgent for me in your dictionary and post what is says please.
OK, what do we do with them? Lock them up at 72,000$ each per year? Then when they get older give them better healthcare than the average American gets on the steet? The cost at that point is over 100,000$ a year each. So if your taxes go up don't cry please. I have prison guards that are my friends ( this is a fact) They say the same thing. The guy who gets caught is a stupid criminal but when he gets out of prison he is now a smart criminal. Rehad DOES NOT WORK. I say execute them anyway you want. Use what body parts are clean like eyes, heart,lungs liver etc. Take the rest and cut it up for food and give it to the starving countries around the world. Remeber this, humans are nothing more than an animal at the top of the food chain for now.
Per the New Oxford American, 2nd Edition: Retribution: punishment that is considered morally right and fully deserved.
Per Websters Collegiate, 11th Edition: Retribution: 1: RECOMPENSE, REWARD 2: the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment 3: Something given or extracted in recompense; esp; PUNISHMENT.
Retribution is NOT by definition cruel. Perhaps "vengeance" is cruel retribution, but vengeance and retribution are not the same thing.
The death penalty seems to be advocated by those who support vengeance and/or iron-fist state authority. The death penalty is inhumane and senseless.
Peace,
Ken
That we still murder as an act of a supposedly civilised nation speaks volumes about the rest of our governments actions around the world and its acceptance here at home.
A few years ago I checked the stats and they showed, shockingly, that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without...What to make of that?
Putting aside both emotions and a cost-risk analysis, consider the "cruel" reference in the 8th Amendment.
Punishment of any type serves at least one of four purposes:
1. Rehabilitation
2. Deterrence
3. Preventing recidivism
4. Retribution
The death penalty is obviously not for rehabilitation, and it should be plain that it does not deter crime. Life imprisonment is just as effective in preventing recidivism. So it can only be for retribution.
Retribution is by definition cruel. Cruel means "designed to cause harm".
Why does it need to be more complicated than that? For the same reason most other punishment is cruel as well.
~Slimhady~, you have developed a stuttstuuttstuttter. Or you're doble jointed maybe?
Anita Linker- excellent points. Thank you.
"The death penalty is just one more item on the Fascist Dictatorship's "To Do" list, which also includes tasks such as "Build concentration camps in every state,"...
POWERFULLY stated.
Anite Linker- excellent points. Thank you.
"The death penalty is just one more item on the Fascist Dictatorship's "To Do" list, which also includes tasks such as "Build concentration camps in every state,"...
POWERFULLY stated.
ok- something not working with this web site! To continue-
I have to laugh and also want to cry at some of the more self righteous rants by those that have obviously never been murdered nor likely survived any violent crime(s) against their person. But you are right, a single erroneous execution renders the whole system intolerable. A MISERABLE life sentence with NO chance of ever being paroled would probably be the right change to make.
"~SLIMSHADY, I understand your feelings on the subject. That's why it's a difficult subject and there are no perfect answers."
Thank you, Kem Patrick. Yes, it is a VERY difficult subject. I have to l
"~SLIMSHADY, I understand your feelings on the subject. That's why it's a difficult subject and there are no perfect answers."
Thank you, Kem Patrick. Yes, it is a VERY difficult subject. I have to l
"The family member argument is typical strawman - I refuse to debate it because it is emotionalist tripe and irrelevant to the conversation."
What's the matter, Angstofthepeople? Scared of losing the argument?
So you think that latest development in the application of the death penalty will be used by fair-minded judges to get rid of the bloodthirsty, stone-hearted reptilian killers in our midst, do you? SUCKER-R-R-R!
If that were true, the entire Bush Administration would be pushing up daisies by now. Instead they are living high and ruling with impunity. This move to open the way for more executions is NOT for the criminals, but for the us, victims. The death penalty will be used to kill us off, one by one, for daring to resist totalitarian rule.
The death penalty is just one more item on the Fascist Dictatorship's "To Do" list, which also includes tasks such as "Build concentration camps in every state," "censor the press," and "round up, torture and kill all terrorists" (terrorists being anyone who is brave enough to speak truth to power).
Is that "emotionalistic" enough for you? I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not. We'll both be in the same desperate situation soon enough. I just hope I don't get locked up in the same cell as you.
Almost everyone has heard the term bonding,coined years ago by John Kennel and Marshall Klaus, to describe the intimate connection found between mother's and their newborn babies. The term, however is misleading. To bond is to join, glue, tie or connect together two seperate objects. Again, O. Fred Donaldson describes this state of relationship as belonging. which means to fit in, or to be in the right place. Connecting two seperate objects is much different tha affirming unity. We need to bond only when there has been a seperation. Belonging is more expansive, dynamic and inclusive,
We are relationship, whether we call it bonding, belonging, connection, attachment or communion. The meaning or information implicit in our relationship changes moment by moment. What we call learning is discovering and exploring a particular set, or pattern of relationships. The stove is hot, is a relationship. The bee sting, water is wet, aunt Molly brings presents, honey is sweety, all describe states of relationship. And that is what we learn. Bonding therefore is much more than sweet sentiment. Bonding is a channel of communication, information and shared meaning.
We may belong in a particular environment, and relate to many wonderful things, dogs and cats, brothers and sisters, turtles and toys. One relationship, however is more important than the rest. The relationship between mother and baby, or father and baby provides the context, or reference, for all other relationships. The adult-child bond ensures and open, constant, and dynamic channel of communication. Information is constantly flowing through this learning channel we call bonding.
The critical flow of communications between the early child and caregivers requires three things. First, the adult must be physically present. Second, the adult must be aware of what the child is experiencing. Third, the child must be aware of the adult's changing relationship to the world they share. This physical connection and shared awareness creates a constant flow of communication that changes instant-by-instant, encounter- by-encounter, thoughout the day.
Consider how the world would appear to the child whose worldview of basic trust in his or her primary adult relationships was blocked or failed to develop. Imagine how a newborn baby feels being seperated from his or her mother at birth. Suddenly they find themselves in a strange new world. The familiar sounds, smells, feelings, reassurance of mom's warmth and heartbeat, bond of basic trust, and reassuring reference to interpret new experiences are gone. Babies must face what may appear to be the nighmare of birth alone. Do they relax, embrace and play with each new signt, sound or texture? No. They curl into a tight ball and defend themselves against an unknown and frightening world, Seperation anxiety and feelingss of abondoment are considered the greatest threats to the infant or early child. Imagine the confusion an infant feels being placed in a day-care facility, attended by different caretakers. The consistant reference the child needs to interpret the world, to give it order and meaning, is gone. Basic trust is replaced by uncertainty. When we break the learning channel we call bonding, development is compromised on every level.
Is bonding really all that important? The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, September 11th, 2001, was a grim reminder that the twentieth century was a century of World Wars, unparalled in human history. Little progress has been made in preventing personal and global violence. James W. Prescott's theoretical and scientific research on the developmental origins of love and violence cuts to the core of our personal and global violence. The closer we come to the source of our pain, however, the more we tend to defend against it, a response that often blinds us to the obvious.
Human love begins in utero, is carried through pregnancy, birth and the postnatal nurturance of bonding and breast-feeding. Yet, the most critical formative relationship-one that encodes the developing the brain for a lifetime of affection or rage - the relationship between mother and infant, is not valued, nurtured or supported by our culture. Infants and young children are often not held, touched or played with. The majority of babies are placed in institutionalized childcare. Television and computers have replaced imaginative play between adults and children. Failing the early bond who is intimately linked to direct and sustained physical contact between mother and infant, the future of later love relationships is threatened as is society itself. Unbonded behaviors result in an alienated aggressive emotional/social, sexual cycle that affects mother, baby, family, society, and now the world.
Referrence: Magical parent Magical Child.
We need to stop feeding the "beast" (Federal Reserve/IRS) and start feeding our families, then perhaps we could eliminate the need for the death penalty.
The statistics on the five nations who carry out 88% of the known judicial killings worldwide are interesting.
China Predominately atheist
Saudi Arabia Moslem
Iran Moslem
Pakistan Moslem
U.S.A. Predominately Christian
China is still a developing nation with a totalitarian regime (although it is of interest to note that the first nation to outlaw capital punishment was the U.S.S.R.)
Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan are governed by those with a feudal, tribal heritage.
Citizens of the U.S.A. (especially its leaders) portray themselves as beacons of civilisation and democracy.
One measure of a country's civilisation is its treatment of its prisoners. In both the percentage of the population incarcerated and the treatment of those who have committed capital offences. U.S.A. has a lot of catching up to do to become the equal of the advanced democracies.
Punishment implies survival. So the Constitutional edict against cruel and unusual punishment means that the state cannot kill.
U.S. judges, though, are bat-shit crazy. There are none more insane that Supreme Court Justices.
What a mess! When will we/can we move beyond an "eye for an eye" mentality and the "need" for revenge or whatever else it may be that drives us to sub-human behavior in our dealings with other imperfect human beings.
I don't profess to have all the answers, but maybe we could do without about four of those black-robed boys named Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.
I'd rather see a thousand guilty men go free than see one innocent man die for a crime he didn't commit. Innocent men are executed all the time.
Peace to all on the thread tonight.
mmmooo - very eloquent
The Pope actually ate dinner with 5 Catholic Justices who just gave the green light to resume executions. Talk about a hypocrite.
rightlefthater:
Shakespeare said it this way (or something like this):
Man, proud man,
Dress'd in a little brief authority
Most ignorant of what he is most assured
His glassy essence
like an angry ape
plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
as make the angels weep
You need to remember that there is nothing special about the law. These are just rules that a bunch of people make up and together enforce. It seems special, because of the ceremony and pomp with which bunches of people make them, in the rooms they make these laws, and the way other people behave around them. However, the bunch of people who make the laws have time and again shown that there are many buffoons and neanderthals among them. That being the case, their laws aren't necessarily going to be that specially brilliant.
Really, a law is just something a bunch of people insist is the way others have to behave, with a threat that if the others don't behave that way a particular consequence will ensue.
That doesn't in itself make these laws right.
Then there are ethics. Usually people making laws justify those laws by a claim to highest ethics.
But the people making those laws need to demonstrate the highest ethics. The laws lose credibility when the ethics underlying them or the people making them seem bankrupt.
So when we say that killing a person is wrong, and that the punishment for killing a person is death, isn't that somehow demonstrating that there are situations where killing a person is okay?
Isn't this a demonstration of buffoonery in law making.
I have to confess to you something. Homicides and violence make me feel very sad and very upset about the world I live in. However, worse than that, it makes me feel truly ill in my soul when I consider the State taking into its hands with the utmost of arrogance that there can be something civil and proper in executing a person.
Then when I think of the types of people who are being executed, certainly no-one I would like to have to dinner, but most often people who my society has left marginalised: impoverished, uneducated and detested by those of us who have had the magic fortune of a loving family, educational and employment opportunities. If I am a part of society, then who the hell am I to judge those discarded ones who have grown without compassion.
I would no sooner punish a crocodile for harming a person than I would these types of people. Certainly, I would remove them from society where they can no longer harm the rest of us, but not with the kind of hypocritical malice that execution represents.
Go on living in your arrogant ignorant and compassionless place. Accept no responsibility for being part of a society which depends on inequality and then punishes those at the bottom of the pyramid for cracking under the pressure as the few of us at the top benefit.
I am no Marxist I assure you. However, I am not a murderer, and I will insist that any person, whether taking it upon themselves as an individual, or doing it with the arrogance, cowardice or ignorance from behind the desk of a legislature, the benches of a court and the uniforms of prison operators, who takes the life of another for any reason is a murderer, as is anyone who supports such killing.
Fortunately for you, I do not have the horrid duty of constituting a legislature. If I was, to the extent of your participation as a citizen supporting capital punishment, I would deem you to be a co-conspirator to murder. Fortunately for you though, and your fellow co-conspirators and principles in this dark business, I would not have you executed. For frail minds like you, I would suggest a re-education program that might invest you with a better awareness of social issues, perhaps some community work would be involved. For those who legislate and judge, they ought to have known better, and I would sentence them to terms of imprisonment of up to five years. Five years does not properly compensate the families of those executed. Statistics tell us that there is a percentage of people who are wrongly convicted. How can we ever compensate them and their families and friends for the loss of their lives as well as their reputations? However, five years demonstrates to the public how reprehensible such arrogant behaviour is to be regarded, as well as to give these people time to contemplate what they with such unspeakable arrogance and hypocrisy have done.
The more I think about people like you, I realise that you won't change. You fail to see just how equally evil you are to those who commit the crimes which you claim to detest.
You probably don't give a thought to the misery you yourself bring to the world while you judge others so harshly. Do you eat meat? Eggs? Dairy? Have you considered what is done to these lives so you can indulge in your particular but completely unnecessary flesh based diet? Have you considered how much more damage to the planet your carnivorous diet causes compared with a non-meat based diet?
You, think you are so right,but it is you, and those like you, who make the angels weep. Your solution to violence, is more violence.
If someone robs a liquor store, makes three employees kneel then Executes them and this is A: caught on video-tape, B. the doer confesses and C.the stolen cash is in his pocket when he's D. caught running out of the store with the gun:
It's about Revenge, and It's time to Ride the Needle.
Give Death and Get Life? No; Justice for those lives.
However Sdwarzennegar the Creep nixed legislation in California that would have stopped uncorroberated eye-witness testimony from from having that weight.
The bar for proof should be like A-D above more or less.
Is it me or are people getting more violent day by day? Sometimes I wonder if I am not in hell instead of living on earth.
Angst - Please excuse an old man's lack of intelligence. I just don't understand how, exactly, a "balance to humanity" is restored by brutally murdering some scumbag because he has brutally murdered somebody else. How does this restoration of balance work? It looks to me like just another brutal murder on top of the first one. Do you see the second as erasing the first? This is the logic of vendetta.
Society has the right and the obligation to protect itself from predators. We can do that without becoming killers or instruments of punishment ourselves.You aren't interested in the deterrence argument, obviously because there are no statistics to support it. That leaves revenge, a really primitive motive that more mature societies have outgrown. It isn't an argument at all. It is a squirt of hormonal aggression somewhere down inside our reptilian brains. Is that how the "balance" thing works? We become scumbags ourselves, and so restore a state of equilibrium?
The sophistic "dictator" blogging here says the "goodwill" of the people and DNA evidence will prevent innocent people from being executed. ___ Is that a fact?
NO, it isn't. DNA evidence is not always available at a crime scene and an "eye witness" or in a line up, people can identify a shooter and their faulty evidence can send a person to death row. That type of thing happens all too often, not ALWAYS sent to death rows, but death row and many innocents go to prison for years, even for life.
Luckily these last few years, DNA proved beyond ANY doubt, that over 200 innocent people waiting on death rows were released, they were innocent. Many others serving life sentiences were also proven beyond any doubt that they were not guilty by the use of DNA.
There are many crimes where there is no DNA to use as evidence. If DNA were alwsys a factor, how do innocent people get sent to death row in the first place and later DNA proves they weren't guilty? Once is too many.
That's the big problem with the death penalty, once they are executed, they do not ever have the opportunity to prove they are innocent. The "goodwill" of a jury sent them to jail, or to their death. It's not the jurors fault, it's the legal system we have and all too often poor defense by appointed lawyers for lower income people. So OUR goodwill is not relevant to the subject at hand.
BTW dictator, I didn't say family menbers in that blog where you replied and wrote family members was a strawman argument. I despise people like you, arrogant, soplistic bullies. It's one of the major problems with our society, too many with your attituue get elected to public office.
~SLIMSHADY, I understand your feelings on the subject. That's why it's a difficult subject and there are no perfect answers. A Ted Bundy type for example, there is actually nothng we could to them that would be enough punishment in my opinion. But it is worth it to give them life sentences and not have any death penalty, to insure we "goodwilled" people, NEVER murder an innocent person.
You pro execution folk toss out DNA testing as if it's going to prove innocence or guilt, no, only in cases where body fluids are available to test which is probably a small percentage of crimes that carry the death penalty. I used the example of "rape" as it is one of the few crimes where body fluids are commonly available for DNA testing to make the point that there are MANY who were incarcerated but innocent. The point is that if there are many convicted for that crime who were innocent then there are many who are in death row who are innocent-it has happened, we know. So what is your point about the Ted Budys of this world other that they are less than human?
Are you or your family any safer for the executions (State condoned murders) because ted Budy was executed?
I lived in Saudi Arabia where beheading and stoning to death are at least a weekly occurance and it is all too easy to set up an enemy or unwanted wife for that sort of execution. Before I retired I worked in a field where I was required to testify against suspects and I can tell you that the DA lines up all his whitneses and experts to railroad the suspect. The jailers often atagonize them so if the rebel they are beaten. Criminal justice in the USA is an oxymoran, a myth.
(please pardon my misspellings)
These gory violent stories seem to be the only argument proponents of the death penalty can put forth. Well, guess what - people, including children die in all kinds of gory violent ways.
Once again the death penalty is not about the criminals conduct, it is about our conduct.
Something Kendpotter didn't mention about his long list is that while all those countries have still technically have the death penalty on the books, most of them (including Cuba) haven't executed anyone in years. India has only executed two persons person in the past 25 years. In 2006, they stayed the execution of Mohammad Afzal the key person in the 2001 terrorist attack on parliament, after there was widespread protest, by both people of all religions, against his execution.
The only countries that execute people in any numbers are China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and the Unites States.
When so much of humanity regards the death penalty as morally repugnant, what sort of arrogance leads those defending the death penalty to think they are right and the rest of the civilized world is wrong!
"Do you RAPE rapists, do you rob a burglar..."
Having been a victim of both of these crimes, I say yes. YES they should be subjected to the exact same treatment that they doled out. Over and over and over again.
I think that the victim of a horrible murder would not have much problem with seeing their killer executed. They just NEVER get the chance to.
That being said, the issue of executing the wrong person IS problematic.
Can science ever be 100% certain about anything?
Overwhelming research strongly suggests not.
We could streamline the state-sponsored death machine with more technology, but would never be entirely assured that all executions were warranted.
as far as the Bushit courts go, as far as this pseudo-democracy/fascist state goes, an old poem by Gill Scott Herron (slightly rewritten)...
You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on video and tits,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Enron
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Bushit
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Aschroft,General Betray-US and Dick Cheney to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by the
MSNBC Award Theatre and will not star Pamela Anderson and Charlton Heston or PowerRangers and Will Smith.
The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
The revolution will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.
There will be no pictures of you and Billy Clinton
pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
ABC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
or report from 29 districts.
The revolution will not be televised.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of interrogators torturing innocents in Abu Ghraib.
There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of Khiel Coppin being shot by cops in New York, no story of Mumia Abul Jamal arrested, tried and killed for crimes committed by the mayor and police of Philadelphia
American Idol,CSI, and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire will no longer be so damned relevant, and
women will not care if their Breasts can be re-made by a plastic surgeon in L.A.,because Black people and White people
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be televised.
There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and Laura Bush blowing her nose.
The theme song will not be written by Francis Scott Key, nor sung by the Oak Rigde Boys, or Charlie Daniels Band, or Snoop Doggy Dog.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be right back after a message
about a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.
The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live.
Here it is: the revolution. We have only to STAND UP and take it
AngstOfThePeople said: "how on gods green earth can you justify the continued existence of a John Couey?"
It's not up to you to justify the continued existence of a John Couey... It's NOT your right to decide if someone lives or dies. If you murder someone like John Couey, as horrible as his actions were, you are no better than him. What makes you think you have the right to take another person's life?
There is NO difference between a private individual committing a murder and the state murdering someone as "punishment". NO human being has the right to take the life of another human being. Period.
The only developed country that still has capital punishment is the US. Does that not make it unusual? Is it not clear that capital punishment is no longer acceptable in the West? Isn't the West us? Of course it is cruel and unusual. Supreme court? Bah! Humbug.
AngstOfThePeople
"kend -
the family member argument is typical strawman - I refuse to debate it because it is emotionalist tripe and irrelevant to the conversation."
I guess I missed that section in debate class where you get to direct people to believe that your arguments are the only ones that have merit. Opposing views are tripe and irrelevant. How convenient that must be for you. Tell us the truth, you are really Dick Cheney aren't you?
I bow down before you. All hail AngstOfThePeople!
"It is not justafiable to have the death penalty and chance ANY who are innocent will be executed. "
- I submit that its an acceptable risk - especially in this day and age of exhaustive appeals, DNA evidence and the general goodwill of people who arent going to hang someone for no reason.
as to what people - people who are sick and tired of walking on eggshells so as to appease the politically correct minions of unfettered liberalism. we are standing up against the forces who desire a true nanny state and wish to annoy law abiding Americans with forced social experimentation.
A Papal gift from the Catholic majority of the Men in Black Dresses? Pax ecclesiae to our three headed government.
kend -
the family member argument is typical strawman - I refuse to debate it because it is emotionalist tripe and irrelevant to the conversation.
Not failed, somewhat immoral though.
It is not justafiable to have the death penalty and chance ANY who are innocent will be executed. You constantly fail to address that issue ~ANGST~. ___Of the people. Whose people?
AngstOfThePeople
"why must I put myself in the place of a killer to know the death penalty is correct?"
It would be nice if you read what I actually said and didn't just interprate it any old way you wanted. I said, "Imagine it was a member of your immediate family that was falsely accused, condemned, and put to death."
"how on gods green earth can you justify the continued existence of a John Couey?"
How can you justify killing even one innocent person by mistake?
"Killing him is not an example of a failed state."
No, but not killing him is an example of a compassionate state.
why must I put myself in the place of a killer to know the death penalty is correct? how on gods green earth can you justify the continued existence of a John Couey? Killing him is not an example of a failed state.
AngstOfThePeople
"When's the last time an innocent person escaped from the cemetery?" - not sure, but its a risk we should be willing to take."
Easy for you to say. Empathy is the quality of being able to put yourself in someone else's place. Imagine it was a member of your immediate family that was falsely accused, condemned, and put to death.
One observation about the death penalty. One of the the things I notice most about people is the company they keep. I don't care for the company of thugs or bird-brains.
Take a look at the countries that still use the death penalty (besides the US).
Afghanistan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Jordan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Sort of a Rogue's Gallery of extremist, failed, and autocratic states. Not really a single one (except maybe India) I would want to go on vacation to.
I'm 72 MIKESAR, if the day ever comes and it may, when the government decides it's time for me to die, when they come to get me they'd better be well prepared to meet double 0 buck from a 12 gage that holds 8 loads and can easily be reloaded while a shell is in the firing chamber and my Anne Oakley mate with a short barrel 44 mag rifle.
We will have a depression and it is going to be very nasty here in America. Be prepared.
I can understnd the arguments of both the pro death penalty advocates and those who are against it.
I believe the major concern should be, with the death penalty, possible execution of a person who is innocent. It has been well proven that has happened. Once is too many.
Here is another thing to consider. Timothy McVeay did not want to sit in solitary forever, thinking of all of those innocent babies and children he murdered. He refused to fight his death sentence. I would have preferred his punishment be, until natural death, sit alone every single day thinking about those children. Some of the parents of those murdered children wanted that also.
Then you have the Richard Geen types, who would enjoy having the opportunity to sit and think of what they had done. So it's a two way street is it not? It's not a two way street for an innocent human to be executed. That is the major reason death penalties should be abolished.
Add in the fact, it is a moral stigma for a society. Death by lethal injection is humaine in some opinions, but burning at the stake, or tossed to wild dogs would be cruel. It's not a matter of the death, it's how it is preformed that is important for some. If we as a nation are gong to execute people, I believe the firing squad may be quicker and less frightful. Or just a shot in the head some night while asleep.
While the number of nations that ban Capital Punishment (sounds better than Hangign, chopping heads off, drowning, quarter, poison, etc.) in THEIR march to civility, we have our super Supreme Court, with five, count them, five (5) Catholics in the majority, approving of killing a human being. Can they go to Confession now?
How long before Euthanasia becomes mandatory for all those over 90? I am 74, how many years before they come for me? Sixteen you say, wanna bet it will be sooner than that?
Wait until the recession deepens into Depression and we begin to kick the elderly out of hospitals, too expensive, you know.
And, soon hospital shall have been banners with the mortal words of Gov. Love (yeah!)
"They have the duty to die!" Or, something like that, my memory is fading, particularly on such ugly repulsive and fraightening matters.
Have a nice day and a long life and may God, if there is one, have pity on your and their D souls.
"When's the last time an innocent person escaped from the cemetery?"
- not sure, but its a risk we should be willing to take.
AngstOfThePeople
"Besides, when's the last time a killer escaped from the cemetary?"
When's the last time an innocent person escaped from the cemetery?
An EYE for an Eye and we would all be blind, think about it. Authority takes an eye in retribution so the authority's eye has to be taken and so on.
Actually the state does have the right to prescribe appropriate punishment for certain crimes. IMO rape should be a hanging offense.
That said, being as more people support death for certain crimes, the court is merely doing the will of the people.
Besides, when's the last time a killer escaped from the cemetary?
You see NOBODY has the right to take someone elses life. Not only is it stupid because you're doing the very thing you hope to prevent but it is illogical. Do you RAPE rapists, do you rob a burglar, of course not but the most religious country in the world murders its citizens.
THOU SHALT NOT KILL doesn't mean some are excused because they're the authority, it means EVERYONE.
The USA has got to be the most hypocritical bunch of idiots on this planet of ours and probably other planets too.
Vox
Its not an archetype - it exists. One only has to revisit the case of John Couey, a subhuman (there is no other word) who viciously raped and murdered Jessica Lundsford, 9 years old. He buried her alive.
Think about her death and come back to me on a real definition of cruel and unusual. I am aware that killing Couey won't bring her back - I am also not interested in deterrence - its murders like this, its monsters like this, that have to be removed in the harshest way possible to restore a balance to humanity.
As to the costs - you're talking legal costs in prosecuting and defending these cases. I submit that these costs would be drastically reduced by a mitigation of the appeals process - with enhanced DNA and related availability - these cases can and should be decided more efficiently and with less risk of executing the wrong person.
People like Couey are waste. I cannot extend compassion to a walking bag of disease in any form.
Angst - Life without parole is a sentencing option in most capital cases. They never get released, and many never should. Also in the real world (as opposed to the world of quick and cheap frontier justice you advocate) the cost of executing people far exceeds the cost of keeping them in prison for life. The cost of either is trifling compared to the cost of killing "insurgents" in Baghdad.
When you speak of people categorically as "waste" you are thinking of some archetypal child molester who should never have been born. Actual individuals on death row are not so easy to demonize given real life circumstances, zealous prosecutors and an inherently racist judicial system. Batching up human beings into subhuman types who must be denied existence is a slippery slope. Societies which give dignity to retributive punishment and the cleansing effect of executions are not enviable places to live.
USAn
"And as far as right wing "christians" supporting the death penalty, I've always seen something distinctly "Protestant" about the death penalty. Most Catholic majority countries abolished executons long ago. The first thing all Latin Americans did when they threw off their US sponsired dictators was abolish the death penalty."
You have to hand it to the Catholics. At least they are consistent in their logic. No Killing!!! No assisted suicide, no abortion, no death penalty!
The Christian Right Wing Republicans, not so much. I wonder how they can keep their heads from imploding with the incredible rationalizations they have to make by having such an inconsistent world view.
What the convicted person did, or whether the person was wrongly convicted is irrelvant to this discussion.
The Death Penalty is not about the criminal's conduct - or even that he may be wrongly convicted - it is about OUR conduct or government conducting morally repugnent acts in MY name.
And as far as right wing "christians" supporting the death penalty, I've always seen something distinctly "Protestant" about the death penalty. Most Catholic majority countries abolished executons long ago. The first thing all Latin Americans did when they threw off their US sponsired dictators was abolish the death penalty.
AngstOfThePeople, interesting that you raise the issue of cost-- particularly as multiple studies have shown that the death penalty costs tax payers far more than life in prison. I would much prefer my tax dollars go to college courses and other programs aimed at actual "rehabilitation" (although the outdated notion of prison as rehabilitative is viciously tragic and I won't go into it here).
However-- on a basic level, there are paradoxes surrounding the death penalty which are simply ignored as we process defendents through the justice machine. First, how can we as a nation, and as a people, decry the cheapness of life in the hands of criminals when our government is setting the prime example? "Do as I say and not as I do" is a particularly un-democratic trope, but seems to be the ruling justification here. State-sanctioned murder is murder nonetheless. Secondly, how are we to trust that the system currently in place-- from the under-eqiupped crime labs to the overworked public defenders-- are consistently and unerringly capable of making a decision as hugely important as that of life or death for an american citizen? In an ideal world, anyone taking another life would be considered insane from the start-- can you imagine doing so?-- but our numbed nation has somehow reached the point that the rapes and murders you mention are considered to be the acts of "sane," mentally-capable persons...else our existing ban on the execution of the developmentally disabled would apply to all such horrifying men and women.
Capital punishment would cease if the following rule were implemented: if a person who is executed is posthumously determined to have been innocent, the prosecutor who asked for the death penalty, the judge who imposed it, and the executioner who carried it out are to be put to death as well.
It amazes me how many right-wing "Christians" favor the death penalty. Remember what Jesus said about capital punishment: "Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone."
an eye for an eye is senseless...
Whatever these death row inmates did to their victims was definitely cruel and unusual punishment, so an eye for an eye.
There is nothing cruel or unusual about death. It is simply the far right bookend of your life. The chemical cocktail seems at least as humane a way to go as any. The only question is whether or not there is a greater good served by the state in putting someone to death.
There are two basic reasons used to justify the imposition of death - retribution and determent. There is no real arguing the point if you believe in retribution. It's just the same old "eye for an eye". Some studies support the fact that states using the death penalty deter a certain percentage of crime, but if that is the reason behind the use, the punishment should be administered in as public, brutal, and painful a way as possible and frequently. The old public beheading in the square sort of thing.
There is guy in the neighboring state of Idaho, David Duncan. All he ever did was murder a woman, her boyfriend, kidnap her two children (boy and girl), rape them both, kill the boy, and get caught in a Denny's with the girl. If you believe in the death penalty, he certainly deserves it. On the other hand, here in Washington, we had a gentleman coined "The Green River Killer". He killed at least 42 women and was given life in prison even though we have the death penalty.
So I have two basic arguments against the death penalty:
1) If it can't be administered evenly - Like crimes are punished like - That seems patently wrong.
2) Too many people have subsequently been exonerated on the basis of advanced technology particularly in the realm of DNA analysis. If you place a person in prison and find out you made a mistake, you can give the person an apology and a couple of million dollars. It is pretty tough to apologize to a corpse.
Whats cruel, though sadly not unusual, is to have such a fascist supreme court.
The same group of judges that gave their approval of executions are against abortions . DON'T BOTH PRODUCE THE SAME RESULTS ? God gives life . Wouldn't a good public beating be a better option ? It works in a lot of places .
as long as people like charles ng randy kraft are breathing there is a chance that they might be freed from prison ie natural disasters political revolutions, or worse some genius screwball will eloquently nominate them for a nobel peace prize for writing some stupid cildrens book
Cruel is repeatedly raping a young girl then burying her alive (Jessica Lundsford). Putting a killer to sleep before poisoning him to death - its downright charitable.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Gandhi...
It is both cruel and unusual to kill someone no matter what you call it. State sponsored lethal injections are unusual and at the same time cruel. There is no way to call putting someone to death as anything less than cruel and it is unusual to put someone to death. How many ways or times can you say it? The death penalty, however demonstrated, is cruel and unusual. If you're going to be cruel I rather they rot in a cage…
Lock them up and for how long? how long before they get released by the efforts of people like yourself who call everything and anything an injustice? How many years will I as a taxpayer be foreced to feed, clothe and care for them? how many appeals? how many college courses must I pay for despite the fact that our public schools are in the toilet and that many cannot afford college?
Delete the waste.
Do it now.
rightlefthater - Death penalty talking points pro and con just go around in circles. Here is the standard response to your standard opinion that some people just have to go: The death penalty isn't about them (the criminals and their evil deeds), it is about us. They have made their decision about the kind of people they want to be. With the death penalty we make our own decision. The same thought goes through the head of a killer in an all night convenience store and an executioner with his hand on the switch: This son of a bitch has got it coming.
If you are envious of killers, get yourself a gun and become a criminal. If you want certain people removed from society (as I do) lock them up. Capital punishment degrades us all.
I re-read it. Frankly, I like the choice of white as purity for these subhumans - it serves to remind them of the lives, the purity of those lives they've ruined or taken away. As to it being terrifying - too bad - im sure the victims of Tookie Williams were petrified before he murdered them in cold blood. im sure the families murdered by Tim McVeigh still suffer because of his actions. Its a damned shame that cop killers like Mumia and Leonard Peltier won't face this same kind of harsh but necessary administration of punishment.
Deleting the worst elements of society instills justice. And no, I don't give a damn about its value or non-value as a deterrant.
Pro-capital punishment readers should try rereading Kem's post @ April 17th, 2008 10:28 am.
It's a little exercise in compassion, placing yourself in another's shoes.
Innocent people have been executed on many occasions,
and Mr. rightlefthater ought to hope he is never incorrectly fingered for a capital offense.
"life in prison with no privelages should be suffecient, if the person has admitted the guilt and or, the evidence of their guilt is 'overwhelming'. We do not need a death penalty, ___ that's the bottom line."
Agreed. Personally, it seems that being locked away in a 6'x12' cage for the rest of one's life would be a harsher punishment than getting a quick shot and blinking out.
Hopeflly, years down the road, Bu$h/Cheney, et al will be writing a book describing what it's like sitting in a small dark cell getting butt raped year after year after year.